Rome

[pineappledan]

Eh... I guess.

Doesn’t really change my opinion. Rome misses out on some fun UBs if things stay the same, and I don’t see such a minor change as being game-breaking. Having access to otherwise uncapturable buildings would be pretty neato, make the UA more understandable, and unique. As I said, however, if it’s all or nothing I’m sticking with nothing.

 

[CrazyG]

I think Rome is quite a bit weaker than Denmark or Greece. Their unique buildings are much better. Even if you prefer legions to hoplites or beserkers it doesn't make up for the gap. Same with the unique ability.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I've been playing a lot with Rome in the last month or so and I agree with CrazyG's assessment of Rome's strengths and weaknesses.

I'd prefer if Rome had a unique element that would help it wage war throughout the game and/or I'd prefer if conquering a city would retain all buildings (including UBs) EXCEPT defensive buildings (so for example it would keep the barracks, but not the walls)

 

[pineappledan]

I've been playing a lot with Rome in the last month or so and I agree with CrazyG's assessment of Rome's strengths and weaknesses.

I'd prefer if Rome had a unique element that would help it wage war throughout the game and/or I'd prefer if conquering a city would retain all buildings (including UBs) EXCEPT defensive buildings (so for example it would keep the barracks, but not the walls)

But the unique barracks and armour replacements (Ikanda and dojo) would be OP if Rome could get them. I’m much less concerned about walls/castles/Arsenal’s replacements

 

[chicorbeef]

But the unique barracks and armour replacements (Ikanda and dojo) would be OP if Rome could get them. I’m much less concerned about walls/castles/Arsenal’s replacements

We could leave Ikanda/Dojo as never capture while the standard barracks/armory is capturable (so capturing an Ikanda should just convert it to a Barracks). Is that fair?

 

[Gazebo]

Because of code spaghetti, it's an all or nothing affair when it comes to 'nevercapture' buildings. If we want Rome to be able to get them all, we can, but that's about as complex as it can get without (sigh) a rewrite.

G

 

[Stalker0]

If Rome needs to be stronger just buff their building bonus, I don't see any reason to upend anything else.

 

[chicorbeef]

If Rome needs to be stronger just buff their building bonus, I don't see any reason to upend anything else.

I think people are overreacting a little on how big the proposed change is. It's a fairly simple change that I think adds more flavour and creates some nice UB synergy.

Constant direct yield buffs are boring and introduce yield creep.

My opinion is that Rome should just be able to capture all buildings when taking a city.

 

[TwoPodRay]

Because of code spaghetti, it's an all or nothing affair when it comes to 'nevercapture' buildings. If we want Rome to be able to get them all, we can, but that's about as complex as it can get without (sigh) a rewrite.

G

If the change is made to capture all, then add in targeted exceptions (no unique barracks, walls, etc, whatever needs to be not included), would that work? Not necessarily the ideal way to code it, but it would work, right?

 

[pineappledan]

If the change is made to capture all, then add in targeted exceptions (no unique barracks, walls, etc, whatever needs to be not included), would that work? Not necessarily the ideal way to code it, but it would work, right?

I see no problem with unique defensive building replacements, but:

• No barracks/armory/military academy replacements (they tend to have powerful unique promotions, so you only need 1 on empire to have a massive impact)
• No Arena replacements (Rome gets a unique arena)

This can be accomplished by simply changing capture probability to 1 on all nevercapture buildings, except keep nevercapture on Ikanda and Dojo. Modders will have to make sure replacements of the relevant buildings follow suit as well.

 

[ElliotS]

Because of code spaghetti, it's an all or nothing affair when it comes to 'nevercapture' buildings. If we want Rome to be able to get them all, we can, but that's about as complex as it can get without (sigh) a rewrite.

G

I would go with all.

No barracks/armory/military academy replacements (they tend to have powerful unique promotions, so you only need 1 on empire to have a massive impact)

I think people are over-estimating the worst case scenario.

A) You never get to stack promotions. You can't capture a city with a Ikanda AND a Dojo.

B) The amount of units you could give that unique promotion is small. If you already had a big enough army to take out a warmonger that already built their OP building you probably have a lot of units. You're obviously going to be building/buying units from those cities, but that means that the Morale bonus from Heroic Epic, Alhambra if built in other cities like your capital will both go to waste. In addition it's through a city that's not in the center of your empire which can be good and bad, but it's production will be lower because Rome's UA doesn't prevent people from dying when they're killed.

Most of the buildings cause no problems, and the worst case scenarios aren't that bad. I'd hit the switch, because even then Rome will still be pretty weak. They'll just have less variance.

 

[Stalker0]

I would go with all.


I think people are over-estimating the worst case scenario.

A) You never get to stack promotions. You can't capture a city with a Ikanda AND a Dojo.

B) The amount of units you could give that unique promotion is small. If you already had a big enough army to take out a warmonger that already built their OP building you probably have a lot of units. You're obviously going to be building/buying units from those cities, but that means that the Morale bonus from Heroic Epic, Alhambra if built in other cities like your capital will both go to waste. In addition it's through a city that's not in the center of your empire which can be good and bad, but it's production will be lower because Rome's UA doesn't prevent people from dying when they're killed.

