Rome

[Blue Ghost]

Every city i conquered yesterday with Rome had no Monument, Walls, Castle, Barracks, Armory. Especially the Monument surprised me. Is this correct behavior?

Those buildings are the ones that are never retained on conquest. You have to demolish the walls and castles to take the city, and you have to build new monuments to your own glory!
Everything else should be valid, I believe.

 

[CrazyG]

Every city i conquered yesterday with Rome had no Monument, Walls, Castle, Barracks, Armory. Especially the Monument surprised me. Is this correct behavior?

I noticed in my game yesterday that none of the cities I captured had monuments. Its possbile its currently a 0% building, like walls and stuff. I thought it was supposed to have the same rate as a shrine.

 

[Blue Ghost]

I noticed in my game yesterday that none of the cities I captured had monuments. Its possbile its currently a 0% building, like walls and stuff. I thought it was supposed to have the same rate as a shrine.

Monument is a NeverCapture=True building, just like the walls and barracks.

 

[CrazyG]

Monument is a NeverCapture=True building, just like the walls and barracks.

Today I learned

 

[Rekk]

It's too bad that because of this, Rome can't capture Walls of Babylon, Dojos, Ducal Stables, Ostrogs, Steles, Missons, Siege Foundries, Ikandas, or Satrap's Courts.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

Makes sense. Monuments get yanked down by invaders a lot. I guess that's partially where the looted gold comes from.

 

[chicorbeef]

Is it possible to change the NeverCapture=True into a 1% Capture Rate (for all civs?) for all the above listed buildings? I feel as if it would be really cool to get a fully fortified city as Rome (no more back-and-forth captures with melee ships and whatnot) and have the ability to pump out fresh units from a city with a captured Barracks/Armory etc.

The "keep all buildings" is more underwhelming than you'd expect it to be, tbh. It's main value should be military, but that's impossible with the way it's currently set-up.

It would also mean you can capture every single possible UB, which is cool.

We could also change "all valid buildings" into "all buildings" and it would be more clear. Why not? Would it be OP?

 

[ElliotS]

Is it possible to change the NeverCapture=True into a 1% Capture Rate (for all civs?) for all the above listed buildings? I feel as if it would be really cool to get a fully fortified city as Rome (no more back-and-forth captures with melee ships and whatnot) and have the ability to pump out fresh units from a city with a captured Barracks/Armory etc.

The "keep all buildings" is more underwhelming than you'd expect it to be, tbh. It's main value should be military, but that's impossible with the way it's currently set-up.

It would also mean you can capture every single possible UB, which is cool.

We could also change "all valid buildings" into "all buildings" and it would be more clear. Why not? Would it be OP?

Everyone tells me that Rome is really good, but I've always found them underwhelming. A swordsman Rush is good as is and their legions make it better, but outside that window I think they're kinda meh. The amount of cities you can capture with almost no buildings or none at all mid-game is really insane.

 

[Grabbl]

I don't think Rome is underwhelming. The amount of production you save both when building peacefully and when warring is large (basically, you build in 7 turns what others build in 8... that's no joke and accelerates your infrastructure a lot, and retaining a single up-to-date building you would have lost otherwise gives you a kickstart of ~10 turns of production at least). The problem is that the effect is harder to feel when compared to other civilizations, and that Rome is balanced to be good at both war and peace, so each of the two alone won't be as strong as the abilities of civs that get bonuses to only one of the two. Rome is an allrounder and as such it's traits are less interesting perhaps, as they don't require a special strategy (going to war? You're better than the average civ; building? You're better than the average civ. Just play your strategy and you'll use Rome's abilities), but I think it's good to have one like this around, too, besides the civilizations that feel more unique.

That's why I think that buffing Rome is not a good option, and it doesn't need the change of NeverCapture-buildings.

