Right, just about the concern of the Rome-Carthage match up being so good for Rome, IDK if its even that much better than other powerful unique buildings, like the Runestone.
Rome
- Thread starter Funak
- Start date
tu_79
Deity
If I have understood what the fix does, Rome is only allowed to have the commonly allowed number of national wonders. So for guilds, you can can have up to three in your empire, you might capture a guild if you have less than three guilds in the moment. The same goes for things like Heroic Epic. If you already built one you cannot capture another. In order to capture the Smithsonian you must purposely not build the Hermitage, then let Washington build one and declare war.
Nope, Smithsonian doesn't exclude Hermitage, so you can have both. You can't have 2 Hermitages, though.
ElliotS
Warmonger
Want to hear something totally OP? If you capture all of the other capitals you instantly win the game! Hell, if you take out half of the other civs, you win the game like 98% of the time. Totally OP right? Wait... that's not Rome exclusive and this is the Rome thread. My bad...
But seriously, if you're going to talk about how OP an ability is once you've taken over multiple civs remember that regardless of the warmonger you're playing that's pretty much critical mass and it's very hard to stop a warmonger with half the world under his control in any case.
Minh Le
King
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2018
- Messages
- 817
IMO, what we should be discussing here is not whether Rome should have the ability to capture UB or UNW or not, but the ability to capture defensive and military buildings. I have an ongoing game as Rome (lattest patch, applied hot fix, not my current photo journal, I finished it), in which I could see a very clear advantage of Rome when invading other continent. Retain all the defensive buildings means you can safely capture a city with you navy, then still have a few turns to clear up before sending in your army without the risk of the city being recaptured or units killed by AI. I think its extremely powerful and it could make Rome the strongest warmonger now, far stronger than any other. Like, I just took a city accross the occean and it suddenly become my stronghold 
.
.
ElliotS
Warmonger
No offense but the biggest takeaway from that playthrough was that getting stacking NWs is stupid OP, hence why it was patched up about 5 minutes after you started your game lol. You're clearly a skilled player, but I don't know how seriously I can take any data from that game other than "Yeah Rome shouldn't get multiple NWs."IMO, what we should be discussing here is not whether Rome should have the ability to capture UB or UNW or not, but the ability to capture defensive and military buildings. I have an ongoing game as Rome (lattest patch, applied hot fix, not my current photo journal, I finished it), in which I could see a very clear advantage of Rome when invading other continent. Retain all the defensive buildings means you can safely capture a city with you navy, then still have a few turns to clear up before sending in your army without the risk of the city being recaptured or units killed by AI. I think its extremely powerful and it could make Rome the strongest warmonger now, far stronger than any other. Like, I just took a city accross the occean and it suddenly become my stronghold
If we do come to the conclusion that retaining walls makes retaking cities too hard, then I wonder if there is a way to make walls not work while a city is in revolt. (Right after you take it.) That would thematically solve the "problem" if it turns out to be a problem. (Because at that point Spain can already do the whole "oh the city has a castle now too" thing.)
That said I don't think it's a problem because of how infrequently I'm in a situation where I can take a city but don't because it will be retaken and that makes a noticeable difference in a war. That seems like marginal military utility, not an overwhelming advantage.
If you have the troops to defend the city with walls, you probably have the troops to defend a city without walls. Besides Denmark is still much better at attacking from sea.
Minh Le
King
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2018
- Messages
- 817
Not only some walls but also castles, arsenals, etc... I didnt mention my Photo Journal (I was too excited and almost done playing before knowing there was a hotfix ), my comment is based on a different game im playing with the hotfix. Spain is also very strong in this regard but you still need the city to get out of resistant to buy the Mission when Rome has it immediately. The advantage is also on land but its more clearly in continent invading because you cannot deal with the AI land army without: A. Disembark your army and risk losing some of your units or B. Take a city and provoke the AI into retaking it and bombard them with your navy.
), my comment is based on a different game im playing with the hotfix. Spain is also very strong in this regard but you still need the city to get out of resistant to buy the Mission when Rome has it immediately. The advantage is also on land but its more clearly in continent invading because you cannot deal with the AI land army without: A. Disembark your army and risk losing some of your units or B. Take a city and provoke the AI into retaking it and bombard them with your navy.
Last edited:
pineappledan
Deity
So multiple NWs of the same type is a problem, but multiple NWs of the same class is not?
... So getting 4
for every Arena from 2 C.Maximus is a problem, but getting 2-3 trade routes and double luxuries from multiple EICs isn't?
Last edited:
I think that starts the slippery slope that G was worried about. I think if we get to the point (and to be clear I do not think we are at that point yet) where we need to add in specialty mechanics like this to curb Rome than I think it would be time to toss the keep buildings mechanic and just come up with something else for them to use.
pineappledan
Deity
I don't think anyone is arguing for a totally new ability; at most just a rollback. This whole business is wonky mechanic whack-a-mole, though... What if instead of capturing them, NeverCapture buildings (NWs/guilds/defense/unit training/monuments) were 'liquidated' for a fraction of their building cost? As soon as the resistance wears off, cities have a burst of stockpiled production that they can rush 1-2 buildings with, and get them back on their feat quickly. You could use it to build walls or courthouses in 1 turn.
Just spitballing
Exactly.
If we’re worried about unique buildings we could simply remove that part of it. Getting a full city with generic buildings is still good.
G
tu_79
Deity
Could it just be that unique national wonders requires the substituted national wonder to not be built?
pineappledan
Deity
This would make me so happy. As someone who would like to continue working on mods for VP for the forseeable future, not having UBs stolen will help a ton with balancing and stability going forward. Having all UBs and UNWs check for their respective civ + Rome means that any game with Rome in it pretty much doubles the number of computation, and can really slow down turns.
As an aside, working on a mod for this community has really driven home how much people generally adore Rome. Just, the concept of Rome, Roman military history, civic history, politics, etc. When we started the 4UC mod, we got some completely bonkers recommendations for Roman components; we had >1 person unironically suggest Rome should get more UCs than everyone else, just because Rome is so wonderful and important. There's a lot of bias and personal baggage that is brought to the table whenever Rome becomes a topic of discussion. I can't pretend to be immune to it, but I've spent a lot of time on this forum trying to talk people down from making Rome into some sort of god-mode.
Last edited:
I thought when we started this conversation that being that specific with the change was too difficult?
Hmm? Right now there’s specific code that’s from the pre-Rome version that makes it get the civ-specific version of a building instead of the generic type. I’d just disable that, so you’d be getting all buildings but generic versions of any unique ones.
feels bad man rome is ded
I like this approach then.
chicorbeef
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,548
What about gutting the UNW's only?
ElliotS
Warmonger
I mean taking UBs is literally the unique part of Rome. It's also only the UNWs that anyone has concern about. (And I guess defensive buildings now.)
The concern for those elements has not been universal either. Everyone agreed that NWs were too strong, but consensus is NOT reached on these issues.
Not taking any UBs sounds like a really boring change that's not needed.
