Civ of the Week: Romans

ixnay · September 28, 2001, 15:10

Leader: Julius Caesar
Capital: Rome (duh)
UU: Legionary - upgraded swordsman (reg. 3.2.1) with extra defense, requires iron

player1 · September 28, 2001, 15:56

Also,
Romans are Militaristic & Commercial (not Industrious)

Tventano · September 28, 2001, 16:04

With legionaries as offensive units with a strong defense the Romans have to be played offensively. Contrary to the Greek which with the Hoplite have the same defense but no offense at all.

Mars · September 28, 2001, 16:10

The romans sound pretty cool. The legionaries could be used very effectively at the beginning.

Tarquinius · September 28, 2001, 16:35

Quote:

With legionaries as offensive units with a strong defense the Romans have to be played offensively

I agree with you. If you can get several legionarries on the battelfield you are a fearsome opponnent because it will be quite difficult to destroy the Legionarries (they have defense 3, strongest offensive ancient unit has attack 3)

Roland Ehnström · September 28, 2001, 17:00

Nice! The Romans are my fav civ to use.

I like the updated Civilization Abilities too, though perhaps the Chinese should really be scientific rather than militaristic... Or maybe they could be militaristic AND scientific, and the Germans could be militaristic and industrious instead of the Chinese? Good idea, Firaxis?

Peace!

-- Roland

monkspider · September 28, 2001, 17:01

Romans look fun. Keep up the good work Firaxis.

monkspider · September 28, 2001, 17:02

"Caesar's retirement from public life (and life in general) was announced with a knife to the back."
LOL!!!

Comrade Tribune · September 28, 2001, 17:23

With that defense, the Legions will probably be viable until Gunpowder.

Will Italian Legions dominate not only late Antiquity, but the entire Medieval era?

Felch · September 28, 2001, 17:26

As far as infantry go, the legions at their height would have been far better than anything in the middle ages until the development of the longbow.

So, assuming Rome doesn't collapse, the legion should be viable.

d_dudy · September 28, 2001, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
With that defense, the Legions will probably be viable until Gunpowder.

Will Italian Legions dominate not only late Antiquity, but the entire Medieval era?

well, what's a knight again?

and a night will have a movement rate that allows them to attack and retreat.

Rakki · September 28, 2001, 19:08

The Romans looks like a favoured civilization... they are blessed with a unit that can both attack and defend... AND commercial probably means they earn more money which will help to support the legions... scary.

Roland Ehnström · September 29, 2001, 05:42

"With that defense, the Legions will probably be viable until Gunpowder."

Well, Pikemen will probably be as good or better than Legions (Pikemen are 3.3.1, 3.4.1 or 4.3.1... Anyone know for sure?), and then there are also Knights with 4.3.2 (not to mention the Chinese Rider - 4.4.3 (!) ). And during the golden-age of the Roman Empire, all the other civs will have Swordsmen with 3.2.1, which isn't too far off the Legion. So I think the Legion is nicely balanced.

Remember also that the Greek Hoplite also has a defence rating of 3, and it comes way earlier than the Legion, and the Persian Immortal is 4.2.1 and comes at the same time as the Legion.

Looking at this, an interesting note is that during the early ancient times there seems to be a good balance between attack and defence, while in the late ancient times, units are surely biased towards attack:

Early Ancient:
Archer: 2.1.1
(Babylonian Bowman: 2.1.2)
Spearman: 1.2.1
(Greek Hoplite: 1.3.1)

Late Ancient:
Swordsman: 3.2.1
(Persian Immortal: 4.2.1)
(Roman Legion: 3.3.1)

So to me it seems that the late ancient times will be bloodier than the early ancient times. Looking at this, it also seems that the Persian Immortal will be VERY strong during the late ancient times, with only Romans and Greeks able to defend themselves ok against the Immortal, until Pikemen are discovered some 1000 years later.

Peace!

-- Roland

player1 · September 29, 2001, 07:47

I thnk that Pikemen will be 2/3/1 to complement Swordsmem 3/2/1

player1 · September 29, 2001, 07:50

Anything higher would make swordsmen practicly obsolete,
and I don't think that Feudalism makes Swordsem obsolete.
Who knows, maybe Pikemen is 1/3/1.
I hope not!

Comrade Tribune · September 29, 2001, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by d_dudy

well, what's a knight again?

