Your statement is very true. However I propose to you that they will not dominate the game. Everyone knows that these are the strongest factions. Its no secret. But i dont care how strong a faction is, it can still be overcome by the combined strength of the weaker factions around it. Im saying that the weaker factions will join together to bring down a common enemy. Its all a question of diplomacy. Can the weak factions overcome their differences and ambitions to overcome the strong or can the strong divide and conquer. The roman factions as well are not allied. They should be very wary of eachother knowing that eventually they will have to turn on a faction equally as strong as them. If i were a roman faction id consider ignoring outward expansion in favor of eliminating the other roman factions and claiming italy as a very good strategy. One that will have huge payoffs later in the game when i wouldnt have to face them in their much stronger form. The romans start out rather bite-sized even to eachother. Egypt however is a bigger problem as its only neighbors are the seleucids and numidia or in other words just the seleucids. Egypt has plenty of room for expansion, the means to do it, and doesnt need to worry about all of its borders. Yes egypt will be difficult to bring down but not impossible. Especially if Rome and egypt were to go head to head. The question would become who of the two has more allies. Rome has a large advantage over egypt in that egypt's prime homelands are much more accessable. Roman expansion creates a buffer zone of conquered land between its homeland and its enemies. Egypt doesnt have this. I have exploited this weakness many times in the singleplayer campaign by sending an invasion force straight to egypt's homelands rather than go the long hard way through its conquered territory.Originally Posted by Craterus
I forget what my original point. Regardless im sure you get the idea.
Bookmarks