r/DivideEtImpera

What's up guys, I have beaten almost all the "hard" start factions on DEI and I wanted to try out the Syracuse campaign to see what it was like.. Holy shit, I think it might be impossible. I have Sicily and Corsica and Sardinia under my control by turn 25 but it's impossible to make a move on either Italy or Africa with either Rome or Carthage attacking from the other way. Is the DEI campaign for Syracuse actually impossible on this mod? Or am missing something...

Hi guys, years after the mod has been released, i finnally decide to release 2 complete videos about main campaign mechanics on youtube. They are long to be extremely precised about those mechanics

A first one about population system and a second one about supply system

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trWqmySR2ow

https://preview.redd.it/cfcc5ij0edbh1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d12b15493001be5567f87638b32632e17bc8dde2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmYFxEf8NRQ

https://preview.redd.it/rwpgr3n1edbh1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=08ec22e51f5004950884b2d533c16bcc117f082d

Soo, I've recently started playing DEI, after playing 5 campaigns on Vanilla with 5 different factions, those being, Macedon, Parthia, Seleucid, Sparta, Royal Scythia. And Macedon was my absolute favourite, so I was like hey why don't I try this DEI thing and play DEI Macedon, I loaded in a custom battle first to get a feel for the units , I did a custom battle against pontus and realized almost immediately, that this is NOT vanilla Rome 2 , the AI, even on Normal difficulty was pretty aggressive. So I had to be on edge the whole time. I look away for ONE moment and my cavalry is fighting spear infantry. Speaking of cav, there's no melee cav in the game? Is that because historically Melee and Shock cav were both the same?

transitioning from vanilla to dei was a massive reality check for me lmao.

in my first campaign as rome i literally marched two full stacks through the alps in winter with zero supply trains. obviously they all starved to death before even reaching the town and got wiped by a simple garrison.

then i won a pyrrhic victory with triarii and sat there for 15 turns wondering why they weren't replenishing, not realizing i depleted the entire province's patrician class.

to top it off i expanded way too fast trying to get imperium 5 for marian reforms, triggered a massive civil war, and got rolled.

what was the stupidest campaign-ending mistake you guys made when you first swapped over? trying to see if my buddies and i in our campaign group are the only ones who struggled this hard starting out lol

https://preview.redd.it/23yl6k2c59bh1.png?width=2149&format=png&auto=webp&s=620f3be246d6da4eb49735f5ac151a65a7b7c5a8

so i was strolling the workshop and saw this. wondering if this is legit or am i seeing shit lol. this submod is the #9 most top rated in all of rome 2's lifetime.

listen, i think we are all in agreement that DEI is perfection. This sub mod is AT LEAST good, if not great... and completely turns DEI on its head in a unique way. but it is literally the #9 most top rated mod for rome 2. all time.

a submod overhaul to DEI is on the same line as DEI itself.... that is incredible. it hasn't even been out a year yet. this has got to be unheard of, or an anomaly at least!

I have played with and without it, and while both have their advantages, the proof is there as to how much the community wanted a mod like this.

anyways just wanted to pop on and show the recognition i think it deserves. never seen a mod take off like this for a 13 year old game

I am loving DEI but after googling and looking at the DEI Guide, there are some things I can't figure out, can you help me out with the following?

• I'm playing Parthia and at the start settlement, I want to build a horse trainer from the horse resource for the +12% charge bonus down the line. I am wondering if this stacks with the limited warhorse buildings which also give up to 8% charge bonus? And do the warhorse buildings also stack?
• If I deactivate taxes, then also the positive/negative food surplus of the province does not affect the global food balance. But, say I have a province with a big negative food balance: Can I just deactivate taxes and completely ignore the lack of food without consequences? Or are there public order penalties or something like that?
• On a forum I read that building the resource producing buildings in a resource chain is good for the economy. But how exactly, aside from unlocking buildings, do resources benefit the economy?

Edith: Thank you all, you told me everything I needed to know!

Hey guys, I’ve been playing Rome II for a long time and I’m honestly just tired of starting campaigns that die after a few turns.

Feels like nobody really plays Rome II properly anymore, especially long campaigns or consistent multiplayer without rage quitting.

So I made a Discord called The Grand Forum for people who actually want reliable co-op/MP partners, proper long campaigns, and battles that don’t fall apart after a few turns. We also run Divide et Impera (DEI) mod campaigns.

If you’re into Rome II and still actively play, join here:
https://discord.gg/4feh7nkKCn

"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.

I want to get into that game more but I just need something more realistic like DEI.

Quick question: how can I build that turtoise on sieges? Is it locked for certain factions? I currently play Seleucids and can’t find any way to build or unlock it.

