# Rome: Total War



## Foxbat (Sep 11, 2004)

I believe this game is due for release this month. Shogun was very good, Medieval was excellent.....what superlatives to use for this one? We shall see. 
From what I've seen, this looks like something very special but - until it arrives on the shelves, I'll muddle away trying to get to grips with Pax Romana.....Oh how my head hurts


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 11, 2004)

Ah - they are *finally* getting around to releasing this one??

 I have to admit, I wasn't sure about the combat on...that TV show. Great graphics is good, but it seemed to lack any particularly strong playability. Maybe I'm just being overcautious, though - I never played Shogun or Mediaeval, so matbe I'll be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## cherokee (Sep 19, 2004)

I am definitely looking forward to this game.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 19, 2004)

Hmm. I've got a copy on pre-order but still no sign. Looks like another delay folks


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 19, 2004)

Hi Cherokee, and welcome to the chronicles-network.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Sep 19, 2004)

It is out on the 1st of October.


----------



## Hypes (Sep 20, 2004)

Pre-ordered here. Played the demo to death.


----------



## Hypes (Sep 20, 2004)

> I have to admit, I wasn't sure about the combat on...that TV show. Great graphics is good, but it seemed to lack any particularly strong playability.


Oh, trust me. It plays like nothing else - it's so wonderfully complex, yet simple to control, even with only your mouse.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 20, 2004)

I've just played the demo myself - most impressive.


----------



## Frost (Sep 20, 2004)

I'm not as excited about this game as I should be. I seem to have lost my zest for new PC games and I am starting to play a lot of older games. 

Although I still play Medieval Total War pretty much religiously - I am the King of Spain....and in the game.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 1, 2004)

It arrived today. first impressions are good. Now all I need to do is find the time to play the damn thing


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 2, 2004)

Having played this a bit - I like!
A few differences in control from the previous Total War games. The Strategic side looks prettier and is played in 6 monthly turns but I prefer the look of the previous strategic maps (just a personal preference). Only a few factions to play at the beginning but I hear that playing the game unlocks others. 
The battles are excellent with wonderfully atmospheric pre-battle speeches.
Good fun and many hours of said fun to be had whilst playing. I'm currently at war with Carthage and Mars himself would be proud of my deeds


----------



## Frost (Oct 2, 2004)

Got the game on Friday.....Its great! I love the cutscenes and battles.

  I started out as the Jullii and have defeated the Gauls and Germanians so far. 



> Only a few factions to play at the beginning but I hear that playing the game unlocks others.


 
 When you defeat a a faction you can play as them.


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 3, 2004)

> When you defeat a a faction you can play as them.



That makes sense. 

I want to play the Carthaginians but I hope it doesn't take me as long as it took the Romans to defeat them


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 4, 2016)

I've started playing this now - much easier as I'm familiar with the system from Mediaeval 2.

Starting with any Roman faction seems relatively easy enough. The only real irritation is how some cities end up revolting, no matter what you do to please them. And I really don't understand how cities are linked - not least when you end up with a bunch on negative income.

Played the Egyptians earlier in the week - conquered all nearby provinces and Anatolia, then into southern Europe and the heel of Italy. However, fighting against Rome is hard - especially when they've been allowed to develop. The sea was full of Roman boats, and Italty became flooded with Roman legions from all three families once I invaded there. Managed to win in the end, but was a slog.

So I decided to play as the Gauls, with the aim of knocking out the Roman factions as quickly as possible. Killing off the Julii was easy enough - though SPQR did try to intervene to save them, so I simply sent a second army army against Rome as a feint, which allowed me to finish the job. Then a march down the east coast of Italy to kill off the green Romans - then a hop across to Sicily to finish off the blues. 

Nearly worked - there are some green Romans in the Baltic states, and perhaps a blue Roman city somewhere there, too. But Rome as a power has been effectively destroyed, and it's the Brittania and Germania which have proven more of an annoyance. Currently have conquered western Europe, most of Spain, and have an army in North Africa. So will simply use a pincer movement to wipe out Carthage as both the Spanish and African Gaulish armies join up. Germania almost defeated, too, which means this faction has almost won much more easily - but only through knocking out the power of Rome quickly.

