Quote Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum
I just keep asking myself why they removed so many provinces in this addon and let the map size the same... why removing provinces ? Even in vanilla 1.0, many player complained about the small number of provinces and map extension, considering the posibilities of the game in recreating at least a reasonable historically-acurate environment.
Many people actually complained about the number of sieges: there were too many and they were boring or just displayed the A.I.'s incompetence. I don't really see how decreasing the development level of cities will help that.

Quote Originally Posted by Rex_Pelasgorum
The Sassanians and the Huns stretched alot in the east... sometimes, troubles in the east stopped the Sassanians from fighting the ERE....Stopping the map somwhere just east of the Zagros Mountains is like cutting down from history half of the Sassanian Empire... Egipt reduced to only one province ? Sahara the same... reduced.... when all those small Tamazigh kingdoms played such an important role during the vandals, until late up to the arab invasion ... "Colonia Dacia" ? Never existed such a town... maybe "Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza"...
Well, cutting the Seleucid Empire in half wasn't very historical either. You have to end the map somewhere, so you will always run into this problem. Egypt did not play an important role in the late Empire, so why devote many cities to it? IIRC Colonia Dacia was the common name of Colonia Ulpia Traiana Sarmisegetuza, the latter being rather too long for everyday life.

I think the problem is that CA caters for the general market, not the history fanatics. The latter are very picky, meaning you need to spend a lot of time doing research. CA either could not or would not do that, so they cut some corners and sometimes set gameplay overrule realism. I don't like this either, but as far as I can see, the BI expansion is quite an improvement over vanilla when it comes to both gameplay and realism.