Tarkus
10-19-2007, 17:23
Howdy all,
I was in the early phases of a Romani campaign in 0.81aV2 as 1.0 came out...I was trying to stay at least partly true to the historical progression of the Republic: first southern Italy, then Sicily, then Sardinia / Corsica, then the Qarthadastai proper.
Of course this is only a simulation (and don't get me wrong...an amazing one at that!!!), but I found myself getting a little frustrated by problems I began to encounter with my strategy...for example:
1. Despite negotiating an early alliance with the Lusotannans as I eliminated the Qarthadastai from Iberia, I found myself tying up significant resources trying to fend off repeated attacks from those that used to be my allies.
2. The Sweboz went on a mad tear to the south and east, ultimately setting up repeated attacks on my garrison at Patavium -- again forcing me to tie up large resources to defend my northern border.
Because of these "nuisances" I was forced to largely abandon my attempted historical strategy -- finish off the Qarthadastai as I raised armies for a campaign in Greece -- and deal with such threats as they came up. Still an incredible amount of fun, but not the same historical feel.
I'd like to see if I can adopt the same strategy in my fledgling 1.0 Romani campaign, but it's likely I'll run into the same issues. Specifically, I'd like to see if I can succeed the same way the Romans succeeded, and not find myself dealing with too many ahistorical threats. Any of you "realists" out there with similar experiences and responses...or am I just uniquely neurotic :sweatdrop:? Perhaps I should just mellow out and play the game...!! Just curious how y'all thought...
Thanks!
I was in the early phases of a Romani campaign in 0.81aV2 as 1.0 came out...I was trying to stay at least partly true to the historical progression of the Republic: first southern Italy, then Sicily, then Sardinia / Corsica, then the Qarthadastai proper.
Of course this is only a simulation (and don't get me wrong...an amazing one at that!!!), but I found myself getting a little frustrated by problems I began to encounter with my strategy...for example:
1. Despite negotiating an early alliance with the Lusotannans as I eliminated the Qarthadastai from Iberia, I found myself tying up significant resources trying to fend off repeated attacks from those that used to be my allies.
2. The Sweboz went on a mad tear to the south and east, ultimately setting up repeated attacks on my garrison at Patavium -- again forcing me to tie up large resources to defend my northern border.
Because of these "nuisances" I was forced to largely abandon my attempted historical strategy -- finish off the Qarthadastai as I raised armies for a campaign in Greece -- and deal with such threats as they came up. Still an incredible amount of fun, but not the same historical feel.
I'd like to see if I can adopt the same strategy in my fledgling 1.0 Romani campaign, but it's likely I'll run into the same issues. Specifically, I'd like to see if I can succeed the same way the Romans succeeded, and not find myself dealing with too many ahistorical threats. Any of you "realists" out there with similar experiences and responses...or am I just uniquely neurotic :sweatdrop:? Perhaps I should just mellow out and play the game...!! Just curious how y'all thought...
Thanks!