 

[ElliotS]

I don't think Rome is underwhelming. The amount of production you save both when building peacefully and when warring is large (basically, you build in 7 turns what others build in 8... that's no joke and accelerates your infrastructure a lot, and retaining a single up-to-date building you would have lost otherwise gives you a kickstart of ~10 turns of production at least). The problem is that the effect is harder to feel when compared to other civilizations, and that Rome is balanced to be good at both war and peace, so each of the two alone won't be as strong as the abilities of civs that get bonuses to only one of the two. Rome is an allrounder and as such it's traits are less interesting perhaps, as they don't require a special strategy (going to war? You're better than the average civ; building? You're better than the average civ. Just play your strategy and you'll use Rome's abilities), but I think it's good to have one like this around, too, besides the civilizations that feel more unique.

That's why I think that buffing Rome is not a good option, and it doesn't need the change of NeverCapture-buildings.

That sounds nice in a vacuum or against a civ with literally 0 bonuses, but we're playing against civs that actually have bonuses.

15% production in satellite cities isn't enough to compete on "peaceful" grounds, and their lack of warmongering bonuses and pitiful extra benefit make them a poor warmonger.

They do both things pretty poorly. If they don't go to war they're worse than all of the peaceful civs, and if they do go to war they're worse than most of the warmongering civs.

 

[Grabbl]

That sounds nice in a vacuum or against a civ with literally 0 bonuses, but we're playing against civs that actually have bonuses.

15% production in satellite cities isn't enough to compete on "peaceful" grounds, and their lack of warmongering bonuses and pitiful extra benefit make them a poor warmonger.

They do both things pretty poorly. If they don't go to war they're worse than all of the peaceful civs, and if they do go to war they're worse than most of the warmongering civs.

I agree that a warmongering Rome will not compete with warmonger civs like Aztecs, The Huns or Songhai.

However, I think that the building bonus is strong enough to win over some builders if going wide and if the capital is strong enough (not the auto-wins when left alone like Korea perhaps, but a lot of civs like America, Iroquois, Portugal with medium building strength).

And even if the strength of the building bonus is questionable (I admit that it's not that easy to quantify, I'm not sure to judge it right), the strategy of going to war against builders, build against warmongers should be ideal for Rome.

 

[ElliotS]

However, I think that the building bonus is strong enough to win over some builders if going wide and if the capital is strong enough (not the auto-wins when left alone like Korea perhaps, but a lot of civs like America, Iroquois, Portugal with medium building strength).

And even if the strength of the building bonus is questionable (I admit that it's not that easy to quantify)

I don't think it comes close. Situational 15% towards buildings isn't close to what other nations can do.

Egypt gets massive bonuses towards wonders, Korea as mentioned explodes into science. Arabia turns into a tourism machine. Byzantium has any number of strategies that can work well. Even the Celts have an insane amount of yields over them.

It's really no competition. No other nation's UA can be summed up as worse than an ancient era policy.

For what it's worth I'm playing Rome now and having taken 5 cities I've still gotten 3 empty cities and 1 with 2 buildings 80-120 turns in.

I'm playing on a lower difficulty because it's multiplayer with a noob IRL friend, but I don't think that's a great counter-argument. The civ needs to be balanced on all difficulties.

 

[ashendashin]

I don't think it comes close. Situational 15% towards buildings isn't close to what other nations can do.

Egypt gets massive bonuses towards wonders, Korea as mentioned explodes into science. Arabia turns into a tourism machine. Byzantium has any number of strategies that can work well. Even the Celts have an insane amount of yields over them.

It's really no competition. No other nation's UA can be summed up as worse than an ancient era policy.

For what it's worth I'm playing Rome now and having taken 5 cities I've still gotten 3 empty cities and 1 with 2 buildings 80-120 turns in.

I'm playing on a lower difficulty because it's multiplayer with a noob IRL friend, but I don't think that's a great counter-argument. The civ needs to be balanced on all difficulties.

Every time I see people putting Rome down I never see mention of the Colosseum. Back when I played them a few times (long time ago), what really stood out to me was how easy it was to get tons of generals and golden ages. The gold bonus on roads was also good but that was probably before connections were nerfed (really long time ago). But then of course those were high difficulty huge games so it was easy to stack bonuses.
Their ability to take other UBs also seems to get ignored often. One time I went out of my way to wait for Askia to build his UB (cheesed it by mousing over cities to check for the buffed rivers) and man that made dealing with his UU well worth it.