Will try a more distant faction next - but if Rome is allowed to build up it's power, I'll need to build up a strong fleet and a big invasion force - if nothing else than to claim Rome as a final province. Though I'll likely be fighting all three other Roman factions before then, which will be a pain. But - will see.


----------



## Jaxx (Mar 4, 2016)

Warhammer Total War is on the horizon. 



I haven't played any but love Warhammer. Your write up gets me rather intrigued in playing earlier incarnations Brian. As does others passion for the games.

Also 12 year gap between posts on a thread, must be some record? A testament to the game also!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 5, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> this faction has almost won much more easily



39 territories conquered - all looked like plain sailing to finish. Then, inexplicably, most of my cities ended up with huge minus incomes. Allowing cities to revolt and reconquering them simply shifted the losses elsewhere. After many turns of minus income and money, the tide has finally turned. But most of my developed cities need their military structures rebuilding, my armies are shattered and need building up. I hate it when strategy games throw that sort of thing in for no apparent reason. 


Jaxx said:


> Also 12 year gap between posts on a thread, must be some record? A testament to the game also!



I don't play many computer games, but I do like old turn-based strategy games - though most people like the War series for the actual battle command. This was the only dedicated thread we had on this game.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 5, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> 39 territories conquered - all looked like plain sailing to finish. Then, inexplicably, most of my cities ended up with huge minus incomes. Allowing cities to revolt and reconquering them simply shifted the losses elsewhere. After many turns of minus income and money, the tide has finally turned. But most of my developed cities need their military structures rebuilding, my armies are shattered and need building up. I hate it when strategy games throw that sort of thing in for no apparent reason.



Essentially the mechanic in Rome Total War was, as your cities became teeming with people the squalor would build up till everyone would get fed up, generate misery and then when the negatives were strong enough they would revolt.

So the best way to control that is to control your population growth in each city (ooh and culture!). If you want I could give you an in-depth discussion on how I do that, but you may not be interested!


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 5, 2016)

Venusian Broon said:


> If you want I could give you an in-depth discussion on how I do that, but you may not be interested!



Happy to hear - feel free to post links if it sounds like a complicated job.

I get the squalor part - I just don't understand how a load of settlements, at the same time, end up with -4000 to -6000 income. 

I guess not building crop rotation or sewers would help slow the growth, then?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 5, 2016)

<Cracks knuckles and clears throat... >

Firstly I don't pay attention to the city incomes on the map, my understanding is that for some reason they are *not* the actual income of the city, they are the income of the city _minus _the cost of your military spread out amongst all the cities. Why they wanted to show that on the screen I don't know. It's a totally useless metric. Just make sure that you are in positive territory in your main 'empire' financial screen (although I did manage to win a game with a debt of 117,000 once...)

Now I don't know what your style is for playing the game - I always like to have full control of my cities, but there are options to only allow building if there's a proper governor, and there's let the computer decide everything (but you tell it to go for growth or military). Never let the computer decide what to build - it'll do stupid things!

So to avoid those revolts I...

_To limit population growth_

- *Never, unless you really have to, improve the agriculture*. The problem is that as soon as you've added it you can never remove it. And it just sits there boosting the population growth the rest of the game. There's lots of other buildings that will come along and boost the growth anyway - I think trader and it's upgrades and some of the temples do that. I do sewers though - and they boost growth as well I think - but they stop disease (but...see later) But they can all be removed if you want to.

- *Tax*. Generally always put your tax to the highest you dare - even if some of the cities go 'yellow'. There is a direct correlation between tax and population growth and happiness. Less makes more happier people, more limits growth and makes people grumpy (of course!). As your cities go to the next level of government, there'll be more unrest, but you can always bring the tax levels down a notch as you are building the upgrade to the governor building.

- *Military. *Build your armies in the cities with the lowest rated morale with the highest populations - these men are taken directly from the population and help ease the unrest. In fact you can spawn vast numbers of peasants, make them march to a sparsely populated town, then disband them - thus making that town instantly bigger and push along its development. (and if they go rogue and bandit grey, then it's good easy practice for your regular armies and can give some of your units a nice chevron or two!)

