Is EBII campaign Longer in time and years ?

[Cartaphilus]

I think it would make more sense to reduce the timeframe. Let it run from 272bc to the Marians (or whatever), then do a second campaign starting roughly when the first ends.

That way you could have factions that are "questionable" in 272BC (Parthia, Bactria) in the later campaign without bending the truth.

You'd get around one of RTW's Achille's heels, the way the the "barbarian" factions don't learn (e.g. to build paved roads) as they become more urbanised.

You'd get around the game starting to become boring after you hit 30-50 provinces and the opposition turn into speed bumps, and the distance to capital penalties cause more difficulty than the enemy.

You'd mitigate the disconnect between the actual history that the EB team privilege and the alternate history that players create in the game by reducing the scope for factions to expand non-historically.

That would be perfect, so It won't happen. :(

In the late campaign, we can have some interesting factions, and the roman juggernaut could be divided in a cool civil war (the first or the second triunvirate).

[Bellum]

Heh, EB is more than long enough as it is. I've yet to sit through an entire campaign, and if they keep making new versions.... God, I'll end up starting campaigns over for the rest of my life. Can't wait for EB III, btw.

[Mithridates VI Eupator]

I have never managed to get further than something like 160 b.C in a campaign. (Playing as Saba in EB 1.0)

Therefore, I think that the length of the campaign is great just as it is, as even though I have played for ca. 448 turns (4*112), more than half of the game's time span is still ahead of me.
Then again, I don't think that the team had any plans to change it anyway...