u/Quiet_Tradition9665

"If you’ve got ideas, feedback, or even half-baked concepts, throw them our way. Historical inspirations, gameplay gaps, or just “this can be better” suggestions are all welcome."

Quotes from the DEI Facebook page. I'm 5 months late, but better late than never.
My 2 cents on this topic: I haven't re-checked all stats in-game, so take it with a grain of salt.

In general, the holy triumvirate of such units is:

• from a people that is not (explicitly) represented by a main faction
• fills a role that at least some factions might have trouble filling otherwise
• is good enough in combat that you actually want to hire them. Ideally, you want to actively get a foot in that region so you can recruit them.

First, mercenaries. I think mercenaries are fine overall; you can get some good and flavourful ones in many places.

If I had to choose areas to improve, I think Persia/Mesopotamia and Illyria are fairly weak, with units that are usable at best. Corsica et Sardinia is also pretty sad. Persia is known for good archers and cavalry - why not have some options that are not bare-bones?

The "not great but usable spearbands with decent-ish armour" could also use some differentiation. If the Helvetii one has good armour, make the Belgic one more aggressive, etc.

Cretan archers have abysmal range for elite archers but I guess it's intentional in exchange for their massive damage, so it's fine I guess. I was just surprised they had the same range as Allied Gallic Archers (number 1 worst archer in the game).

Second, AoR. Love the system overall; reminds me of Kohan in a good way (take over native settlements, get access to their units).

I would like to see a slight easing on the rules of what counts as "foreign". For example, I think it would be reasonable if the Scandinavian AoR units do not count as native pop for Germanic factions, even though they might be related peoples (this is from a thread about Cimbri which was full of horrible takes, but I kinda agreed with that one).

I would also like some clarity on when or when not you can or can't recruit AoR units of your "own" region. E.g. Parthia can't recruit Nisean cavalry, which would actually fill a gap in their roster (not that they really need it, but you get the idea).

Also, do some AoR units become unavailable after specific reform levels?

I would try to avoid functional duplicates; some areas have chaff spear 1 and chaff spear 2 as AoR options. E.g. Syracusan Colonist Levies + Sicilian Levies (plus the Sicilian Levies are better in almost every regard and cheaper).

Again, Persian areas are very sad with very basic options. The levy spear even looks like it has a bow on the back like a Sparabara, but it doesn't. That might be a step in the right direction?

Cilicia is also kinda sad. The descrpiton gasses their peltasts up hard, but they are okay at best.

I wish there were better African elephant options (gated behind higher tier buildings so they aren't too easily accesible) to combat elephant inequality across the globe. They only get basic ones which are pretty darn bad. The good elephants are all in Syria and especially on the Indian border. The Indian border in general is a paradise of cool AoR units.

Arabia is pretty sad in AoR options, with an okay-at-best spear and a bad camel archer. DEI partially fixed bad camel archers by giving them parthian shot, but they are still rather slow and the fear effect isn't a good match for a vulnerable ranged unit. Sogdian camels have the same problem (but at least they have a cool falx-like melee weapon).

The infamous Mamertines seem pretty sad and oddly expensive for a fairly basic spear. I think they could be made into a fast and aggressive spear with good stamina to chase off skirms.

I wish Rome had something better/more unique than basic Italian swords as a bit of a bragging rights award for taking Rome (and more importantly, to show that Latin martial culture didn't get wiped out from Italy overnight just because you took the city).

I think Alpine barblanx could use a slight nudge up but I have a feeling that the low morale in the database might be wrong.

Many of the chaff options could use just that very light bump from absolute garbage to "usable / my faction has nothing better". I think a good example is Cattuvellauni Slingers. They aren't elite like Balearic or Rhodian slingers, but they are better than 95% of chaff slingers, and you're glad to take them as souvenirs from the island. They fill an almost unique role of mid-tier slinger. Or Germanic Hunters: they aren't great, but they have a shield, okay range, and some melee capability, so that puts them above 95% of chaff archers.

As for actual new units, I think some kind of Raetian unit would be cool as they are such a strange people but I have no idea what that would look like.

E: I think Egypt could use some love as well. Ptolemaic Egypt doesn't have that many native elements (which is historically correct) so I think in contrast, the AOR/mercenary natives could be a bit better/more distinct. I'm not asking for fantasy bronze age kopehsh-swinging crocodile knights here...

Sry for the massive yap session.

1. Do "-% morale for enemy units" modifiers stack?

-Dread Commander (general trait)
-Temperance (character trait)
-Dread Marauders (army trait)

2. Do these stack with other morale debuffs/impacts like units that cause fear, night battle, fatigue, rear charges, missile fire, agent actions, killing the enemy general etc.

3. Do ambushes affect enemy morale?

Should be real simple, right?

-I start the game with a leader (king + family leader)
-I have a son that is declared heir from the beginning (I re-checked)
-After EIGHTY years king dies and son should become the new king

What happened instead is that son becomes family leader and nephew becomes new king, so the roles split. But why?

In case the heir "only" inherits the dynasty but not the office, who is chosen to be new king?

Btw only family leader can declare heir

I'm super excited!

The only problem is that "this summer" could mean tomorrow or three months from now. 😅

Should I start a new campaign, or wait for 1.3.6?

Yeah, yeah, "git gud," "quit whining," etc. Can we skip that and actually talk about game design?

Whether a campaign is enjoyable has become far too dependent on your "Rome situation."

Excellent: You can fight Rome head-on from turn one (e.g. Epirus).

Very good: You're far enough away to consolidate, but close enough to strike before Rome takes over half the map and reaches its late-game reforms (e.g. Lugii).

Good: You're so far away that by the time you meet them, you should be strong enough to deal with them. A big part of this, however, is that the AI struggles to concentrate its 20 armies on a single front (e.g. Parthia).

