Rome First Look (Trajan) Video

I don't understand the advantage of starting with a trading post. Presumably Rome has no trade routes at this point. Does a trading post grant gold without a trade route? If not, what's the benefit? When Rome does get a trade route the trading post will come automatically.

Details on trading posts have been a bit shimmy so far, but it is expected they prove some line of sight in cities other than your own (and possibly gossip). So they will be effective without trade routes.

When you do have a trade route, it is important to note that trade posts also grant money for trade routes passing trough them. So with Rome you can immediately send a trade route to the city farthest away and get the added gold of the trade posts that the trade route passes in between.
 
Where did you get what the Rome has no trade routes?

My point is what use is a trading post if you don't have trade routes yet because you haven't established any by sending out traders - and once you have trade routes you get a trading post automatically (AFAIK) so what is the benefit of getting it early?

Edit: thanks BornInTheLoo, that makes more sense to me.
 
My point is what use is a trading post if you don't have trade routes yet because you haven't established any by sending out traders - and once you have trade routes you get a trading post automatically (AFAIK) so what is the benefit of getting it early?

Edit: thanks BornInTheLoo, that makes more sense to me.

Oh, I see :)

Actually trading post appears after trade route is finished, so that's quite late. Also, Rome has ability about more gold from trading posts you pass in your routes, so this should be clear.
 
I wonder how it will be to play the Romans in MP games. You know that the Romans will be very very dangerous if left alone so if you find them as a neighbour you need to do something about them asap. Won't the Romans be a red flag to the other civs. You feel like you have to attack theirt cities or at least harass them to slow their expansion. Other civs might catch up later in the game if they can hamper the Romans initial advantage.

I'm sure Quill18 will love the Romans. He used to build monuments as a first build in his civ 5 games. Now the game does it for him if he plays the Romans. It means the Roman borders will expand faster than anyone else and they get a cultural advantage it will be hard to catch up with. The Romans will storm through the civics tree early on when the bonuses from monuments really matters.

Rome would be the perfect civ for me if I wanted to play a peaceful expansionist civ 6 on prince or lower difficulty settings. You can claim so much territory compared to the other civs and then build some military units to scare off any AI civs. How can you lose as the Romans when you get free monuments, trading posts and roads?

This is probably a very accurate depiction of the real Romans since they created the biggest civilization in the world after Russia. Quick expansion backed by strong legions who can move into forts to protect their conquests seems very Roman to me. Now we can even build Hadrian's wall with the Romans.

To me Rome seems like the strongest of all civs if played by a human against the AI. In MP games you might regret picking Rome because the others will gang up on you.

However, I put some faith in Ed Beach'es AI automated game balance testing program. If Rome really was that powerful they would have seen it there and nerfed Rome until it became balanced with the other civs. However, humans tend to exploit civ abilities much better than any AI does.
 
I can't see the advantage of having forts to protect territory unless built at chokepoints or in a long string close together. In any other circumstances I see nothing to stop opponents just going round them.
 
I'm disappointed. Trajan was a hint towards a more military-focused Rome... but it's still the same builder civ.

It's not so bad I guess since it's still Rome, but why picking Trajan then ? Trajan column was supposed to celebrated his vicotry against the Dacians ! It's not a gratuitous monument. In Trajan Rome, you should be encouraged to conquer other civs, not to build cities.

Trajan was a warmonger who actually impoverished a lot of cities in the Empire, and only embellished Rome and Italy (heck, he even wrote that on the coins he printed : Italia Restituta - he didn't care about the rest of the Empire).

It is a complete contradiction. Those bonus are off. I was still hesitating to pre-pruchase... Now I know I won't.
 
I can't see the advantage of having forts to protect territory unless built at chokepoints or in a long string close together. In any other circumstances I see nothing to stop opponents just going round them.

Forts are excellent place to put your ranged units in. With the bonuses they'll catch up in melee strength with melee units of the same era (especially if the fort is built in the right place), while shooting right and left.

