An Easy start on Any Difficulty

[Bartholemew-Varath]

I always find that if you extend your borders right from the start, further into the game the campaign seems easier. Does anybody else think this?

When i first played RTW, which was around last christmas, i didnt expand and was stuck fighting the Gauls as the Julli, and it was a losing battle. I barely built any soldiers and focused on teching up my trade buildings. I would have lost, so i lost interest in the campaign.

When i play it now, i just advance as quickly as possible, building as many soldiers as possible and sending them in. I quickly destroyed the Gauls. Then further into the campaign the battles are much easier and my money isnt stretched as much

[Quintus.JC]

The more settlement you own, the money you get from taxes etc.etc. Just focusing on your original settlements gets you nowhere. So of course after a period of rapid expansion you'll feel the campaign is much easier, but after a while it might get a bit boring with the micro-managing and stuff.

[Caesar the IIIV]

this worked very well with me with the scipii, and i completed it on easy/easy in 24 yrs :yes:

[Quirinus]

It depends, I think. Some settlements are dead-ends and require more effort to maintain (i.e. garrisons) than any strategic or economic value gained. For example, Iuvavum has less than 1000 pop., which means it's going to be ages until you can wring something out of it, and in the meantime you're attacked from all sides by the Dacians, Germans and Gauls.

Or, expanding into Nicomedia from Byzantium as the Macedonians when you're fighting the Greeks and the Brutii is likely to open a front with Pontus and maybe the Seleucids, which may overwhelm you-- better in this case to stop at Byzantium.