roman republic always had two consul every year, romans need two great generals...

iGor, interesting idea. While true, those consuls were typically very weak commanders and probably wouldn't constitute as 'great generals'. What I could do is change Mystery I where it does not yield a great general, change great orator to produce a great general, and then create a different type of general called 'Consul' which requires the senate and have the Romans start with 2 of them with a maximum global count of 2 which gives a small combat bonus but nothing like the Great General and if one dies the roman player can always creates another so that he always has 2. Interesting, I might work on that right now actually.

excuse me kruelgor, i love this period of the history, and your mod is awesome, i have played a lot of hours yet with the alpha...but, what about astures???julio cesar conquered gauls in 7 years with 4 legions, augusto needed 10 years and 7 legions to conquer them, and in the mod nobody lives there...(asturias and cantabria are placed in the north of spain)...

excuse me another time...julio cesar was consul, sila two times and cayo mario, the marian legion creator, was 7 times...all the consuls were great people in rome, but they was lawyers, orators, politicians and soldiers, everything at the same time...

So i have a ideas you sould add more city's for egypt. Becuse they had more land then just that.

Gauls should eventually get the idea do move units from sea to sea and the idea of roads, way later in the tech line though. This is my favorite mod by far, please keep up the work.!

More city states in Gaul, like the ones you find in Rome Total War 2, make it where the Gauls can eventually get the tech Romans get but make it take awhile; Gauls were reasonbiliy civilized, Brittany and British Celts had road systems and the Parisii had their own mint for money and such.

Milan should be a city state.

Maybe make a Irish (Hibernian) city state. Small and with no naval power.

Well all Civs should eventually get navies and the ability to build roads , I like Gutbomber'suggestions.

Been thinking about your rationale for keeping armies losses when besieging a city to only 1 per turn. Some thoughts of mine - The biggest losses inflicted on armies mounting a seige were 2 fold. Firstly, when actually trying to assault a breach but mainly from poor sanitation, dwindling food resources and disease. These addtional factors will have a cumlative effect over time. Dont know if it's possible to add extra losses, if a city doesnt fall in a certain time. This will also have the effect of putting pressure on players to take suffiencient forces to get the job done historically as quickly as possible. Ancient Commanders knew they didnt have as much time as they wanted. And none of this factors in political and morale impacts.

I'll see if I can SLIGHTLY increase the damage, but I'm not going to have attacking armies suffer catastrophic losses when there's no defending army. An empty city with no army is the defender's fault. Defender needs to build armies to defend cities. Technically it should just be a 1 turn piece of cake capture if there's no defending army there, so it's already at a huge benefit to the defender that it takes as long as it does for an attacker to capture the city.

Unless I'm missing something, eg an army inside a city adds to the defences? Surely cities have generic defences and in fact are not empty, especially at the scale of this mod, eg walls/pallisades, towers, ditches, archers, ballisti, garrison troops, burning oil etc which all help to protect the city. I completely agree with you that players should be encouraged to defend their cities with their own armies from outside but cities must equally be able to withstand a siege lasting several months, provided there are sufficient defences? Perhaps the building of walls for Civilised Civs and Pallisades for others could represent the cities preparations to withstand a siege. City without defences, then attacker suffers only 1 hit per attack. With defences, then greater losses??

Sounds good

Another observation in the same vein - Warships can too easily take a city on their own. I recognise they will have marines etc but personally dont think they should be able to actaully capture a city, must be ground units only?