Rome almost defeated

[vonsch]

If you need to buy time to build walls, look for spots to build forts in the incoming path (choke points, if possible) and dump a sacrifice unit in the fort. Each fort can usually slow the incoming by two turns unless the army has good siege gear. A couple of those serially and you have your four turns. When desperate, I save some fractional units for this duty. A few men to put up a bit of a fight, slingers or archers of some sort will kill more than their own number, doesn't hurt to take a small bite out of the stack too.

I find playing EB I have a LOT more battle losses due to delaying tactics like this. No general is involved with the fort cases, but my HA delayers usually have a general and I don't see many negative traits (though I have seem some damage to morale in a case where the general in question was very young).

[Imperator]

You have to love it when you've got a campaign that actually requires strategy and thinking!
I'm in a similiar position in my campaign, it's 230 and I'm fighting a war with Aedui over Cisalpine Gaul. They had me on the ropes, taking back my towns of Banonia and Segesta and even threatening Arretium, but I was able to repulse them and have them on the defensive, trying desperately to capture Mediolanium from them.

I know it's off topic ( ) but I just thought I'd use this as a chance to say that this is a PERFECT example of why people should ALWAYS play slowly, role-play in EB. The game is balanced enough that even by 200 BC not too many factions are destroyed (some are just banished to islands and wastlands- but they might rise again) and you can actually fight a tough enemy. The AI actually fields tough, balanced armies given the chance and fields enough to actually threaten you! My navy has been running itself ragged trying to fight off the constant Macedonian invasions (full of phalangites with a handful of peltasts and occasional cavalry) from southern italy (which is TOTALLY undefended). I love the realism of it all- I NEED to win battles, because if I can't end the war quickly in Cisalpine Gaul, my navy will fail and I'll certainly lose southern Italy. But if I rush, I'll just wind up fighting the Aedui again later on- probably when I don't have 2 consular legions in Cisalpine Gaul). And Carthage is starting to leer at me with its navies...

if you want a fun, challanging and realistic campaign: SLOW DOWN, WAIT, AND PLAN!!! I pity those who reconstruct the Roman empire by 170 BC. Anyone can beat the AI, but if you take it slow, you'll actually get satifaction from your victories!

ok sorry...rant over

[alatar]

I know what you mean, I finnished the first punit war the year it historical started, and felt bad, so I sent a consular army into gaul, I'd take a settlement from the arveni, and give it to the auedi, after a few turns of this they betrayed me, and kept doing it,so I took cisapline (sp) gaul.

Now both galic factions are equal, I haven't expaned outside taly (save sicilly and sardinia, corsia). And Pontos died, and the Ptolmies have one settlement left!

Macedonia took most of grese then headed north, surronding the getai empire on all fronts, and still they move one.

The Saka are down to one province, the samaritns are moving west, the partians (sp) and clinging on, and Bakiria and the AS are racing for the indian provinces.

And the lusitions Have most of spain, no rebels. Carthage is in spain aswell, and the arveni. Casse are taking more of britian.
My first full Polbian army is sailing to grease to stop the Macedonian empire at it's heart, or maybe to stop the AS.

When I do start keeping the provincies I take (in 220 I think) It will be hetic, the sweboz had some trouble expaning so I gave them alot of cash and now there scary...