Okay: You start with good relations and get some breathing room before the inevitable backstab (e.g. Massalia).

Lost content: Small factions near Rome (e.g. Syracuse).

I understand the idea that Rome is supposed to be the final boss of the campaign. They should be strong. I don't have a problem with that.

The issue is that the challenge often isn't beating a successful Rome; it's beating the support package that guarantees Rome becomes successful in the first place.

Just look at what they get:

• The strongest roster in the game.
• The richest province in the game.
• A huge autoresolve advantage that helps ensure they defeat neighboring AI factions and continue expanding (as a side effect, this makes liberating factions in Italy a non-viable strategy).
• Extra "free" armies on top of their already enormous manpower pool.
• The ability to ignore or bypass mechanics that constrain the player (something other AI factions also do, but it's much more noticeable because Rome is already the strongest faction).

The popularity of the "AI Uses Population" submod suggests that a lot of players feel the same way. I'm not here to advertise it—in fact, I don't use it myself. My point is simply that there seems to be room for a healthier middle ground.

Does Rome really need this many systemic advantages to remain relevant?

The problem isn't that Rome wins often. The problem is that Rome's success or failure determines too much of everyone else's campaign.

If you have time to prepare, Rome is manageable, even if fighting them often turns into a long and exhausting grind. But if you're a small faction that starts nearby, good luck. You'll spend the campaign fending off wave after wave of armies without being able to make meaningful progress because of the sheer number of advantages Rome receives behind the scenes. Getting on their good side for any meaningful amount of time is notoriously difficult, so diplomacy is mostly not an option either.

That pushes players toward "cheesy" survival tactics or leads them to write off certain factions as luck-based or borderline unplayable, which I doubt is the intended experience.

The fact that Rome starts friendly with Carthage makes things even more awkward. Historically and strategically, "small state aligns with one superpower against the other" should be a viable survival strategy. In practice, Rome and Carthage often spend the early game getting along, making it entirely possible for a minor faction to end up squeezed by both at once.

Personally, I think the game would be better if Rome reached "final boss" status most of the time instead of all of the time, and if difficult starting positions were genuinely difficult rather than heavily dependent on the dice roll of Rome's AI mood.

Title. I can kinda see why they would be limited, I’m just asking because the game doesn’t really say...

Best

A Total Hardcore Player – Clearly knows what he's talking about, genuinely enjoys the game, and is just a likable dude overall. He also occasionally plays without submods, which is always a plus in my book.

Objectively Very Good, but Not My Taste

Summary – Has a vast knowledge of the game, including a lot of the hidden nitty-gritty mechanics, and is obviously very skilled. He's also contributed to the mod itself (for example, by remaking unit cards) and remains one of the few creators who is still fairly active on YouTube.

That said, his content feels a bit too curated for my taste. You'll get attacked by a flying shark before something remotely surprising or challenging happens in one of his campaigns. He's got everything figured out five Excel spreadsheets in advance.

Good

Toxborg – Focuses on cinematic, narrative-driven gameplay and occasionally spices things up with unconventional scenarios, like "What if Media migrated to the Alps?".

MIA

Historica – Came in hot with lots of faction overviews and a Macedon campaign, but his flame flickered out just as quickly. A chill dude with a broad interest in history, but he seems to have disappeared from the DEI scene.

Immersaholic – Used to feature a wide variety of DEI content, including PvP matches. His last video was over a year ago.

A Shared Weakness

Most DEI creators make the same mistake that many rookie streamers and YouTubers do: if their current campaign only gets three viewers instead of seven, they abandon it and start a new one.

Look, I'm not saying you should force yourself to continue something you're no longer interested in. But in my view, it's better to stick with a campaign and keep three loyal viewers happy than to chase seven viewers, most of whom will leave anyway.

Question: Have I missed any DEI YouTubers? It feels like we're in a bit of a dry spell these days.

The ram can only attack the gate when it's fully closed. The problem is that the AI likes to keep units right next to the gate, causing it to stay open. That doesn't mean you can actually get through, though. You also can't properly target the units "inside" the gate.

Sometimes the AI gets even cheekier and has those units attack the ram. Again, you can't target them correctly because they're stuck in a weird limbo between being inside and outside the gate. You can still hit them with "fire at will", at least.

Enemy units fleeing through the front gate can cause the same issue, keeping the gate "fake open" even when it should be closed.

It's a bit hard to explain, but if you've ever tried using a ram, you probably know exactly what I mean. Long story short: rams will work on occasion, but more often than not they'll glitch out and be unable to attack the gate.

And not per province?

I felt like a caveman discovering fire when I first realized this (and I still forget it sometimes). It means when you move between nearby towns, you probably have way more men to recruit...

Kind of wish it was per province honestly (just for the sake of less administrative headache), but your mileage may vary.

Greetings, DEI-friends!

Having a blast with a Massalia campaign and noticed something a bit strange. I couldn’t recruit Arevaci Light Cavalry for a very long time. They seem to be locked behind a reform. They definitely didn’t unlock after Thueros reform, and I don’t have Thorax reforms yet—my guess is they unlocked around the Roman Marian reforms. They aren’t listed as a reform unit in the unit database.

It feels odd to lock a Tier 2 barracks unit at a point where you almost certainly have access to Heavy Ligurian Riders from the Tier 3 barracks. They don’t quite fill the same role, but the timing seems strange.

Bonus oddity: Your starting army includes a unit of actual Gallic (Arverni) Skirmishers and Light Cavalry instead of the Massalian versions. Almost no impact on gameplay, but they have slightly different stats—just a fun little quirk.

Anyone else noticed this? Any idea what actually triggers the unlock?