We don't need another market UB. Perhaps make the Forum a Courthouse UB that can be built anywhere? Also, we don't have artwork for it.
So no love for the conquest themed UB eh?
G
So no love for the conquest themed UB eh?
G
Rome
- Thread starter Funak
- Start date
Llednar Twem
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2014
- Messages
- 420
I'd be sad to see the courthouse UB go to someone other than Venice, but I guess there we don't have artwork OR an actual historical building to go on. I rooted my suggestions in gameplay because I know nothing about Venice historically. Anyway, if the forum was a courthouse replacement that could be built anywhere, would it still function as a courthouse in captured cities? Hampering the military abilities for Rome of all civs would be rather odd.
Yeah it would. I'd like to avoid adding UBs for buildings that already have them. I'm also not sold on the (relatively passive) nature of the UA being tossed around. Rome's AI should be a bit more aggressive even if it doesn't necessarily become about conquest.
G
Well the Forum is a market, and I don't really see a problem with a second market UA, I mean you were totally fine with 2 monument UAs up until now
Courthouse could work, assuming you could build it in all cities, not just conquered ones.
There probably exists some artwork for it somewhere on this forum, if not there are a lot of talented artists who loves to paint pretty pictures, especially for big famous projects like this one
In your defense, your idea was really nice but I just don't feel the synergy with the existing UA. You could add something conquesty to the forum I guess just to make up for it
I wouldn't have a problem with some kind of courthouse for venice really, but I'm not sure what it would represent, like you said.
My idea about getting a bonus for building buildings(liberty opener style) was just a suggestion. If you have an idea for a aggressive UA that isn't all about conquering then please do share
There really are enough warmongers around imho, and just because you don't have warmonger bonuses in your UA doesn't necessarily mean you're going to play passive. I mean take Romes UA for example, building buildings faster just means you can start training soldiers faster.
Damirith
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
- Messages
- 379
So you want a culture themed building but something that isn't boring by just adding more culture?
What if the forum replaced the amphitheater and also included a slot for great art and great music? You would then have a unique building that has a slot for all 3. Sure they couldn't save music back then but the forum was used for all sorts of culture events, so having a concert wouldn't be out of reach. Just a thought.
What if the forum replaced the amphitheater and also included a slot for great art and great music? You would then have a unique building that has a slot for all 3. Sure they couldn't save music back then but the forum was used for all sorts of culture events, so having a concert wouldn't be out of reach. Just a thought.
I never said I wanted a culture themed building, I said the Forum was used for a lot of things. And in my opinion just 2 flat culture on a building is pretty boring.
Also amphitheater is already taken as well.
Damirith
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
- Messages
- 379
Always shutting me down man
I do like the current idea because of the "all roads lead to Rome" saying and I dont think it's as passive as you say. I think it would be cool to see someone actually take the time and money to build all the roads to pump the UA. The roads you build could be used to advance units faster to enemy Civ cities that happen to be near the city-state. Also the roads could be used against you as their units could use them to march up to your cities, so it would be a double edge sword and it's all on you if you want to take the risk and build them.
If my road idea doesn't get added, I would still like to see Rome get bonus golden age points somehow, since the Arch is apparently going. Again, it could be from completing buildings in the capital.
I also still like the idea of Rome not destroying culture buildings when they take a city, that way they could also preserve great works that got left behind. After all, a lot of Rome's culture was a rip off of others.
Elhoim
Iron Tower Studio Dev
That sounds quite good.
It's very good, IMO, and it would be interesting to play with, but I love roads for Rome
I really like the idea of connecting CS with roads as well... Maybe give the current construction bonus to cities that have a connection with Rome, and 1/2 GA point for each CS connected?
Greece have a unique Amphitheater unless I'm mistaken, which I probably am
Honestly the all the ancient to classical era buildings are already taken exception being caravansary, forge and stoneworks. And I don't really see any of them as a good fit. Possibly forge but that sounds kinda boring to me. Speaking of the forge, maybe the Iroquois UB should be moved to the forge instead of the workshop?
Anyways the buildings I see with the best fit for a Forum is the market, the amphitheater and the colosseum, and they are all pretty much taken.
The problem with roads as a UA, even part of a UA, is that everyone builds roads anyways. It doesn't change your game style at all. It also scales very poorly based on map size. I try to avoid UAs that don't scale well with map sizes.
G
G
Damirith
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
- Messages
- 379
Yeah but by that point of view, the Ships of the Desert UA sucks cause on small maps you dont get much of an advantage with the +50% trade route range and you have less desert to work with. Same thing for Portugal, Germany, or Austria, their specials start to wane when you only have 4-8 city states to work with. You cant really look at the UA's with that focus and worrying about small vs epic size maps, standard is standard for a reason. You are going to have to change a lot of things around with many of the Civs if you shift your focus off of standard.
Also there are already a number if Civ specials that enhance things you were going to do already.
Korea, are you not planning on using your specialist slots or not making great person improvements?
Carthage, oh were you not planning on building cities on the coast?
England, dont feel like using spies in this game?
Poland, not planning on getting tech to advance to the next era?
Dutch, not planning on trading with other Civs?
.....The Incas, oh are you not planning on building roads to connect your cities?
So if you feel the Road idea is too passive and not good cause it is something you were going to do anyways, then the same thing should be said for the Incas (especially the Incas) and also about 1/5 of all the Civs in the game.
Also there are already a number if Civ specials that enhance things you were going to do already.
Korea, are you not planning on using your specialist slots or not making great person improvements?