 

[chicorbeef]

I didn't want to start a "Rome is underpowered/overpowered" train.

I simply said that I want Rome's UA to apply to all buildings by doing this minimalist change . And what results from this?

1- Better clarity: A handful of people on the forum have asked what buildings count as valid or not. Undoubtedly some new players have looked at Rome's UA and wondered what valid buildings were being referred to. Well, with this we can simply say all buildings-no more confusion.

2- No discrimination: Rome has the ability to capture UBs (should probably be added in the UA description). @ashendashin mentioned taking Askia's UB. That's great. But what about when Babylon is my neighbour? Or Ethiopia? Why should I suddenly be denied that advantage? Currently, Rome can't capture Walls of Babylon, Dojos, Ducal Stables, Ostrogs, Steles, Missons, Siege Foundries, Ikandas, or Satrap's Courts (thanks @Rekk ). That's a lot of UBs.

3- Unique advantages: @Grabbl mentioned "going to war against builders, and building against warmongers". Well, being able to capture military buildings reinforces that theme quite well. Rome would have the unique advantage of capturing an early walled city and using it as an outpost. That sounds really cool and flavourful imo and ties in perfectly with this theme.

4- Would always be useful. Ever captured a city with no buildings as Rome? Hurts doesn't it. Better hope the AI's been building a Shrine or Well in those 10 turns
the city was alive. But like this, it doesn't matter what the AI builds, you'll always benefit in some way.

Also, why not? Capturing all UBs/buildings is just cleaner and feels like the better solution than only some and I don't think it would overpower Rome at all, really. Why have a component of a UA that feels incomplete?

Also I really don't think a 1% Capture Rate for these buildings for other civs is going to change a single meaningful thing in practice (might capture a single Monument or Walls every 2 domination games you play), the probability is simply so low that it won't affect anyone but Rome.

 

[ashendashin]

2- No discrimination: Rome has the ability to capture UBs (should probably be added in the UA description). @ashendashin mentioned taking Askia's UB. That's great. But what about when Babylon is my neighbour? Or Ethiopia? Why should I suddenly be denied that advantage? Currently, Rome can't capture Walls of Babylon, Dojos, Ducal Stables, Ostrogs, Steles, Missons, Siege Foundries, Ikandas, or Satrap's Courts (thanks @Rekk ). That's a lot of UBs.

Getting EVERY building, especially the sort that makes it harder to take cities back, might be a bit much. I'm not entirely against it but I don't think Rome is doing badly enough to justify it. There's good reason for warmongers not to get military buildings while conquering at the same time. Getting the promotions packed with some of those UBs would make them invincible.

 

[chicorbeef]

Getting EVERY building, especially the sort that makes it harder to take cities back, might be a bit much. I'm not entirely against it but I don't think Rome is doing badly enough to justify it. There's good reason for warmongers not to get military buildings while conquering at the same time. Getting the promotions packed with some of those UBs would make them invincible.

Fealty gets +15 defense on newly conquered cities, Spain can Faith-purchase Missions, and Orders are a thing, but I don't see people complaining about those. Rome would just have it in its UA rather than having to turn to a UB or Belief or Policy. A strategy that relies on back-and-forth captures is pretty gimmicky in my mind. Rome capturing military buildings makes up for the lack of a warmonger boost that other civs have.

Are you referring to the Ikanda/Dojo when talking about the invincible UBs? First off, you need to build new units from the city that it's in for it to apply, so you won't capture a Zulu city and suddenly have OP legions. Second of all, remember there's opportunity cost. I didn't just get those buildings for free, I had to fight for them! If my UA rewards capturing cities for their UBs, I want my UA to reward me for the effort I put in the same way that capturing Arabian cities gives me Bazaars. UAs that push me to fight should either make it easier, or reward me for doing so.

 

[neo_arcadia]

I didn't want to start a "Rome is underpowered/overpowered" train.

1- Better clarity: A handful of people on the forum have asked what buildings count as valid or not. Undoubtedly some new players have looked at Rome's UA and wondered what valid buildings were being referred to. Well, with this we can simply say all buildings-no more confusion.

