Rome

[Damirith]

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

So are you saying the AI has trouble with building roads? I have seen them connect to City-states before.

 

[Gazebo]

So are you saying the AI has trouble with building roads? I have seen them connect to City-states before.

They'll do it, sometimes, but it is an issue of prioritization mixed with code speed. As it stands now, the AI will only do that if it has absolutely nothing else to do with its workers AND the CS has a 'build roads to me' quest. The reason for these restrictions are simple: the code for checking on building roads outside of owned territory has to check every unowned tile in the world (for the purpose of the proper caching of values for all hexes). This is extremely expensive CPU-wise. I dealt with that when teaching the AI how to do forts, as I originally had forts build-able in unowned land for the AI. This led to a massive slowdown, especially on big maps, as every tile is evaluated for every worker, and so on.

Long story short: my opposition to a road-themed UA that involves CSs is an issue of performance and memory optimization.

Historically, what would roads to city-states have to do with Rome anyways? Rome was not known for its external trade nor its external roads – it was a land empire with the unfortunate luck of needing to live on and around the mediterranean sea – its organization and imperial structure were largely martial. The Roman UA should in some way reflect the martial elements of Roman History, as these elements allowed the empire to prosper and produce the legacy it has today.

G

 

[Damirith]

Stupid inferior CPUs…why can’t this be the future!? Hmm, well thanks for your explanation.

So this might be a dumb question since I know nothing about how to write the code or how the AI "thinks". What if the Rome AI was told that all City-states within like 10 to 15 tiles of any of their cities has the quest to complete a road to them? Wouldn't that motivate them to build the roads? Would the AI still have to check all the unowned tiles of the world just to figure out a path that is within 10 to 15 tiles? Are there any other ways of tricking the AI or cutting down on the CPU use? If there is no way around it, I guess CS connections are a no go.

I could still see the UA working by giving 1 GAP for each city connection. I get that most of my argument was on the idea of the city-state connections so that it wouldn’t be so passive, but then again I also feel that many Civs have free bonuses for stuff you were going to do always so it really doesn’t matter. This would further set up Rome to go Liberty over Tradition, since the other half of their UA already synergies well with Liberty. I know a number of people said they would like to see the Road GAP idea for the UA, but I don’t know how much of that was based on liking the CS roads part.

So how do you guys feel now if it was just:

UA: +20% production towards buildings that already exist in the capital, +1 golden age point for each owned city that’s connected to the capital. ?

If the Road idea is a no go without the CS connection, I could still see the earlier ideas still working:

UA: +20% production towards buildings that already exist in the capital, and either

1) Golden age points each time you complete a building in the capital (scales with era)
^ this would make going either Wide or Tall viable

2) Culture buildings, great works, and artifacts are not destroyed when conquering a city.
^ Rome ripping off of other people’s culture

Also we need to figure out what the Forum is going to do. Gazebo are you 100% against the idea of having it be either a unique market, amphitheater, or colosseum? If it were kept as a unique monument its effect would need to scale with era, whatever it does.

 

[Elhoim]

In general I agree with Gazebo's idea of the courthouse and the conquest UB, if keeping the production bonus + +1 golden age point for each owned city that’s connected to the capital.

 

[Gazebo]

I'd prefer to have as many UBs as UBs for different units, at least for new ones we add.

What if, instead of a +1 gap per city connection, we do a +% to golden age length? A little easier to balance based on game speed and such.

If we do that AND a conquest bonus, are we tossing the original UA entirely?

If we do a forum as a courthouse replacement, I'm thinking of giving it extra trade gold from trade routes, as that'll help rome's war machine.

G

 

[Damirith]

What if, instead of a +1 gap per city connection, we do a +% to golden age length? A little easier to balance based on game speed and such.

That idea can also work, I like it.

I think some of the current UA should stay, just tone it back to like 15/20% since it kinda snowballs hard with the production bonus from liberty.

If the forum becomes a courthouse replacement would it be buildable in all cities or just ones you have taken over?

 

[Funak]

I'd prefer to have as many UBs as UBs for different units, at least for new ones we add.