I'm disappointed. Trajan was a hint towards a more military-focused Rome... but it's still the same builder civ.

Civ5 Rome was heavy military one with 2UU (1 being siege) and ability which works best with puppets. It's time for Civ6 Rome to be different, especially with Trajan being known as builder as much as the warrior.
 
I believe forts will be more important than people realize. The change to districts and a more pillage happy AI means that you will need to defend in space more. Having forts that give automatic fortification bonuses whenever you move will make it a lot easier to shore up weakpoints in the line or shut off choke-points. This isn't Civ 5 where you only needed to defend a city tile that melee units bounced off of it.
 
I can't see the advantage of having forts to protect territory unless built at chokepoints or in a long string close together. In any other circumstances I see nothing to stop opponents just going round them.

One of the reason armies hesitated just going around forts is that leaving a manned fort behind them may cause them to get pincered. As long as Civ VI has a flanking bonus, the forts will do their job.

The reason they were pointless in V was because they took forever to build.

And as, Gali said above, the unstacked cities will make them more useful as well.
 
In exactly the same way as you are allowed to express your opinions about the game, others are allowed to express their opinion about your opinions. Exactly the same principle. As long as it stay civil of course, but this also applies to both situations.

It's up to the moderators what they allow.

But in my book your nothing but a bully if you attack the person for having an opinion, instead of the topic. Since that is attacking another persons right to have an opinion.

Moderator Action: I would ask everyone to please stop discussing moderation policy, which has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
 
Rome will be surely the 1st civ I will try, I love their UA and their LUA, and Legions' forts will help both on offensive and on defensive circumstances.

Then of course I will try Greece, for hoplites death waves!
 
One of the reason armies hesitated just going around forts is that leaving a manned fort behind them may cause them to get pincered. As long as Civ VI has a flanking bonus, the forts will do their job.

The reason they were pointless in V was because they took forever to build.

And as, Gali said above, the unstacked cities will make them more useful as well.

Another point is that forts are more expensive this time as you have to expend your builders to construct them. Hopefully they will be well worth the investment.....
 
And again we have a civilization linked to the new trade route/roads mechanic. Regarding, that you will normally have only a few trade routes available early in the game, instant roads are very strong, only in concerns for extra/easier movement and it is yet unknown if roads give a passive bonus like in CiV.
The only other civ so far I can imagine who can pump out a lot of roads a little bit later is England if it focus heavily on cities near the cost for their free Royal Dockyard. And until so far, the biggest sources of extra trade routes seem to be harbors and commercial hubs. With second, Germany might get a lot too because it wants to build a lot of ch to max their hanses.

In regards of the free trading post, as I have understood it, a trade post is constructed in each city you had already a trade route with. I think an important decision in the early game for a lot of other civs will be if they focus their limited trader units to build internal trade routes for their city connection or to establish trade routes to other civs/city states.

And the free trading post can be very potent. If you place three cities in a line, other civs might send a trader from city A to C passing through B to get the road going. But if they want the bonus of the trading post, they have to establish first a trade route to city B and then to city C. Rome can send it directly to C and already getting the bonus. Or even better, send a trade route from city A through B and C to some foreign City getting the bonus of two trade posts plus the benefit of that trade route itself. And until so far, that can be very good, does it seem that internal trade routes give mostly food and production bonus, but connection to other civs/city states give boni to gold, faith, culture, science depending on their districts. And when Egypt is the neighbor of Rome, you can even push your own city growth plus the gold advantage of your trade routes.

That will have a good synergy with the FREE bath districts. Probably you want to build them in every city and most city will be founded in the near of fresh water and mountains I think, so it is not that bad, that you will get a smaller housing bonus of it, but Bathes get a bonus to housing never the less and also amenities which will support a wide gameplay it think greatly. And until now, Im not sure if there are even special buildings for the aqueduct district at all, maybe sewers?