2- No discrimination: Rome has the ability to capture UBs (should probably be added in the UA description). @ashendashin mentioned taking Askia's UB. That's great. But what about when Babylon is my neighbour? Or Ethiopia? Why should I suddenly be denied that advantage? Currently, Rome can't capture Walls of Babylon, Dojos, Ducal Stables, Ostrogs, Steles, Missons, Siege Foundries, Ikandas, or Satrap's Courts (thanks @Rekk ). That's a lot of UBs.

I think by solving no.1 everyone will be informed enough about no.2. There are unique buildings that replaces buildings that, by nature, can't be conquered. So the no discrimination rules does apply here but not in the one you prefer. You can't have unique building that by design, its base building itself can't be captured.

 

[ashendashin]

Fealty gets +15 defense on newly conquered cities, Spain can Faith-purchase Missions, and Orders are a thing, but I don't see people complaining about those. Rome would just have it in its UA rather than having to turn to a UB or Belief or Policy. A strategy that relies on back-and-forth captures is pretty gimmicky in my mind. Rome capturing military buildings makes up for the lack of a warmonger boost that other civs have.

Are you referring to the Ikanda/Dojo when talking about the invincible UBs? First off, you need to build new units from the city that it's in for it to apply, so you won't capture a Zulu city and suddenly have OP legions. Second of all, remember there's opportunity cost. I didn't just get those buildings for free, I had to fight for them! If my UA rewards capturing cities for their UBs, I want my UA to reward me for the effort I put in the same way that capturing Arabian cities gives me Bazaars.

Yeah and you want Rome to get that on top of free military buildings. This reminds of the issue with people wanting movement promotions for navy. It stacks easily.

Ikanda, Dojo, Siege Foundry...I don't remember how much all of the military UBs help with war. Regardless, you got your reward dude. The city and its industry intact on top of whatever other war bonuses you may have stacked.
You don't even need insane warmonger UA/UBs to benefit from war in the first place. Rome has its own abilities. If you don't like what you got then pick another target. It's easier with potentially fully developed cities that just got expanded territory on top of all those generals you can spam citadels with. Not to mention extra gold that comes along with the added golden ages and not having to rush buildings so much. If you've 20 colosseums you're getting tons of GA/GG points a kill anyhow, which isn't as strong as other on-kill warmonger UBs but you'll have an easier time capturing those by planting citadels right next to their cities.

 

[pineappledan]

FWIW, I wouldn't mind if Rome could capture everything, except for military training buildings (barracks, Armory, Military academy). I think Chicorbeef makes a very valid point that anyone arguing that defensive buildings shouldn't stay is arguing from a false premise, because any civ has policy and belief options to do the same thing. If Rome is better at bite-and-hold city capturing, then I don't see a problem.

I don't want Rome comandeering Zulu or Japanese unique promotions. It's going too far for my taste.

So, while not being able to steal Stele's and Walls of Babylon doesn't sit well with me, I'm still on the side of not wanting literally EVERYTHING being made available to Rome. Considering this debate is trending between everything or nothing, simply shifting the line slightly isn't likely to please anyone either. So I guess in the end I don't know what should be done, but if the only 2 options are 1) everything can be stolen or 2) no change, then I guess I would opt for no change.

Blegh...

EDIT: ya'll should just play the 4UC version of Rome instead of fussing about this crap. I'm admittedly biased, but I think Rome is made incredibly fun by the 4UC additions.

 

[ashendashin]

I think Chicorbeef makes a very valid point that anyone arguing that defensive buildings shouldn't stay is arguing from a false premise, because any civ has policy and belief options to do the same thing. If Rome is better at bite-and-hold city capturing, then I don't see a problem.

I was worried you'd do this. Difficult to hold onto any individual post of yours...

Investing in policies and religion in order to give your cities a bit of oomph is a far cry from taking advantage of the stronger fortifications that were already built. Nothing would stop you from stacking that in order to make you never have to worry about the surrounding enemy again. Rome already has an easier time taking and holding cities by means of citadel spamming.