Rome

[Almonds]

@pineappledan 's and @CrazyG 's points are valid.Unique NW's aside, since you could still game this mechanic with every civ's Circus Maximus to buff Colosseums indefinitely. There are still a couple ways I could see this working, though:

1. If your NW's are conquered by Rome, you are not allowed to rebuild them. We avoid farming NW's off of one civ altogether by making it a one-time benefit per civ.

2. This one is a bit more involved, maybe- You can't keep any NW's, but your existing ones are slightly buffed whenever you capture (and auto-destroy) them. Maybe your School of Philosophy gets +1 Culture and +1 Science, or its GA Science output is increased by 1%. This kind of change might be too much, actually... but it may be the best way to keep Rome balanced linearly and not based on what civ he is fighting.


Of course, the most effective thing to do right now is to just remove Rome's ability to hold NW's altogether. Thinking about it more, empire-wide buffs from NW's like Oxford, HoA, IFC, PCS (the ideology NW's) might be way too strong when piled up in Rome.

 

[pineappledan]

@pineappledan 's and @CrazyG 's points are valid.Unique NW's aside, since you could still game this mechanic with every civ's Circus Maximus to buff Colosseums indefinitely. There are still a couple ways I could see this working, though:

Base national wonders aren't stolen anymore. Only unique ones.

Were that the case though, Grand Temples would be an even bigger problem. CM is only +2 on Arenas, whereas GTs are +2/+2 on Temples

 

[Gazebo]

Base national wonders aren't stolen anymore. Only unique ones.

Were that the case though, Grand Temples would be an even bigger problem. CM is only +2 on Arenas, whereas GTs are +2/+2 on Temples

I'm tinkering with my code a bit, and I think this solves it:

if (!bCivUnique)
        {
            if (bIsNationalWonder || bProductionMaxed)
                return false;
        }
        else
        {
            if (bIsNationalWonder && getNumBuildings(eBuilding) > 0)
                return false;
            else if (bProductionMaxed)
                return false;
        }

So now Rome is guaranteed to only get a unique national wonder if they do not have it yet. Otherwise they don't get it. So no more rinse-repeat on NW theft.

This is, of course, why I said the code would get complicated quickly. But no one listens to me.

G

 

[pineappledan]

This is, of course, why I said the code would get complicated quickly. But no one listens to me.

That's why I just figured it would be expedient to just revert this change and be done with the whole mess.

These are just the problems we can think of after all, without actually doing rigorous testing.

 

[Almonds]

Base national wonders aren't stolen anymore. Only unique ones.

Were that the case though, Grand Temples would be an even bigger problem. CM is only +2 on Arenas, whereas GTs are +2/+2 on Temples

Oh sorry! I was under the wrong impression. I must have not read the patch thread all the way, because I remember the conversation going like "You wanted all, have it all" from G Honestly that's a relief. It would get super out of hand.

That's why I just figured it would be expedient to just revert this change and be done with the whole mess.

These are just the problems we can think of after all, without actually doing rigorous testing.

Well on one hand, it feels a little contrived to allow Rome to keep UNWs for just three civs. On the other, though, they won't end up having any unique structures for Rome to then keep. I'm more in favor of trying out the ability to hold UNWs, personally.

 

[pineappledan]

Well on one hand, it feels a little contrived to allow Rome to keep UNWs for just three civs. On the other, though, they won't end up having any unique structures for Rome to then keep. I'm more in favor of trying out the ability to hold UNWs, personally.

Eh... in my opinion it was never that weird to not get a unique, when conquering with Rome. If I waited for an ultra-late UB to come up, like England or Austria, then in some respects I'm shooting myself in the foot and making it harder for myself. Russia's the best example. If I had a choice between fighting Russia in Medieval, or waiting so I could steal her Ostrogs, I would rather save myself the trouble and just kill her now. Her UB isn't worth having to actually fight against her UB.

Then there's other civs, like any with a UI, or ones where the UI is basically useless to me (Candi), and they don't give anything more to Rome than any other conqueror couldn't get.

This capturing UBs thing always struck me as a fun flavor-booster. I liked having it, but I never considered core to my Roman experience. Allowing Rome to capture EVERYTHING necessarily means dealing with some unique buildings which either are really good, even if you only have 1-2 (Japanese Dojos), and unique wonders, which are practically a full, second UA (Cothon, Royal Library, Smithsonian).

I just don't think it's worth the trouble to try to balance around a special ability which can have such a massive potential power spike. How do you compensate Rome for those games where he's playing against civs with UIs, or weak UBs? How do you reconcile those games with ones were Rome can double his total number of Trade Routes in Classical, or gets 5XP on all trained units for every great work of writing? Or ones where every unit built after Medieval fights at full power when injured, and gives / on leveling?

There's too much variance. How do we have an honest conversation about balance when Rome can theoretically morph into an entirely different civ halfway through a game, like a skinwalker?

