Does RTW follow a modern idea of war?

[Will_YouFight_ForME]

i would say Romanised diplomacy is more complex than Medieval diplomacy
because its imperialistic but then again barbaric
i have no idea how it would work, except for 'eye for an Eye' concept
rome total war tried to convey this with the computer running the senate and you doing their bidding
but really me contemplating roman politics at this hour is not really what my brain wants todo

it was complex to say the least, but then again not when facing barbarians

i think in Britain they would offer a protectorate - they denied- they get get 'forced' to comply in rtw you cant force to comply anything, you just wipe them out and romanise etc.

Carthage was destroyed because the romans saw they deserved it and they rebuilt it later

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i would say Romanised diplomacy is more complex than Medieval diplomacy
because its imperialistic but then again barbaric
i have no idea how it would work, except for 'eye for an Eye' concept
rome total war tried to convey this with the computer running the senate and you doing their bidding
but really me contemplating roman politics at this hour is not really what my brain wants todo

it was complex to say the least, but then again not when facing barbarians

i think in Britain they would offer a protectorate - they denied- they get get 'forced' to comply in rtw you cant force to comply anything, you just wipe them out and romanise etc.

Carthage was destroyed because the romans saw they deserved it and they rebuilt it later

That is total twaddle. Roman diplomacy was not "barbarian." The Romans, like anyone imposed conditions when the won, which they usually did. The idea that the Romans would never sign a treaty and just wipe you out instead is just plain wrong.

Rome was Imperialistic, i.e. the idea was to take over. That sort of means there are a limited number of options. As far as barbarian goes, Romano-Hellenic civilisation was more advanced than Enlightenment Europe in some ways and way ahead of anything before that in every way.

[RabbitDynamite]

Brest-Litovsk wasn't really signed because Russia would be losing the war, was it? It was because of internal troubles in Russia (commies had just come to power)
or am I totally messing it up?
Perhaps history turns it that way that nations that didn't sign to these kind of treaties, actually won, won against low odds...

Little from column A, little from column B. It's probably true that what made Lenin willing to sign the treaty immediately despite it's cost was his political situation. But he must also have known that Russia had lost the war. The provisional government had attempted to launch an offensive the June before the October revolution, which had to be called off simply because the Russian troops were deserting en masse. Once the Bolsheviks came to power, they deserted all the more because they'd heard the nobility's estates were being shared out and didn't want to miss out. And anyway, the Revolution had come mainly because Russia was so overstretched by the losing war effort and the casualty rates.