Well, that´s what I mean: I think a Knight should overpower the Legion more decisively. Btw, are Crusaders still in? I am scared they might be not.

Quote:

and a night will have a movement rate that allows them to attack and retreat.

Not really; they would need movement 3. (Move in, attack, move away. But that would be more like a horse archer.) With m=2, they will be exposed either before or after the attack.

Bill3000 · September 29, 2001, 19:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Well, that´s what I mean: I think a Knight should overpower the Legion more decisively. Btw, are Crusaders still in? I am scared they might be not.

Nope, Crusaders are not in.

Christantine The Great · September 29, 2001, 22:25

Quote:

Not really; they would need movement 3.

No, a unit can retreat if it has two movement points and uses one to attack. To assure a safe retreat then you would need 3.

Why do people forget the Pikemen's unique defense bonus that makes it better than a hoplite? It is X2 against units with multiple movement points!

Martinus · September 30, 2001, 06:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill3000

Nope, Crusaders are not in.

BTW, Crusaders would be a great CSU, for example for Germans (IMHO their Golden Age was the Holy Roman Empire under Frederick Barbarossa, not WWII under Hitler

)

Comrade Tribune · September 30, 2001, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
No, a unit can retreat if it has two movement points and uses one to attack. To assure a safe retreat then you would need 3.

You didn´t quite get me. If it uses its first MP to attack, then it was open to being attacked the turn before ...

Comrade Tribune · September 30, 2001, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinus

BTW, Crusaders would be a great CSU, for example for Germans (IMHO their Golden Age was the Holy Roman Empire under Frederick Barbarossa, not WWII under Hitler

)

Totally agreed. Crusaders would also be quite fitting for the French. The best Musketeers were actually Swedish (Gustaf Adolf´s).

Roman · September 30, 2001, 17:14

Romans are my favourite civ...

Kurgan · October 3, 2001, 13:20

It is unbalanced the stats of these three units:
Legion 3/3/1
Immortals 4/2/1
War elephant 4/3/2

The War elephant is an ancient unit (Alexander vs. Poros), and the most effective in defense and attack unit of the ancient age was the legion. The immortals could not beat the Greek hoplites ever it was the opposite (the 10.000 of the anabasis), but they are given 4 in attack, elephants did not beat the roman legions in Zama, and that was before the reforms of Marius, which made the legions even deadlier. In the ancient world, when the legions were reasonably led, they were never beaten. The stats should be changed, because the elephants never were as succesful as the legions, but in the game they are deadlier, and nobody is going to convince me that they are not an ancient unit.

Comrade Tribune · October 3, 2001, 17:18

I think all three units are too strong, compared to Knights/Riders and probably even Pikes/Muskets.

Mars · October 3, 2001, 17:55

Making the roman or greek unit any stronger would unbalance the game

Kurgan · October 4, 2001, 08:16

We are talking here about the special aspects of the different civilizations, if you want a balanced game you just turn off the special abilities and units. But if you talk about the value of the different units it is stupid that the immortals that were never able to defeat the Greek phalanx are stronger not only than the phalanx, but also than legions, which were the only ones that were able to beat the Greeks.

Comrade Tribune · October 4, 2001, 13:27

I agree. The Mortals

should be comparatively early, but comparatively weak.

Mars · October 4, 2001, 15:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Kurgan
We are talking here about the special aspects of the different civilizations, if you want a balanced game you just turn off the special abilities and units. But if you talk about the value of the different units it is stupid that the immortals that were never able to defeat the Greek phalanx are stronger not only than the phalanx, but also than legions, which were the only ones that were able to beat the Greeks.

I like the UUs but you have to balance them. They're already early enough you can get iron working in like 20 turns which is nothing so no one would ever be the indians or the babylians because their UU would suck. Anyways the Immortals and the War elepants will aready have a hard time defeating the legion and phlanx because if you remeber when you fortify a unit it has a 50% better defense rating

orange · October 4, 2001, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

You didn´t quite get me. If it uses its first MP to attack, then it was open to being attacked the turn before ...

Not necessarily. A legion two spaces away could move next to the knight, using its one MP, and the next turn they'd start off next to each other. The knight uses its first MP to attack, and then scoot.

Comrade Tribune · October 4, 2001, 17:32

Sure; but I wouldn´t call that exactly a hit-and-run attack, if Your enemy has to come to You to make it work...