 

[Stalker0]

I'm tinkering with my code a bit, and I think this solves it:

if (!bCivUnique)
        {
            if (bIsNationalWonder || bProductionMaxed)
                return false;
        }
        else
        {
            if (bIsNationalWonder && getNumBuildings(eBuilding) > 0)
                return false;
            else if (bProductionMaxed)
                return false;
        }

So now Rome is guaranteed to only get a unique national wonder if they do not have it yet. Otherwise they don't get it. So no more rinse-repeat on NW theft.

This is, of course, why I said the code would get complicated quickly. But no one listens to me.

G

Well with just that little code I think you took out the biggest abuse case. We no longer have to worry about stacking NWs. So now its just a question of....is gaining the power of another civs uNW OP?

Its certainly strong, but is it any stronger than a Korea or Arabia left alone?

 

[ElliotS]

Well, that's its own problem isn't it? Rome's power varies drastically based on who its neighbors are. That's pretty hard to balance.

There's too much variance.

If you want to talk about variance then remember that the whole point of the change was that Rome's UA often amounted to "Secondary cities build buildings from the capital 15% faster."

The power difference between taking cities that built captureable buildings and the civs that had captureable UBs and not was HUGE.

I think the variance now is lower than before. Some neighbors are better than others, but I think it's more in line with Austria or Germany really not wanting to start next to a huge warmonger.

If the UNWs add too much power to Rome then we can just make them unable to grab those. No need to roll everything back because I think that's the only point of contention.

Yet to be determined, for sure

Let's gather data and see.

 

[Stalker0]

That power is so dependent on what other civs are in the mix, that Rome doesn't really have a consistent level of balance anymore.

I feel that this is the case for many Civs. The ottomans with peaceful trading partners are much stronger than one that can never complete their TRs.

Germany and Austria create a natural counterpoint for each other, make both of them much weaker in going for DV.

Venice being close to a lot of CS is stronger than if they have to go far to get them, etc.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

Or Siam, which gets great power if starting next to a big quantity of the right City State types, but loses the early edge from the UA if it can't reach any CS of the right type fast.

 

[pineappledan]

If you want to talk about variance then remember that the whole point of the change was that Rome's UA often amounted to "Secondary cities build buildings from the capital 15% faster."

100% Capture rate, even if it's not a UB, has always been really handy, and the extra territory on capture is nice too. So no, I don't think it's fair to say that +15% is the only relevant part of Rome's UA.

The fact that UBs are retained isn't even mentioned in Rome's UA description; I've always considered it more of an Easter egg than a core aspect of the civ. Obviously I was wrong to think that, because others on this forum seem to think that the retention of UBs is the single most influential component of the civ, maybe the only thing about the civ worth discussing. I think that, even if that were true, then it would warrant looking into, because a civ's core competency coming from co-opting other civ's buildings implies several things which I have not found to be true in my own experience with older versions of Rome:

• Conquered cities form the core of the Roman economy.
  • They're nice, and with how many more buildings are retained I find that conquered cities add more as a percent. They aren't overriding my core 3-4 cities, though.
• Conquering other cities, rather than settling your own, would always be the optimal choice.
  • If UBs were so important, then players would be bending over backwards to get other civs to settle near them. This puts a player in danger of getting left behind, however, because early expansion is important for Rome, just like it is for most other civs.
• Timing of your conquests necessarily should occur after your opponent has acquired their UB in most of their cities
  • My own experience in older builds is that there was no neighbor whose UB was so good that I felt compelled to rest on my laurels past the time when I could be doing a swordsman rush. I'd rather win a lot easier than win slightly more.

Maybe I've just been doing it wrong though. I get that people want to make Rome really vibrant and interesting. I do too. I wonder, however, if by amplifying Rome's ability to steal UBs to the extent that it can take UNWs, it might actually make Rome feel less unique? If they take the right mix of buildings, would Rome start to feel like a chameleon civ? A hodgepodge, or a discount Assyria/Japan/Carthage?

I keep going back to those 3 -- Assyria/Carthage/Japan -- just because those are the ones with really powerful UNWs/UBs. I really do want to keep this discussion just to base VP, but with 4UC, Rome can get more even more abilities which it can co-opt wholesale as well. Rome was already more powerful with 4UC installed before it could get another 8 UNWs, 8 new global effects, which it can co-opt. I do worry that Rome might suffer a sort of 'loss of identity' if it takes one of these on-empire effects, especially if 1 in every 4 civs has one

 

[Rekk]

To me, the meat of this change is actually being able to keep all buildings, including monuments and defensive/XP buildings. That the unique buildings are kept as well is just a side-benefit.

 

[Minh Le]

To me, the meat of this change is actually being able to keep all buildings, including monuments and defensive/XP buildings. That the unique buildings are kept as well is just a side-benefit.

I was about to say that

 

[chicorbeef]

100% Capture rate, even if it's not a UB, has always been really handy, and the extra territory on capture is nice too. So no, I don't think it's fair to say that +15% is the only relevant part of Rome's UA.

