What's up with the Hoplite?

[StStutter]

This is a problem for any Civ that has a UU that requires a resource. Any of the the civs that have say, a single UU ~ if any one of them require a resource, than they suffer the same problem as Rome ~ the inability to use their UU if they lack the resource.

Picture Rome without UUs ~ They're Still screwed in the ancient era if they don't have Iron.

The problem isn't the inability to use their UUs, it's the problem that they don't have access to iron, period. Which imo is the equivalent of lamenting about Elizibath being trapped far inland on a map ~ It's bad luck - her UA is made irrelevant as is one of her UUs. All it means is that a part of Rome's power, like many other civs, is dependant on how well you roll on your position in the map.

Any civ with a UU that requires a resource is obviously at a disadvantage if they don't have that resource.

Agreed, but more so if both require the same resource, and even more so if both require the same resource in the same era.

Rome without iron would still be screwed in the early era if they didn't have iron. But becaue both of their UUs require iron, they're affected in two ways:

1. They don't have access to a core portion of classical armies (swordsmen and catapults) and have to rely on on archers, spears and cavalry.

2. They don't get to use either of their UUs at all through the entire game. They essentially become a civ without UUs.

Any other UU that relies on a resource of course could end up in the same position. But if a civ has two UUs that require different resources, it is extremely unlikely that they don't have either of those resources. They therefore do not suffer the same fate as Rome.

 

[Lyoncet]

This has gotten quite far from what I think most of the Roman UU discussion was focused on, which is that it's the only civ for which making use of one UU means you're getting fewer of the other. Of course everybody has to choose to get swords or catapults with their iron, but Rome's the only civ for which leveraging one of its bonuses comes at the cost of leveraging the other. Which makes their UUs less powerful than they'd seem at first glance, since the point of UUs is to be part of the the set of advantages (along with UBs and SAs) that keeps civs competitive but differentiated.

That's all. Not saying they're bad, but just pointing out that Rome's the only civ in which leveraging one of its advantages limits the ability to leverage another. Personally I think that because of this Legions need to be slightly stronger; the Ballista's 4 RS bonus seems greatly preferable to the Legion's 2 strength bonus, even if they can build roads and forts (both of which only help after the battle is said and done unless your attack is stalled and pushed back).

 

[Ahriman]

Except again, no-one has provided a screenshot that actually shows that ballistae require iron.

 

[Schuesseled]

hasn't it been confirmed taht trebuchets need iron?

Ballista will too unless they're one of the resource free uu's.

 

[Ahriman]

unless they're one of the resource free uu's.

.... yes, precisely.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

So here's something: how useful is the Legion road-building ability? a squad of workers can be stacked due to being civilian units and can build roads quicker than a Legion which can't be stacked.

So, the workers could build the road with a military unit sitting on them for protection very quickly while a lone legion toils away across the wilderness very slowly and it's not being used for military purposes.

 

[Schuesseled]

+1 movement is a pretty good bonus for war chriots and there resourcelss as well.

 

[Schuesseled]

plus a legion can defend its self where as a worker cannot.

 

[civnoob13]

Giant death robot?

 

[Calouste]

I didn't design the game, don't ask me! I just see thats how things will work with Rome. Although if the cost of social policies rise as quickly as we seem to think, having a large empire early could leave you with a far less productive civ later on.

I'm happy that Greece and Rome will (probably) play differently, no point having unique civs if they play the same. That said, with 2 very early UUs and a bonus to city state diplomacy, I can see a dichotomy for Greece. Do I crush those insolent tiny city states or do I make them my allies? Personally, I'll find it very hard to be friendly if I have a line of companion cavalry waiting to charge in.

You make allies out of some city states and use your companion cavalry to crush the other city states that your allies don't like. Severed royal heads are as good as gold to buy influence with some city states. Honor looks like a pretty good Social Policy branch for the Greeks to help out with doing some odd jobs for your allies until you unlock Patronage.