Been playing as Rome of course had to start my campaign again about 5 times but I finally started to consolidate the south of Italia. This challenge feels way better than any other total war experience. I do want to know though how patient do I have to be and how do I consistently beat full stack armies with better quality units that I always seem to be facing because the AI is just rich af. Also any other general tips would be appreciated.

So weit ich es verstanden habe hängt es mit dem Bedrohungslevel zusammen ob eine Koalition gebildet wird.
Der Bedrohungslevel steigt mit jeder eroberten Stadt.
Ist das richtig?

Zählen auch verlorene Städte zurück erobert wurden?

Ich spiele mit Rom und habe ganz Italien bis auf Medhlan erobert. Seit über 10 Runden herrscht Frieden und ich habe keine weiteren Städte mehr erobert. Daher habe ich nur drei halbe Legionen.
Nachdem Piraten Jader genommen haben ergreife ich die Gelegenheit und erobere die Stadt.

In der nächsten Runde bildet sich eine Koalition gegen mich!

Warum? Ich habe bewusst langsam expandiert um das zu verhindern?

I used AI to translate, so it might be noticeable. My apologies.

This post is mostly about Divide et Impera, but I think the same issues apply to every historical Total War title, including the upcoming Medieval 3.

I may be in the minority here, and I could be wrong, but it feels odd that a historical game places so much emphasis on RPG-style stat progression. Armies can be upgraded, generals gain levels, blacksmiths improve equipment, and individual units become stronger through experience.

To me, this is one of the factors that hurts the mid and late game.

Players rarely lose veteran units and naturally focus on developing the armies they already have. I understand why—it's satisfying to crush an enemy force with seasoned troops—but it also creates a long-term balance issue.

At the moment, there seem to be two progression systems that add little to the game and, if anything, make it less enjoyable.

1. Units can level up all the way to Rank 9 (three bronze, three silver, and three gold ranks).

Since players rarely lose their units while the AI replaces its armies constantly, the player's forces inevitably accumulate far more experience than the AI's. As the campaign goes on, the experience gap between player and AI armies becomes enormous.

1.1. I think limiting units to just three experience levels would work better.

After all, a militia unit that has seen combat should still be inferior to elite professional soldiers.

Units would still become more effective as they gained experience through training and battle, but they wouldn't turn into unstoppable super-soldiers.

2. There are buildings that allow you to upgrade your units' weapons, armor, and shields.

I understand that these upgrades require resources, money, and time, but players will always prioritize unlocking them. The AI, on the other hand, rarely manages to take full advantage of the system. As a result, once these buildings are fully developed, the player's armies almost always end up fielding better-equipped troops than the AI.

2.1. I would either remove these buildings altogether or eliminate their combat bonuses. Alternatively, equipment upgrades could be limited to a single tier.

After all, craftsmen can learn improved metalworking techniques from their more advanced neighbors. They don't need to undergo an Industrial Revolution—or somehow get their hands on elven steel.

P.S.

Ideally, I'd also like to see the influence of generals on army performance reworked. Once again, the player rarely loses experienced generals, whereas the AI loses them constantly, so the player's commanders almost always end up significantly better than the AI's.

That said, I don't have a good solution for this one yet.

Every faction I have played especially barbarian factions in this mod has horrible faction leaders, they all have bad traits, like for real faction leaders are so darn important in the game having a good on such as magnanimous or cheerful or just a average one can help the campaign sooo sooo much. Can the team just adjust the starting faction leaders of all the factions and give them average of positive traits??? I hate having to suicide my faction leaders in the beginning of the campaign in hope of maybe spawning one with a better trait.

So ive tried to give the Syracuse campaign a go a few times over. Always find myself between a rock and a hard place with Rome and Carthage--i've tried migrating to make the early game easier but honestly, Syracuse is a top tier city. Having access to Samnitai Xiphophoroi feels like you can weild a mid-late tier roman infantry unit immediately. Coupled with crossbowmen and siege units, theyre actually a terrifying battlefield force.

Im running a campaign now (no auto battles), liberating my province and the southern tip of the Roman Peninsula. With 10 units of Samnitai as my core, and it feels like a hot knife through butter. Cathage is otherwised distracted with the liberated cities and navies and the greek mainland is finally warming up to me.

Whats your best strategies for this faction? Looking for tips and criticism

Playing as kimbroz on h/n with AI uses pop & realistic battles. Wanting to smash my head against the Roman hordes. After 30 turns I look at Rome and see they are losing to Venetii, 20 turns later they are without ANY provinces. Does this happen more often?