Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
If you'd go with a later starting date, romes basic strengths would need to be nerfed down in those, unless every later starting date would just be more boring playing rome, and more struggle playing anybody else.
Even the 3rd century stuff with the gaulic and palmyran empires breaking out of rome for a while would be not really hard to master as rome with how the game works.
Yes and the point about later starting dates (the logical next one would be the punic wars) is that besides one for just the clash carthage - rome would just be more and more rome-dominated.
And the game as is already has a pretty OP Rome that doesn't really has to fear much unless a player goes straight for it with one of the more powerfull nations.
At least I guess you are talking about more starting dates, since just making the game-time longer doesn't do anything you couldn't already have, after all you can play on after the end-date, it just disables achievements.