Carthage, oh were you not planning on building cities on the coast?
England, dont feel like using spies in this game?
Poland, not planning on getting tech to advance to the next era?
Dutch, not planning on trading with other Civs?
.....The Incas, oh are you not planning on building roads to connect your cities?
So if you feel the Road idea is too passive and not good cause it is something you were going to do anyways, then the same thing should be said for the Incas (especially the Incas) and also about 1/5 of all the Civs in the game.
Elhoim
Iron Tower Studio Dev
Maybe connecting other Civs and CS by road? It's not something that's usually done.
Apart from Rome, it would be nice if connecting roads to CS or even other Civs did something.
I'd rather not stress the builder AI. It is abysmal, and works as it is with a clever dose of duct tape and prayer.
G
In Unique Building Collection there is a Forum UB with Art. I really liked it, and their version of the UA gives you a free one in every city you conquer.
No, but since korea makes specialists better, maybe you'll work those pesky merchant specialists that you usually ignore? Maybe you build that weird diplo-building that gives a mediocre specialist just because you're Korea? Maybe you go freedom to make keeping all those specialists cheaper on your happiness?
Those are all active choices.
The UA forces you to choose coastal locations over better inland-locations or pay for it.
The other part of the UA makes expanding cheaper, which leads you to the active choice if you want to expand more.
These two are more of a delayed reward, sure you could start with them both, but that wouldn't really be balanced.
Trading is an active choice, trading away your last copy of things to get more money is also an active choice. I wouldn't say this UA is the most well-thought-out one but it isn't passive.
With Inca the main effect is hill-walking. The roadpart however gives you the active choice of building longer roads on top of hills to save on maintenance at the cost of convenience.
Compared to a bonus you get for connecting cities (something that you're pretty much forced to do anyways because of isolation) all the other examples are actually active choices, while this is passive.
Really annoying that they didn't have a picture of it. but good work anyways
Damirith
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2015
- Messages
- 379
The point is connection cities and city states with roads is just as a natural and active choice as doing any of those other things as those other Civs. Sure you might have little ways of having control over them, but the same thing can be said as to what City-States you are willing to build your roads to, how far of a road are you willing to pay for to get that extra 1 GAP, or how many cities you are willing to build/conquer and connect in order to increase what you get out of the UA. At some point you could be shooting yourself in the foot if you cant manage all the unhappiness and gold costs from have those extra cities and roads. So there is still some strategy to it and active planning.
Yes the hill movement part is the main beef of the Inca UA. I just feel the cheap road part has just as much strategy as the roman road idea and at the end of the day you want to biggest bang for your buck. How much are you willing to go out of your way to build your Ican roads on hills to keep the costs down vs having an effective road? How long of a Roman road are you willing to make to get that extra 1 GAP with the risk of sinking your economy and aiding your enemies land advancement towards your cities?
Maybe we could make the UA more about the city-states to further increase the idea of expanding your roads outside of your territory and thus increase the risk/reward for doing it. The UA could be changed to give you 1 GAP for every 2 owned cities connected and 2-4 GAP for every City-State connected.
Edit: With this UA there would also now be a reason why you may want to settle a city on a small island that is already taken up by 2-3 city-states. Normally when you see those islands there better be some rare luxury item or some nice strategic resources that haven’t been claimed yet, otherwise settling there isn't a viable option. However, as Rome you might now want to go for it to connect those City states to your empire.
Yes the hill movement part is the main beef of the Inca UA. I just feel the cheap road part has just as much strategy as the roman road idea and at the end of the day you want to biggest bang for your buck. How much are you willing to go out of your way to build your Ican roads on hills to keep the costs down vs having an effective road? How long of a Roman road are you willing to make to get that extra 1 GAP with the risk of sinking your economy and aiding your enemies land advancement towards your cities?
Maybe we could make the UA more about the city-states to further increase the idea of expanding your roads outside of your territory and thus increase the risk/reward for doing it. The UA could be changed to give you 1 GAP for every 2 owned cities connected and 2-4 GAP for every City-State connected.
Edit: With this UA there would also now be a reason why you may want to settle a city on a small island that is already taken up by 2-3 city-states. Normally when you see those islands there better be some rare luxury item or some nice strategic resources that haven’t been claimed yet, otherwise settling there isn't a viable option. However, as Rome you might now want to go for it to connect those City states to your empire.
Finarvi
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 531
I agree with Damirith that there are more passive UAs than this one would be.
For example with this UA you will have following choices:
- Building structures that exists in capital and make some infrastructure in capital to speed the process
- Evaluate which roads to other CSs will be paying (friendship and GA points aggainst maintenance ; movement factor)
While playing Poland all you can improve is:
- go straight in tech tree to get bonus policy or take different techs
That's not much more but if Poland UA is OK then Rome is at least nice.
For example with this UA you will have following choices:
- Building structures that exists in capital and make some infrastructure in capital to speed the process
- Evaluate which roads to other CSs will be paying (friendship and GA points aggainst maintenance ; movement factor)
While playing Poland all you can improve is:
- go straight in tech tree to get bonus policy or take different techs
That's not much more but if Poland UA is OK then Rome is at least nice.
To reiterate my earlier point, the builder AI is on shaky ground. Teaching it to do any additional behaviors is beyond my interest at the moment. You have no idea how hard it was to get the AI to properly build forts.
G
G
How about the other part of the Roman UA interacts with forts? I mean that fits kinda well with the legionnaire and stuff like that, also brings your warmongering into the mix.
