If you read smth about the roman empire, you'll see it wasn't peaceful at all. There was a gazillion of revolts each year and invasions. Take a look, during the civil war of the 69 A.D, there was a revolt in Britannia, a Batavian one in Germania and also a celtic one in the Gallia, along with the pretenders and the war against the jewish. That'd be boring for you?
). No rush, just line up and wait for your turn to be given what's yours (pa que te den lo tuyo ).
I don't fail to see the point, I'm saying it shouldn't be easy to just paint the map red, and there were many empires that could face the roman empire and make them suffer. The germanic tribes and the british tribes could barely be pacified and the parthians were always a menaceyou fail to see the point. After the 2nd punic war Rome was kickingasses all over the place. right, it was tough, right it took years, but while others where fighting for surviving Rome's game was a matter of definig goals, managing resources and get spoiled like a true roman ("I will retire to my states where I'll plough my fields and kcuf my slaves, just like old Cincinatus"
I commented not long ago in the "cazando ofertas" threat that a game with no invasion of Rusia is not a complete game. I didn't bother to explain it but the thing is that you need to have a challenge in the game as long as possible otherwise it's like early EU games, you play it only until 1600 when you basically can go anywhere and annex what you want. That is not fun, and that is why EU4 is better than 2 or 3, because it implements mechanics that refrain players to think their are playing Risk. Certainly, overpopulating the map with rebels is not the answer.
) which, although still fun, the game with Rome is not really fun even if you play it, as sometime I do, autoresolving battles and recruiting only proper roman units and a few auxiliaries. At the end of the day it's just a plain case of apilatanquismo, stackofdeath-ism. There is little more (EB2 where are you!!). Ignoring the political game would be to forget a big deal of the gears that built the ancient world.
you fail to see the point. After the 2nd punic war Rome was kickingasses all over the place. right, it was tough, right it took years, but while others where fighting for surviving Rome's game was a matter of definig goals, managing resources and get spoiled like a true roman ("I will retire to my states where I'll plough my fields and kcuf my slaves, just like old Cincinatus"
I commented not long ago in the "cazando ofertas" threat that a game with no invasion of Rusia is not a complete game. I didn't bother to explain it but the thing is that you need to have a challenge in the game as long as possible otherwise it's like early EU games, you play it only until 1600 when you basically can go anywhere and annex what you want. That is not fun, and that is why EU4 is better than 2 or 3, because it implements mechanics that refrain players to think their are playing Risk. Certainly, overpopulating the map with rebels is not the answer.
Parthia? jijijiif you play Rome as an EU game with historical results, after Carthage, ... no one really. that's my point.
Germanic invasions, constant rebellions and pretenders... China might have something to say, the empire would be too big...
). Sometimes legions were going there, sometimes they were paying a visit to Syria, most of the time there was nothing happening. I do not see Parthia as a challenge but more a case like Germany, you send Varus to get it but if the campaign fails you don't really care. an unprofitable province is not a strong casus belli.
That's not true. Many emperors died fighting Parthia and they had a serious obsession with them and later, with the Sassanids. Don't trust the roman propaganda...Parthia was never that. Parthia was an enemy too far to care much. Parthia was more like an annoyance (ask Crasus
They feared the germans. They never ever wanted them to unite and they usually killed strong leaders. Dacia was another problem, and once they were under a strong leadership, they just had to be defeated.
That's BS. A roman historian (Tacito, I don't care about the english name
) thought that the women who followed the army took part in the fight.
That's BS. A roman historian (Tacito, I don't care about the english name
Also, the roman military wasn't that superior if the conditions weren't 100% in his favour.