Most of the buildings cause no problems, and the worst case scenarios aren't that bad. I'd hit the switch, because even then Rome will still be pretty weak. They'll just have less variance.

This is a good argument, and would make Rome's uniqueness stronger. I rescind my earlier reservations, I think its a neat idea to try.

 

[pineappledan]

It might be worth a try.

One exploit I can think of:

• Rome completes Authority tree & researches Steel
• Rome captures Zulu/Japanese city with Ikanda/Dojo, Annexes
• Rome has to hold city for 2-5 turns so resistance can wear off
• Once resistance is gone, Rome can purchase Landsknecht from newly captured city
  • Mercenaries get Buffalo Horns/Bushido
  • Mercenaries don't suffer 1/2 XP when purchased
  • Landsknecht can move the same turn as purchased, so if you can't hold the city, you can vacate quickly
  • Since / on level is only tied to the 1 city that a Bushido unit is purchased in, Rome gets full benefit of yields on levelling mechanic from 1 captured Dojo.
• Rome now has small corp of Zulu/Japan units, and doesn't necessarily need to hold the city for long.

That's probably about as abusable as it gets, so if people are cool with that, then pull the trigger!

 

[ElliotS]

It might be worth a try.

One exploit I can think of:

• Rome completes Authority tree & researches Steel
• Rome captures Zulu/Japanese city with Ikanda/Dojo, Annexes
• Rome has to hold city for 2-5 turns so resistance can wear off
• Once resistance is gone, Rome can purchase Landsknecht from newly captured city
  • Mercenaries get Buffalo Horns/Bushido
  • Mercenaries don't suffer 1/2 XP when purchased
  • Landsknecht can move the same turn as purchased, so if you can't hold the city, you can vacate quickly
  • Since / on level is only tied to the 1 city that a Bushido unit is purchased in, Rome gets full benefit of yields on levelling mechanic from 1 captured Dojo.
• Rome now has small corp of Zulu/Japan units, and doesn't necessarily need to hold the city for long.

That's probably about as abusable as it gets, so if people are cool with that, then pull the trigger!

I think as a worst case scenario that sounds fine. It's a nice reward that requires a lot of effort and isn't particularly game-breaking.

If Rome is against one of those two civs and meets all those requirements including getting to steel then let them have their toys.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

It would make Rome fun for once, they're pretty boring and unappealing now. I think we should just give it a go, if it's too strong then the stealing of buildings can be nerfed afterwards, but I think it's going to simply make it less annoying to start near guys you can steal nothing of value from. If someone with unique promotions falls to you, they didn't deserve them in the first place. No mercy to the weak, I say.

What about FREE buildings? Should it also be possible to steal those, maybe for everyone? I remember taking Enrico Dandolo's Stonehenge + Great Library + Artemis + Great Lighthouse Venice as Rome. It had only a granary after conquest because most culture/xp/defense buildings can't be taken, free Council is automatically lost, free Library is gone afterwards as well, same with Herbalist and Lighthouse. That was slightly annoying.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I agree, let's give it a try with retaining all buildings.

 

[ashendashin]

I'm almost certain that this will make Rome OP with the added supply, trained unit sources, and the 'rush siege and forget' conquering. I've always avoided playing as some of the stronger warmongers in VP since there are plenty of ways to gain from war. Sweden doesn't even have any economic bonuses for most of the game yet manages to do just fine. However, it's been far too long since I've last played so my thoughts don't matter. I'll test this for sure if G goes with it.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I wouldn't be opposed to balancing this buff with a small-ish nerf to Legions.

 

[ElliotS]

I've always avoided playing as some of the stronger warmongers in VP since there are plenty of ways to gain from war.

I mean war is good. It benefits the winner. That said right now Rome is a worse warmonger than some of the non-warmongers that can play a switch-up game. Their UA is way worse in practice than on paper until very late in the game, and when it comes online it's no Germany or Austria.

It's not so much a straight buff as it is reducing randomness. If the AI only builds buildings that can be taken Rome is pretty decent giving you a nice headstart on new cities. It's when you realize that 90% of the cities you take till Renaissance will have at most 1 extra building because of your UA that you realize the problem.

Try them out and check to see how many hammers your UA actually gives you right now. I think it's a lot less than you'd think for a huge portion of the game.

I wouldn't be opposed to balancing this buff with a small-ish nerf to Legions.

I still don't think Legions are a great UU. They just replace a good unit. Throwing their bonuses on another unit would make it the worst UU in the game.

Not saying they're bad or we should buff them. Taking the strength of the main unit into account is important, but I just don't want to see them go back to being swordsmen with 2 extra CS, cover 1, and the ability to build a few roads. (AKA not a UU.)

If Rome needs the nerf (The almost certainly won't.) I'd nerf the building percent.

I think they'll still be worse France though.

 

[tu_79]

Glad to see a buff on Rome that in addition makes understanding the UA easier.

EDIT. Rome keeping enemy walls is indeed an unique military advantage Rome was in need of.