If I'm understanding Geffalrus's proposal correctly, if your infantry beats my infantry, and my cavalry beats your cavalry, you're still going to win the battle. However, if our infantry is evenly matched and my cavalry beats your cavalry, I will win. It is still the age of infantry, and they are t...

Of course, someone can search the intellectual bowels of the infallible internet and find an exception to the rule. That's fine, as long as we accept that it is an exception, not a new rule. I agree with your point 100%, no single incident should be taken as a guideline to inform all incidents. Tha...

"Cavalry were important in the ancient era." I'm sure we can all find that on the internet, because they were. What that means is a phalanx or a legion could not chase off a light cavalry raid on a village. Only medium cavalry with lightly armored cavalrymen could do that. Both of these c...

I really like the idea of a unit’s battle rating being based on terrain. You’re 100% right that a different rating for attack/defense is very odd for this age of combat.

Client States are friendly realms with good relations that are also tributaries. I think you are suggesting forced satellite or puppet relationships as the price of peace in a war. I'd wager that was considered but tabled as adding unnecessary complexity to warfare, diplomacy, legacy and decadence ...

I second these, particularly some kind of self deployment option, as the AI deployments can be pretty far off the mark.

I think Pocus said this is just a short-term fix because clearly there needs to be a way to prevent AI from DOWing you and forcing you to increase decadence by taking their land, since that's the only way to beat them in a war. Well I don't think the issue lies in AI behavior, we just need to *not ...

Maybe it would be useful to have a building ledger that lists what is being built in each region, with regions grouped by province and provinces color coded or separated in some obvious way, so you can see at a glance what is being built, and verify that you’re build something in every province. Th...

I never use the province interface, so maybe it's the problem. I want to go to every region and decide what they build. You say it's better to have all regions but 1 remain idle and use all the infrastructure pool to flash-build a building and then move to the next one. That means you'd want to see...

Playing as Rome is very easy, playing as Epirus is not. It does say Epirus will be more difficult if you select them, but I suspect the people that say its too hard are the ones that tried as Epirus.

I had an easier time on the grand campaign first play theough than I did as Epirus in the starter.

While I appreciate all the great work that went into developing this fine product, my first impressions are mixed playing Rome. While I like the military management - very innovative - and 3M (Metal-Manpower-Money) management, I'm not caring for the management of decadence or of slaves or whatever ...

The culture decadence mechanic is why I bought the game. I don’t want it to go away, but I do think it could be toned down, or provide a few more paths to get out feom under it if you fall behind. As it currently stands, you can get into a situation in which the only reason you’re interested in food...

That's strange, I don't see how you can lose a region if you don't lose the city and will the battle what's more. Either a misunderstanding or a bug. If you're not meant to lose a region after winning the battle, it is a fairly prevalent bug. Happens to me a lot. I don't know if toppins got you an ...

That objective is there for the moment they backstab you. You can plan ahead to grab it the moment his dagger moves. Or declare war on him, wait till he captures two of your regios then grab the objective and make peace. Rebuild the relationship and you can feel good about it. You gave him two for ...

Are there examples of permanent allies in the ancient world? Perhaps not, but if the guiding principal for this game's design is that it should not venture far from actual events, than it shouldn't be possible to claim victory with any nation other than Rome. (No one else even comes close to Rome's...

Multiple times now, I've had a slave rebellion in a region in which I have stationed a strong garrison. The garrison has defeated but not destroyed the slaves (they have a unit or two that survives the pursuit phase of the battle.) But at the start of the next turn, the slaves have taken control of ...

Can we have a little explanation about the choice made by our rulers for the assignment of objectives? --- is random ? --- is it for missing resources? --- historical choices? any explanation would be welcome :D :D at the moment, they are hard coded. A couple of factions have multiple groups/tracks...

I've been playing more than 200 turns with an objective in my subject territory and I didn't backstab them. It's a very minor annoyance imo. I would probably find that to be a minor annoyance as well if I was only dealing with one objective. I currently have four objectives, three of which are in a...

Another thing I'll add - I'd really like to see diplomacy expanded. Right now, based on my understanding, the AI likes to declare war a lot and the problem is if some nation declares war on me that has territory that I don't want right now, I'm forced to beat them and usually take at least some of ...

I would like to see a feature that prevents the assignment of objectives in territories controlled by current allies. Obviously, if I form an alliance with a nation where I currently have an objective, that is a trade off I am choosing to make, but when a new objective is assigned to a region which ...