 

[marioflag]

Personally, I really like how Greeks and Romans are going to be classical era conquest machines, and Ottomans will be Renaissance-era conquest machines.

Having era-specific threats helps keep faction variation.

Greeks in my opinion should have got 1 UU and 1 UB, because with Alexander the Great which is probably going to get a very aggressive AI, Companion Cavalry and Hoplite they are a warmonger civ.
An UB would have given Greeks a more cultured flavour, which is more fit than a warmonger flavour.

 

[Helmling]

In fact, it was answered and you were provided with links in the first response to your question.

Link, schmink.

So, what, the Civ 5 Features thread has a typo? It still shows both at 7.

 

[AriochIV]

So, what, the Civ 5 Features thread has a typo? It still shows both at 7.

The "confirmed" features thread has a ton of errors in it.

Here's a screenshot:

 

[Thormodr]

The "confirmed" features thread has a ton of errors in it.

Seems like a slap in the face to Bite. Care to elaborate?

 

[AriochIV]

Seems like a slap in the face to Bite. Care to elaborate?

There are a number of mistakes, of which I just pointed out one. I don't see how that's a "slap in the face," just a statement of fact.

 

[Thormodr]

There are a number of mistakes, of which I just pointed out one. I don't see how that's a "slap in the face," just a statement of fact.

Well, you used the word "ton" which means an extremely large number. Now you are saying it's "a number" of mistakes. A ton of mistakes implies that there are many, many errors. Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words.

Considering that Bite was the one who took the initiative to start compiling all the information for ciV and you came along later and did the same, it almost sounds like you are slamming the "competition" to make him look bad and make yourself look better. I sincerely hope this is not the case.

 

[AriochIV]

Well, you used the word "ton" which means an extremely large number. Now you are saying it's "a number" of mistakes. A ton of mistakes implies that there are many, many errors. Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words.

Maybe you could let Bite decide whether he is offended by my choice of words, and mind your own business.

 

[Xetal]

I also see Rome as more of a risk due to their reliance on one resource (early in the game) for both UUs in the same age.

If you don't get iron right away as another civ you could use archers, spears, and horsemen to defend yourself while you figure out a way to get iron in time for medieval. You could then use your later advantages to expand.

As Rome, the period where you have your swords and balista is a make-or-break era. If you manage to end up without iron right away then you're in trouble, more so than other civilizations which could try to "wait it out" and make a move in a later era where they have UU/UA/UB advantages.

For Greece you don't have that problem. Hoplites require no resources and have a considerably larger strength advantage over spears than legions have over swords. (Hoplites are 28.6% stronger than Spears, where Legions are only 18.2% stronger than swords).

The later era means that Greece will also have a bit longer to find horses before they need them (in relation to when they're discovered) than Rome does with Iron. Rome basically reveals iron on the map at the same time it needs it, there is no chance to secure a source before it is needed.

On the other hand, the Balista has 28.6% more ranged strength than a catapult, where the companion cavalry only has 16.7% more strength (and one more movement) than a horsemen.

All-in-all I see Greece as being the "safe bet" for early expansion and Rome as being the "calculated risk". Both Rome and Greece have unique abilities that should be useful throughout the game, so they'll have a somewhat similar strategy of "early expansion, then use your larger empire and UA to maintain dominance"

Just my two cents. I was actually considering making a thread, once we have a bit more info, that is a more detailed analysis of different civilizations and how their UA/UB/UUs compare.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

They should bring back strategic resource copper so that the Hoplite advantage can be possibly removed by the possibility of not having the required resource to build it.

 

[Thormodr]

Maybe you could let Bite decide whether he is offended by my choice of words, and mind your own business.

A little rude aren't we?

Anyway, I appreciate what Bite has done as a forum member and when I see someone slam him for no good reason, I feel it is my business.

Either back up your smack talk or retract the statement. Capiche?