Agreed that the problem are the weaker "barbarians", not the Romans.Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Agreed that the problem are the weaker "barbarians", not the Romans.Originally Posted by Dead Moroz
Well, then, won't two Roman factions be stronger than three?
I'm still not here
How? Isn't it just illogical?Originally Posted by eadingas
You get the resources divided in two, not three. You get the world divided between two, not three. You get Italy divided between two, not three. Two factions have more possibilities of expansion than three. It will take longer to trigger civil war for two factions than three. Etc.
I'm still not here
Disagree. Especially about civil war.Originally Posted by eadingas
And this system of Roman factions is related more to political simulation than to conquests. There is only one faction enough to simulate Roman conquest. The only purpose of making 4 Roman factions instead of one is to simulate political struggle within Roman society. All Roman factions must have equal conditions in start to make this system less predictable and to allow it to go it's own way in every new game.
I think we were playing a different game... Three factions is less predictable system than two? But with three, you always get the same game: Bruttii go east, Scipii go south, Julii go north... always the same setup... With two, I've seen Scipii AI forget Carthage and go straight for Macedon, or Julii forget Gauls and go straight for Illiria, Pannonia and Thracia. How's that for unpredictability?
And as for historical reality, which was, IIRC, one of the points of this mod, show me what political struggle of the Republic era is simulated by dividing it in three instead of two?
I'm still not here
Triumvirate?Originally Posted by eadingas
![]()
Bookmarks