Why are some Roman inventions so weak?

[Akbar The Great]

Perhaps there is a developer working for Paradox who thinks bacon is overrated and decided to make his opinion known through the invention.

They're probably vegan.

 

[olivenkranz]

They're probably vegan.

nah, flexi-pesca-vegatarian

 

[Poliut]

Perhaps there is a developer working for Paradox who thinks bacon is overrated and decided to make his opinion known through the invention.

 

[UBERWASP]

Rome doesn't need any more buffs, it's OP as hell already.

Then again someone has to say it, actually everyone has to understand this, if it's Rome it's not OP because Rome suppose to be powerfull. They take like... half the map or something literally.

 

[Nostalgium]

Then again someone has to say it, actually everyone has to understand this, if it's Rome it's not OP because Rome suppose to be powerfull. They take like... half the map or something literally.

They could've conquered the entire map and still have OP mechanics. Rome didn't win the world because their had space marine soldiers. Look up Roman defeats - there are a lot of them. They usually lose a couple battles against a foe before they win by adapting their tactics and strategy. They won because of that adaptability, the political situation of the world around them, and a lot of sheer luck - like any great conquering empire has to have. Of course, this is very hard to simulate in a game, no matter how good the mechanics of that game are, so I'm not averse to buffs that mechanically help historically prominent nations along (and honestly think Rome is in a good place ATM) but that doesn't mean these nations can't be OP.

 

[Nevars]

They could've conquered the entire map and still have OP mechanics. Rome didn't win the world because their had space marine soldiers. Look up Roman defeats - there are a lot of them. They usually lose a couple battles against a foe before they win by adapting their tactics and strategy. They won because of that adaptability, the political situation of the world around them, and a lot of sheer luck - like any great conquering empire has to have. Of course, this is very hard to simulate in a game, no matter how good the mechanics of that game are, so I'm not averse to buffs that mechanically help historically prominent nations along (and honestly think Rome is in a good place ATM) but that doesn't mean these nations can't be OP.

Nah they won by refusing to lose, that's it.

In antiquity losing decisive battles here or there would bring you to a negotiation table but Rome refuse it and simply raise more legion then send them again and again until their opponent calls quit.

Rome won by their sheer force of will to not lose and their impressive ability to raise more soldier, their adaptability aren't more impressive than everyone else, it's just that Rome attritioned everyone to submission by their ability to draw more soldier from their population than their opponent.

 

[Akbar The Great]

Then again someone has to say it, actually everyone has to understand this, if it's Rome it's not OP because Rome suppose to be powerfull. They take like... half the map or something literally.

They're OP as they're unstoppable, and expand too far to fast, unopposed, and are able to be at war contantly. Everyone knows the Historical boundaries. But this is a game, and although everyone wants a strong Rome, no-one whats the same Rome-Roflstomp appearing in every play-through.

So there's a lot more context to the crticism OP Rome has got from many people.