@ mini

What game and campaign difficulty will you be playing on? It is possible that you and a majority willl decide on a Medium for battle and Hard for campaign. I however, prefer Hard/Hard.

Since you're basing this on being as realistic then surely the battles should be as well in terms of losses? I think it is too easy on Medium, even though you would fighting on a par with the AI. The human player has an advantage with initiative and more often than not common sense which the AI lacks at times. I don't mind a battle which results in thousands of men on either side but you annihilating the enemy for a loss of 53 men on your side. Once in a while is OK, but it can get rather tiresome when this could happen 3-4 times on the trot. It makes the fun and the looking-forward-to-a-battle, actually thinking about strategy and double guessing your decisions with more discussion and (heated) debate in the Curia. It will ensure make sure that senators will not pick consuls/praetors who have failed to live up to expectations on the battlefield. Players will also be wary of not having tehir FM being killed off either.

My reason for the above is that despite the off-the-battlefield-debate/politics, we would not lose a battle as most of us here can easily beat a medium-difficulty-level army when at least on a level pegging with units. Reasding some of the AAR's just reinforces that, with massive victories and hardly any losses.

Anyway, it's your AAR, but just my thoughts.