The fact that UBs are retained isn't even mentioned in Rome's UA description; I've always considered it more of an Easter egg than a core aspect of the civ. Obviously I was wrong to think that, because others on this forum seem to think that the retention of UBs is the single most influential component of the civ, maybe the only thing about the civ worth discussing. I think that, even if that were true, then it would warrant looking into, because a civ's core competency coming from co-opting other civ's buildings implies several things which I have not found to be true in my own experience with older versions of Rome:

• Conquered cities form the core of the Roman economy.
  • They're nice, and with how many more buildings are retained I find that conquered cities add more as a percent. They aren't overriding my core 3-4 cities, though.
• Conquering other cities, rather than settling your own, would always be the optimal choice.
  • If UBs were so important, then players would be bending over backwards to get other civs to settle near them. This puts a player in danger of getting left behind, however, because early expansion is important for Rome, just like it is for most other civs.
• Timing of your conquests necessarily should occur after your opponent has acquired their UB in most of their cities
  • My own experience in older builds is that there was no neighbor whose UB was so good that I felt compelled to rest on my laurels past the time when I could be doing a swordsman rush. I'd rather win a lot easier than win slightly more.

Maybe I've just been doing it wrong though. I get that people want to make Rome really vibrant and interesting. I do too. I wonder, however, if by amplifying Rome's ability to steal UBs to the extent that it can take UNWs, it might actually make Rome feel less unique? If they take the right mix of buildings, would Rome start to feel like a chameleon civ? A hodgepodge, or a discount Assyria/Japan/Carthage?

I keep going back to those 3 -- Assyria/Carthage/Japan -- just because those are the ones with really powerful UNWs/UBs. I really do want to keep this discussion just to base VP, but with 4UC, Rome can get more even more abilities which it can co-opt wholesale as well. Rome was already more powerful with 4UC installed before it could get another 8 UNWs, 8 new global effects, which it can co-opt. I do worry that Rome might suffer a sort of 'loss of identity' if it takes one of these on-empire effects, especially if 1 in every 4 civs has one

I don't recall ever saying that UB capture is the single feature Rome should focus on. I proposed to be able to capture all buildings and this was a happy side effect.

I suppose we could just gut out unique NWs if they're deemed a problem (sorry for all this work @Gazebo ). They weren't on my mind when I made the original proposal so I'm kind of indifferent to it.

However I think you'r overthinking this a bit. I don't see how Rome loses its identity by capturing some UBs it couldn't before. It just adds to what Rome already has.

I think that Rome starting next to Assyria/Japan/Carthage is really more of a balance problem on paper than in practice. You're viewing this through a vaccuum. War is always good, Rome just gets something extra for putting in the effort to actually conquer those civs. I kind of doubt that Rome is going to be oh so overwhelmingly overpowered at all next to those civs really. Sometimes it'll be good to fight those civs, sometimes not. If you can capture Japan/Assyria/Carthage, even without the UBs, it's probably a good idea. It's just extra lard, like what France gets.

Rome is not going to suddenly morph into a new civ because it got +2 TRs. This is the kind of thing that can be said on paper but will hardly ever happen in practice.

 

[Minh Le]

IMO there are 2 types of warmonger civs in the game. 1 are those who stronger militarily make conquest easier (Shaka, Songhai, Sweden...) and 1 are rewarded on conquest (Rome, Asyria,...). I think its balance and interesting this way. Rome now have true benefit from conquering since conquered cities are much stronger and they add alot to your empire, complement nicely wide play style of Rome. I really like it.

 

[TwoPodRay]

IMO there are 2 types of warmonger civs in the game. 1 are those who stronger militarily make conquest easier (Shaka, Songhai, Sweden...) and 1 are rewarded on conquest (Rome, Asyria,...). I think its balance and interesting this way. Rome now have true benefit from conquering since conquered cities are much stronger and they add alot to your empire, complement nicely wide play style of Rome. I really like it.

Assyria gets siege towers though so they get a little of both!

 

[Minh Le]

Assyria gets siege towers though so they get a little of both!

Everyone have UU so I think its fair. Rome does have Legion.

 

[TwoPodRay]

Everyone have UU so I think its fair. Rome does have Legion.

+40% Bonus city damage is no joke though compared to 2CS Bonus, Cover 1, and Pilum.

 

[Minh Le]

Actually I think Assyria's siege tower is a little lackluster than a real UU. When conquering I find the hardest part is taking out enemy units. When its done then cities falling is just a matter of time. Siege tower while its good overall it doesnt give Assyria a real power spike than other UU. The real strength of Assyria is their UA which is very broken though.

 

[TwoPodRay]

Actually I think Assyria's siege tower is a little lackluster than a real UU. When conquering I find the hardest part is taking out enemy units. When its done then cities falling is just a matter of time. Siege tower while its good overall it doesnt give Assyria a real power spike than other UU. The real strength of Assyria is their UA which is very broken though.

I see it as a means to blitz enemy cities before they have a chance to bring in reinforcements. I hover just outside of their vision range, as close as possible to lesser protected cities, preferably 2 at a time since you get 2 towers, then jump in quick and snipe 2 cities. You can get two free techs pretty quick!