[Spoilers] What have the Romans ever done for us?

[Jkaen]

First post spoiler message I am not entirely sure is needed anymore

[Jkaen]

Well, went for Rome.

I think the one right choice probably was China, after that I also considered:

Carthage: Free harbour should help money issues which I expect to be much worse than single player, plus being able to travel over mountains adds a nice novelty value to the civ.

Japan: Mainly just for their power, however I am worried a lot of the battles here will be settled at range, where their special is less useful.

Poland: Nice generally useful power, and can ramp up into quite a strong mounted army with its UA/UB, however I have never been much of a fan of cavalry in civ5.

Germany: Have price pikemen would be the real draw here, but again I wondered how useful cheap melee would be rather than ranged units.

[Jkaen]

Expectations:

About the best I think is realistic this game is I may grab the best thread award.

Don't think my civ skills are generally up at the same level as many others on this site, and some of those have already played in multiplayer civ5 here too.

So going to try to cut out the stupid mistakes, and we will see where we end up.

[Jkaen]

Ok, why Rome?

Mainly for the Ability.

+25% Production towards any buildings that already exist in the Capital.

Obviously its more useful in a wider empire, than I am probably going to see here (guessing I will get about 5 cities from reading prior games), but saved hammers are still saved hammers.


For Unique Units, I have the Ballista



75 Hammers, Str 8, Move 2, Ranged 10/2

Compared to the catapult it replaces (one of the key units in early war)

75 Hammers, Str 7, Move 2, Ranged 8/2 (also wiki says catapult has limited visibility, which isnt mentioned on the Ballista)

I also have the Legion



75 Hammers, Str 17, Move 2 (can build roads and forts)

Compares to the swordsman

75 Hammers, Str 14, Move 2


One big drawback however is both my UA's need Iron, so there usefullness obviously depends on how much Iron I get.


So generally its a civ that should be useful no matter what situation I get into, and gives me flexibility to react and change my plan (what little there is) as the game goes on.

[Jkaen]

Its important to note that I get the earliest UA in this game (Classical Era), the others coming Medieval (China), Renaissance (Poland) and Industrial (Austria).

That means that hopefully I may get left alone near the start, and also that if I do want to go to war here, I am probably best doing it early.

We will see how the terrain develops, but I expect a small war to grab 1 or 2 key cities before settling back again is probably the best approach to take.

[Jkaen]

So just played my first turn, having to sneak it in while at work, so can't do a proper report for a couple of days until I can play at home again.

The start around my presettled city is 1 square coastal, and has 3 silvers, so have gone mining and scout opening. Moving the starting warrior showed me stone about 6 squares away, so will check that out as a possible 2nd city spot.

Anyway back to the wierdness, as mentioned my settler was presettled, and when I logged in for the first ever time I had a warrior and a city, not a settler.

Was this meant to happen? I see Azza has a tiny amount of points indicating he hasn't got a city yet.

Its probably where I would have settled anyway I guess, but does seem a bit of a handicap already in the game, not having the choice or the possible extra visability I would have had.

[Jkaen]

Oh, the other decision I made is I am currently working the 2 food 2 commerce silver tile rather than the only other option which was 1 food 1 hammer.

Mining from memory completes in 7 turns

[Ichabod]

So just played my first turn, having to sneak it in while at work, so can't do a proper report for a couple of days until I can play at home again.

The start around my presettled city is 1 square coastal, and has 3 silvers, so have gone mining and scout opening. Moving the starting warrior showed me stone about 6 squares away, so will check that out as a possible 2nd city spot.

Anyway back to the wierdness, as mentioned my settler was presettled, and when I logged in for the first ever time I had a warrior and a city, not a settler.

Was this meant to happen? I see Azza has a tiny amount of points indicating he hasn't got a city yet.

Its probably where I would have settled anyway I guess, but does seem a bit of a handicap already in the game, not having the choice or the possible extra visability I would have had.

The heck? I have no idea how this happened. I saved the game before going through each of your starts. I have no idea how your city would end up already settled (there's a chance I settled it while testing to see the surroundings, but I didn't save the game afterwards). I'm really sorry about that. The only explanation I can think of is that the game somehow copied what I've done into the save, but that's just completely crazy.

It was turn 0, right?

[Ichabod]

Just checked the save I've sent to Meiz: your city wasn't preplaced there. No idea about what happened...

[Jkaen]

Without giving information out do you think I would have settled in place? If so no big harm. Thanks again for doing a thankless job