So considering that boni to amenities support wide gameplay, we have for expansive civs so far the Aztec (ULA, UB in entertainment district), Brazil (free entertainment district) and now Rome (free bathes). And considering the playstyle, they can be by now the fastest to establish a wide empire early on, maybe only contested by the Aztec depending on how good they can farm builders.

The Legion itself is strong as it is I think. Sure, other UU might have a bigger bonus, but a lot of them are very situational. The only concern I have is, that Legions probably need iron and I hope the lack of it will have changed compared to the Lets Plays of the Preview Press build.
They might not be that strong in the pure offense, but every civ without access to iron or horses and which dont have an other UU to counter it might have its problems to deal with it. The biggest advantage I think is, that it will be very hard to get rid of the advancement of the legions, because if they go in the defense, they can insta pop a fortress way earlier then most of the other civs (only china gets an earlier defense bonus with the great wall and only on its border edges). And I think most military advances wont just be Legions itself, they will probably supported by archers, catapults and maybe horses. The first both will greatly benefit from the defense bonus.

The only open point for me is still, how will legions and military engineers build roads? In the UI of the Legion there is symbol with a gear-wheel and an arrow. Might that be the button to construct roads? Maybe you have to draw a line like someone already mentioned? I personally dont think, that one road tile will need a whole charge, that would need quite a big amount of legions/military engineers to make actual use of it. Maybe it is a quarter of a charge, so you might lose the ability to build forts with a Legion who began to build roads. Or it will just need time (one tile per turn). But that might not prevent to mass spam roads in your territory like in old days (Civ 4 and prior). So it might be, that you maybe can only build roads between cities even with Legions/military engineers, but you can chose the path where it is going?

Still very uncertain about it and Im quite excited how Firaxis will handle it.
 
@ Paramecium.. Yeah England and Germany ATM are the only Civ''s that can run 4 pop double trade route cities. Germany on top of this gets the Hansa :) Harbor/Commerce/Hansa is huge adjacency boni as each one is major for the other. Tight/Wide/Coastal Germany is going to be a Economic and production powerhouse :) You build a couple Tall/Spread Cities Focused on Science and Culture and you can still build tight whilst having tiles for your super cities as you only need 4 pop in your satellite Cities to get significant benefit.. Really looking forward to a trade focused Germany, its gonna be the bomb :)

On topic

I am a Monument Guy in Civ5 too. :) though i should make more scouts. Really like the design of Civ6 Rome even if it is a bit generic outside of settling Cities. I am also a rapid forward settling player too. If i see a mountain next to a River with Luxes between me and the A.I :nono: ....IT IS MINE , go build your 2 bit city in the tundra, this one is mine. Rome is perfect for my "default" play.

When playing against Rome the best bet is just to not let him settle. Harass is Settlers until he has no choice but to Guard them. If he founds a city...raze it before he gets walls and can defend it. Monty, Tomyris, Cleopatra, Kongo,. All would be pretty good counters Vs Rome.

Monty VS Rome, 1vs1 on a small (4 Civs )Pangea Map, (A.I only). I think will be pretty cool. You would have this slow build up where they both just expanding as fast as possible then Boom...fight time :) Monty gets a slight disadvantage being that he doesnt get too much use out of early Eagle Warrior however as long as he is aggressively Expanding(as he should) the extra Luxes will make up for it. Trajan will just do his thing until Monty comes over the Hill with supercharged Luxe Warriors and you know they wont like each other :)
 
Dturtle1, but what if AI Scythia is your other neighbor? Harassing Rome could land 6-8 horseman at your door. :cool:
 
We can definitely assume it is possible though. Please name ....any 4X strategy game where you cant ask a third party to join your war...any

It's very exploitable feature, so most games which care about balance tend to have some limits on it. The most common limit is - you may be unable to ask to have a war against a civ you're not at war with. Plus it may require some kind of alliance with a civ you're asking to do so.

Either of those limits will make it impossible to force early-game Scythia to attack Rome.
 
Top Bottom