Is going tradition as rome viable ?
Because if I follow the logic, the more prod I have in my capital, the easier I can chug Legions and buildings my other cities can benefit from...
Not really, no. Of the 3 starter policy trees, Tradition is the hardest to swing for Rome.
You get more food and more flat production points in your capital with Tradition, but the +10% production to buildings in the Progress tree will scale better in that restpect. Since you benefit most from going ultra-wide with Rome, the bonus % growth on empire is pretty wasted on you.
Most people advocate for Progress as optimal, but the newest patch makes Authority much more attractive. I might advocate for that instead.
- Rome now captures ALL buildings, including barracks and walls in captured cities. This means that if you finish the Authority tree, you can buy mercenaries in conquered cities that get the full benefit of a barracks in the city, and can move on the same turn.
- Rome can capture defensive buildings, meaning he is one of the best civs fro "bite and hold" strategies, where you go in on the city first, then defend it from the enemy army. Focus on rushing towards Statue of Zeus and Himeji Castle to make full use of this.
- Rome benefits a lot from the raw hammers from Authority's scaler
- Rome gets a lot of benefits from winning wars, but has very minimal bonuses to actual combat. Authority offers the tools that Rome needs to win wars.
Last note: When I play Rome,
I play with the 4UC mod, which gives Rome an extra unique improvement, and a unique catapult replacement. As is Roman tradition, I tend to ignore mounted, and focus on getting a good starting infrastructure in my first 3 cities, then building into a swordsman/siege assault to wipe out at least 1 neighbor in late Classical.