What if, instead of a +1 gap per city connection, we do a +% to golden age length? A little easier to balance based on game speed and such.

If we do that AND a conquest bonus, are we tossing the original UA entirely?

If we do a forum as a courthouse replacement, I'm thinking of giving it extra trade gold from trade routes, as that'll help rome's war machine.

I don't like the idea of a courthouse being a UB because that would pretty much give all roman cities courthouses for free. As you would have to balance it to be good even for non-conquered cities.

If anything a courthouse makes way more sense for venice as mentioned earlier, mostly because they cant' build it anyways.

 

[Damirith]

See this is the problem with the 1UB 1 UU rule, I get why we have it, but what might be "the best answer" for the forum could be blocked due to already having a unique market, amphitheater, or whatever. To work around this you could just keep it as a unique monument so it’s a direct replacement to the arch or we have to suck it up and have two Civs with the same type of UB.

If the forum doesn’t happen, I could see having Rome get a better Circus Maximus or adding in another national building for them as the Amphitheatrum Flavium. While all Civs can build a colosseum in their cities, Rome would get THE colosseum as a national building (after all, they actually built the thing). If not a whole new national building, maybe it could be a unique National Epic?

We could also have it that the Amphitheatrum Flavium is the thing that gives the +X% golden age length per city connection since 1) it was a huge source of culture and fame for their society 2) it's pretty much a unified symbol of Rome (other than any Romulus and Remus based depictions) and 3) you are most likely going to be building it in your capital so the bonus for city connections can make sense. If we did this, we then could stick in a conquest special as the 2nd part of Rome's UA.

UA: +20% production towards buildings that already exist in the capital, culture buildings and great works are not destroyed when you conquer a city.

 

[Funak]

See this is the problem with the 1UB 1 UU rule, I get why we have it, but what might be "the best answer" for the forum could be blocked due to already having a unique market, amphitheater, or whatever. To work around this you could just keep it as a unique monument so it’s a direct replacement to the arch or we have to suck it up and have two Civs with the same type of UB.

There are already two monuments anyways, so Gazebo is just being unreasonable

If the forum doesn’t happen, I could see having Rome get a better Circus Maximus or adding in another national building for them as the Amphitheatrum Flavium. While all Civs can build a colosseum in their cities, Rome would get THE colosseum as a national building (after all, they actually built the thing). If not a whole new national building, maybe it could be a unique National Epic?

You could probably give it reasonable stats and make it work, but in my opinion this is a boring way out. Rome is focused on building buildings and getting infrastructure running, giving them a unique that isn't a building feels weird. Also imho unique wonders are pretty boring, they feel more like delayed UAs. Carthage was pretty much forced into it because a UB harbor would have been unreasonable and a lighthouse wouldn't really have made much sense.
Also I'd like to say that while the amphitheater sure had an impact on the Roman empire it doesn't really define it.

One thing that could be done is moving the Celtic unique Colosseum to another building(honestly no idea what that would be now) and having the Forum as a Colosseum replacement. Again this is mostly just shifting the problem, and would also send the message that Rome were famous for not having any Colosseum

 

[Damirith]

One thing that could be done is moving the Celtic unique Colosseum to another building(honestly no idea what that would be now) and having the Forum as a Colosseum replacement. Again this is mostly just shifting the problem, and would also send the message that Rome were famous for not having any Colosseum

Yeah, that could work for the forum but then we would be kicking the can down the road unless we have some quick idea for a new Celtic UB.

I think having unique national wonders is fine and it's working well for Carthage and for America. I can see why they may be little boring since you can only build one of them. However, with that limitation the building gets to do something big to make up for it and a bigger special might be more fun

I can see why The Forum should be the first pick for a replacement UB to the Arch, but I feel that the Amphitheatrum Flavium (as either a unique replacement to the Circus Maximus or National Epic, or as a whole new national building) is a decent option if the forum doesn't work out.

 

[Elhoim]

Rome:

UB: Flavian Amphitheatre - replaces Circus Maximus, grants a large boost to Production and Culture in the city whenever you win a battle. Also grants additional happiness and grants additional gold from city connections.