-*Conquest. *Unless I have conquered a small hamlet with 400 people, I always put the city to the sword. Especially the big ones. You get a big boost of income and there'll still be enough people left over to replenish your ranks and get you a good tax income. And they'll be happier (for being alive???)

_Cultural things
_
The other lever you can use is to counterbalance all the negative pressures with positives.

- *Build all the cultural buildings.* Barbarians have the pubs, the romans have the very handy amphitheatres and other amusements (handy as they are tuneable) Also the temples of course.

- *Cultural penalties. *There's a penalty for one culture using the buildings of another, so you can limit that by knocking down all the old culture buildings and replacing them with your own. (Or building the next level up.) It does depend on what faction you are. The Romans (and Greeks and thereabouts I think) have five levels of buildings, while most of the barbarian civilisations have only three. So the barbarians are instantly at a disadvantage when they take a well-established big civilisation - also because they can't knock down the walls, roads or the agriculture. So if they are above or at level three you have to bear it. So there is that to remember.

- *Big garrisons.* Loads of soldiers always helps! Even loads of dirt cheap ones (like peasants, although if the city does revolt you'll be in trouble.)

-* Your capital.* The position of your capital helps. The closer it is to a city the more the population feel at ease and the levels of good will go up. Currently I'm the Spanish, so my capital is edging Eastward as I swarm across Europe and North Africa. (Always check for the cities you are moving further away from, that they do not go instantly into red.)

_And if you are in a foul mood...
_
- *Sneaky nasty leader 1 - biological warfare on your own population. *If you've done all of the above and the city is still teetering on the edge of revolt. i.e. at best 'blue' or has actually had a riot then you can get nasty. If there is a plague on the go somewhere in your empire you can utilise the fact that soldier, diplomats, spies and assassins can get infected. Use them to get the plague then move them to infect the cities that are stuffed with angry people and cull them! It impacts your tax income, but hey it's better than a full scale revolt - but if even that doesn't work (or there is just no disease about) then...

-*Sneaky nasty leader 2 - let a city revolt openly.* Better to be prepared rather than deal with something out of the blue. If you think not a hope of trying to get goodwill to the city: you've tried everything else and here's been a riot that's taken a bit of the pressure off, but it's still showing red. (I think the computer gives you one riot to sort things out - if nothing much changes in the next 3-4 shots there is likely to be a revolt.) You might as well put the place to the sword.

First stuff it with really good troops and a commander, then withdraw this garrison to make the place morale plummet. Then as soon as they revolt put the city under siege. Best to siege it as long as possible, I find, to kill off the ones inside. A siege battle forces them to come out of the gates, which gives you a chance to defeat them in detail. _Because_ they are generally all at least three silver chevron experienced. Which is pretty intense, because even a three silver chevron peasant unit is a tough cookie to crack! (It's even more of a challenge if the city has a coliseum, because I think that triggers a gladiatorial revolt - so as well as everything being very experienced, you'll also get the gladiator units, elephants and a whole bunch of other units that are really nasty.) Oh also, in these cases I like a good bunch of ranged units to kill as many of them as possible before a melee. (Ahh, I loved the Parthian and Armenian factions, horse archers are just awesome!)

-*Sneaky nasty leader 3 - let a city revolt openly and use it against another faction. *Perhaps you just don't have the men or time for the above tactic. If this city is geographically next to an enemy faction, possibly withdraw and let the city revolt and let the other faction attempt to take the city. Keep a spy near the place, and when they have massacred each other to manageable levels walk in and retake the place with a more reasonable sized force!


----------



## svalbard (Mar 5, 2016)

I always go with 'sneak nasty leader 2'.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 5, 2016)

Venusian Broon said:


> There's a penalty for one culture using the buildings of another



Oh - I hadn't realised that at all. When non-Roman I'd been keeping the theatres and similar. I think I'll start replacing all foreign buildings now...



Venusian Broon said:


> biological warfare on your own population



That is sneaky!


Venusian Broon said:


> In fact you can spawn vast numbers of peasants, make them march to a sparsely populated town, then disband them - thus making that town instantly bigger and push along its development.