UU: Legion - same

UA: Glory of Rome: When you conquer a foreign City, the City immediately claims additional owned and unowned territory. No buildings are destroyed when Rome takes control of a City. +15% Production in all Cities for Buildings already present in Capital.

Looks great! Plop it down in Rome, expand through warfare and get buildings done faster, expanding the production bonus to all cities. Plus includes benefits if your cities are connected. Awesome all around

 

[Damirith]

I like it too.

I just want the "When you conquer a foreign City, the City immediately claims additional owned and unowned territory. " part clarified as to how it works and how much land do you get.

 

[Opera]

Since there's a thread for it, I figure I'd reiterate my distate for the unique NW (which is even more amusing since it replaces a Roman building with another Roman building).

It seems to be this is born from some indecision regarding Rome's UA, since Gazebo said the NW is basically an extension of the UA that just comes later and needs to be built. It sure is powerful but wouldn't it be better to scrap the NW, merge its effects with the UA (lose some in the process) and get a useful building instead?

You could remove the "No buildings are destroyed when Rome takes control of a City." effect as it's directly going against the "+15% Production in all Cities for Buildings already present in Capital.". At least, it feels a bit schizophrenic to have both on the same civilization.

The UB could be some amphitheater replacement that uses the "When you conquer a foreign City, the City immediately claims additional owned and unowned territory." part, when built in foreign cities.

UA could then be: "Whenever you win a battle, gain production and culture in Rome and the nearest city. City connections grant additional happiness and gold. +15% production in all cities for building already present in the capital."

I feel that would have a nice balance between infrastructure and military.

 

[Funak]

Since there's a thread for it, I figure I'd reiterate my distate for the unique NW (which is even more amusing since it replaces a Roman building with another Roman building).

I found this hilarious actually

It seems to be this is born from some indecision regarding Rome's UA, since Gazebo said the NW is basically an extension of the UA that just comes later and needs to be built. It sure is powerful but wouldn't it be better to scrap the NW, merge its effects with the UA (lose some in the process) and get a useful building instead?

You could remove the "No buildings are destroyed when Rome takes control of a City." effect as it's directly going against the "+15% Production in all Cities for Buildings already present in Capital.". At least, it feels a bit schizophrenic to have both on the same civilization.

The UB could be some amphitheater replacement that uses the "When you conquer a foreign City, the City immediately claims additional owned and unowned territory." part, when built in foreign cities.

UA could then be: "Whenever you win a battle, gain production and culture in Rome and the nearest city. City connections grant additional happiness and gold. +15% production in all cities for building already present in the capital."

I feel that would have a nice balance between infrastructure and military.

While I don't agree with everything you say, for example i think that theater UA of yours would feel kinda weird.

I agree with the general idea of having a strong purpose behind the civ and not a counteractive UA that has to get balanced out by a NW.

 

[Elhoim]

You could remove the "No buildings are destroyed when Rome takes control of a City." effect as it's directly going against the "+15% Production in all Cities for Buildings already present in Capital.".

I disagree, you will still have to build new buildings in that city if you manage to keep it. I believe both have a great synergy, you don't have to waste production time on old, basic buildings, and focus your efforts on new ones.

 

[Strec]

Don't know if it is a bug or working as intended but I have Iron Working (and so can build Legions, the UU) and the first 2 units Conscription give me are a War Elephant and a Spearman.

Not a Big Problem but surprising.

 

[Funak]

Don't know if it is a bug or working as intended but I have Iron Working (and so can build Legions, the UU) and the first 2 units Conscription give me are a War Elephant and a Spearman.

Not a Big Problem but surprising.

Can conscription even give you units with resource-requirement?

 

[Strec]

I have improved elephants in my area so I can't answer to that.

 

[Funak]

I have improved elephants in my area so I can't answer to that.

Elephants doesn't really count as they don't consume the resource. I've gotten them before, but I can't remember if I ever got a horseunit or a swordsman.

 

[Gazebo]

Don't know if it is a bug or working as intended but I have Iron Working (and so can build Legions, the UU) and the first 2 units Conscription give me are a War Elephant and a Spearman.

Not a Big Problem but surprising.

Gives you a random melee unit you can already train.

G