That is clever - never thought of that. 

Many thanks for the detailed reply as well - much appreciated.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Mar 5, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> Oh - I hadn't realised that at all. When non-Roman I'd been keeping the theatres and similar. I think I'll start replacing all foreign buildings now...



Be a bit careful...I think as a barbarian faction, if you don't have coliseums  in your tech tree and you take a city with one, it might be worthwhile keeping the building for the bigger positive bonus that it produces versus the negative cultural impact. But stuff like trading, blacksmithing, barracks, stables etc... you can smash down and replace!

Basically if you play your cards right you get loads of cities coming up at the top of their tech tree (level 3 or 5) and a population growth of 0% - stable, big populations in the 20,000 range (so your tax income is high) and a morale somewhere near or over 100%. Leaving you to concentrate on important tasks such as expanding the empire and wiping out factions !


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 6, 2016)

Finished as the Greeks - was easy enough, especially once I'd developed a few armies of experienced armoured hoplites, and made Rome my enemy from the start. Temples with trading bonuses seem to ensure less chance of running out of money.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 12, 2016)

Yay - I found how to unlock the non-playable factions:
How to unlock all factions?



> Go to your main RTW folder and then go to the following folder:
> Rome - Total War/data/world/maps/campaign/imperial_campaign
> 
> In this folder is the descr_strat.txt file
> ...



I don't understand why some civs were normally unplayable, but am now having fun with the Macedonians.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 13, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> Yay - I found how to unlock the non-playable factions:
> How to unlock all factions?
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, if you play the game 'properly' the other civs are unlocked when you wipe them out. (Incentive to play???) 

My favourite faction was the Armenian. Horse archers, heavy armoured horse and good spearman (way better than the "pyjama men" that the Parthians get!).  Totally overpowering you with options in totally crushing the opposition


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 22, 2016)

I couldn't get the other civs to unlock, even by wiping them out, so the hack was useful.

What's really good about those factions is how much harder they are - I do enjoy a challenge. 

However, so far I've failed to win as either the Spanish or Numidians - my strategy has always been to build up strong infantry units, but in both instances they were too weak to be a serious challenge to Roman legions.

Am currently playing the Dacians, which has been really hard - I took the steppes of Russia, thinking it would be a safe place to claim early on - only to face a simultaneous attack of the Julii and Brutii from the west, Germans from the north, and Pontus then the Egyptians from the east. 

Even worse was that I quickly ran out of money so couldn't rebuild my units. So I put together a squad, shipped them to Greece in a boat, and destroyed the Scipii from their poorly defended rear, using cash from plundered towns to rebuild finances - even if I had to completely destroy a couple in the process.

Managed to take southern and northern Italy, but am going into negative cash again - so may have to cross over to Sicily and plunder there.

But - altogether - I do enjoy the greater challenge of the smaller factions.


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 23, 2016)

One of the weirdest campaigns I came across was when I was the Spanish - I had focused for a while on wiping out the Romans, to discover that the Greek city states were the dominant power in the East (and had effectively defeated Egypt!) So it was bizarre using quite a 'light' army - i.e. most of Spanish troops are light - against loads of Spartans and bronze shield Hoplites. I got them in the end though...

Personally when the faction allows it - and it does for the Spanish and Numidians - I use Alexander the great tactics. Solid infantry centre and flank/s of cavalry. Sweep the enemies flanks away with massive cavalry charges while your centre pins down their centre, then when they have routed them hit their exposed centre from behind (or at least before your centre routs ). It's slightly harder with the Numidians as they (from memory) just have javelin cavalry - which are ace - but not brilliant at running into bodies of infantry, although they can do that if required. But the Spanish cavalry are more 'melee' sort of troops.

As for the financial side of things, after personally doing a few disastrous campaigns, it is clear that your medium term goal should be always to aim to occupy cash-rich areas. They are (roughly) Italy/North Africa, Greece/Turkey and Egypt/Levant. Other territories are required if you are going for the 50 target, but some of them are so underdeveloped they will not allow you to sustain large armies!

Actually managed to get a 50 state win with the Dacians while I was in negative cash for a large part of that campaign. Took a bit of micro management to keep all the cities from not rebelling and required a very efficient use of troops. But it is possible.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 23, 2016)

Venusian Broon said:


> I use Alexander the great tactics.



Ah - I never play the battles. I know I'm probably missing out, but I love the turn-based strategy element the most.


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 23, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> Ah - I never play the battles. I know I'm probably missing out, but I love the turn-based strategy element the most.


I see!

Actually I think the 'dice rolling' battle autopilot isn't quite right. There is a strong suspicion that it really overweight's the impact of chariots - so the British, Egyptian and Pontus factions can get a big boost because of their unit roster. When you play the battles, you can compensate for whatever is facing you and disrupt them first (especially annoying chariots!)

To be honest I think playing the computer as a human really gives you a massive advantage, as the AI isn't brilliant on the battlefield...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 7, 2016)

*Finally* won as the Numidians, though it was hard. Had to use the tactic (I'd not used before) of garrisoning safe towns with peasants, rather than soldiers, as the Numidian soldiers are expensive to maintain. That helped on the cash side.

On the battlefront, I couldn't expand in a linear manner - I took a big army east into Egypt, but when it was clear I wouldn't hold Alexandria or Thebes I looted the cities (while building my own basic temples), then took that same army around the med, looting other Egyptian settlements. That gave me enough cash to maintain a strong and experienced army for attacks behind the Roman lines at Sicily and Greece, then the soft underbelly of Italy. 

Then it was just a slog to slowly expand - though it seemed to help to have Numidian temples in the Egyptian cities I'd previously attacked, to make them less restless after conquest.



Venusian Broon said:


> There is a strong suspicion that it really overweight's the impact of chariots - so the British, Egyptian and Pontus factions can get a big boost because of their unit roster.



Totally. Praetorians sometimes, too. I normally avoid the battlefield, but there was one time when a few Britons with chariots were holding off a massive army of mine - I'd lose with hundreds of casualties, while the Britons lost a handful. Eventually I got frustrated and took it to the battlefield, where I easily routed them.

Roman cities revolting are also a pain - even after destroying all facilities, they still somehow manage to end up filled with gold-standard experience/armour/weapon bonus Praetorians. Garrisoning with peasants in the Numidian campaign seemed to help prevent that.

Might need to have a try with SPQR...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 12, 2016)

It's a shame SPQR isn't offered as a training mode - the ability to play without cities rebelling is very useful. 

Had presumed the other Roman factions would remain friendly for a while, but they turned on SPQR almost immediately.

Finally won as the Numidians, and just about to do so with the Spanish. Seems the secret remains to hit Roman factions as quickly as possible - before they get too many weapon and armour bonuses - no matter the geographic distance.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Oct 5, 2016)

Hey @Brian Turner, 

This might be a disaster giving you this recommendation - given that we should be concentrating on writing and other things - but from what you've written about your Total War play style...

I've just stumbled on to _Crusader Kings II _and I think it would be really up your street. It's a couple orders of magnitude more complex* than any Total War game - much more focused on Dynasties and really trying to manage individual people than trying to 'paint' your faction across the map. (You can of course paint your CK2 faction across the map, but the dynamic for doing it is different.) They don't do the battles that TW is of course famous for - but you've stated in the past that you tend to autosave, so... 

I can point to some 'let's play' videos on Youtube if you are interested in seeing what I'm talking about...but I fear it may unleash a beast that takes over your life!

I love TW games too, but I think I'm addicted to this one - I hope there are CK2-anonymous groups out there somewhere 

-----------------------------------

* more towards the 'dwarf fortress' side of complexity - I mean the complexity dial is not set at '11' like DF but still enough for me, after 100 hours to be still finding discovering rules and mechanism popping out!


----------



## Boaz (Aug 8, 2018)

Cannot believe I never posted on this thread...

I played RTW a ton back in '04 and '05.  I've played it again over the years.

My most memorable campaign... Germania.  The first born grandson (forgot his name) of the original faction leader was tabbed to be the Conqueror of Rome!  His grandfather and father had conquered northern Gallia and all of Britannia.  When he came of age, he was given command of the primary offensive army in order to build up his command rating to become the Conqueror of Rome!  He conquered southern Gallia and all of Iberia.  The Germanic horde was numerous, discipled, and led by my Teutonic Ten-Star Tactical Top Dog (I cannot think of a T word for leader).  Just as my (probably) unbeatable army arrived at Mediolanum to begin the conquest of the Julii... they slipped an assassin into my camp and killed my would be conqueror of rome...  Leaderless, my horde was crushed and the Julii and Brutii proceeded to invade Germania while the Senate invaded southern Gallia.  I did not mean to.... but the campaign played out along the lines of Gaius Marius defeating the Teutones in the second century.  I quit in disgust and never played the Germans again.

I always enjoyed playing as a Roman faction and putting limitations upon myself.... 

1. I cannot start the Civil War through any means, I have to let the Senate begin.  Assassinating other Roman characters can trigger the Civil War... so I just have to allow their characters free access to my lands.

2.  My number of provinces cannot exceed the combined total of the other two Roman factions and the Senate.  This will require patience. You will wait and wait.  The other Romans will get prepared in finance, equipment, and men.  I have found that betraying the Republic with a sneak attack or a blitzkrieg when they least expect it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  I want to play the moral high ground... the Savior of Rome, not the Satan of Rome.

3. While waiting, I must respect the Senate's stance toward my neighbors.  If the Senate is allied to the Dacians (who have unaccountably left their cities undefended), then I cannot assail the Dacians. If the Senate wishes my faction to attack their enemies on the other side of the map, I must make at least a token effort... eg. As Julii, I have only one stack of ships of ships dropping troops off near Narbo Martius (Southern Gallia) and the Senate requests I blockade the port of Athens within five years.  My fleet cannot make it in five... probably more like six or seven if we run into enemies.  I know my biremes will be sunk by Greek triremes anyway.  So I dutifully commission one ship from Arretium (my only shipbuilding facility) and send it knowing it will be late and probably sunk by Carthaginians, Macedonians or Greeks.

The early game as Seleucia is a lot of fun.  You can try diplomacy, but most likely you'll be at war with all your neighbors in twenty years.... Egypt, Parthia, Pontus, Armenia, and Greece.... and if it goes horribly wrong, the Thracians, Macedonians, and Brutii will join in the mayhem.  As the Seleucids, you know you need to defeat the Parthians to the east, you'd like to take the neutrals to the south, you'd like to grab the rich cities of Anatolia and Syria, you'd like to grab the wonders in Anatolia and Rhodes, but the Egyptians want your cities, the Arabian neutrals and the riches and wonders of Anatolia.  Clearly Pontus and Armenia are nicer, they only want your cities. The lack of roads, coupled with vast distances, make it feel as though you're playing five (maybe six) separate factions on a dozen fronts or more.

Carthage can be fun, frustrating or both.  I've knocked out the Scipiones by 200 BC, only to have the other Romans crush me.


----------



## Boaz (Aug 8, 2018)

I have a friend who used to play with his brother.  My friend played the Patriarch.  He made all decisions on building, recruiting, diplomacy, finance... everything.  And his brother played the General.  He fought every skirmish, battle, and siege.  The loved it!  Their favorite campaign was as the Carthaginians... within two generations they were overrun by Rome, Numidia, and the Spanish.  All they had was the Balearic Islands and Carthage... With stacks of Scipiones closing in,  the Patriarch decided to load up his remaining troops and escape by sea.  The Carthaginian refugees made it to Britannia where the General conquered Londinium.  Guiding their newly exiled Carthaginian Republic (far from Roman power), they defeated the northern and western barbarians.  Ultimately, they conquered Rome without having any African or Mediterranean island possessions.


----------



## Boaz (Nov 21, 2018)

@Brian G Turner Did you ever really play a campaign as SPQR?  Rome is a financial powerhouse, but having the Civil War start on turn 2 was a shock the first time I did it.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 23, 2018)

Boaz said:


> @Brian G Turner Did you ever really play a campaign as SPQR?  Rome is a financial powerhouse, but having the Civil War start on turn 2 was a shock the first time I did it.



Yep - hit hard and fast.


----------

