Sicily \ Byzantine Empire

[NBK.]

I'm not a new ME2TW player, just new SS ... so i know the basics. I'm having trouble deciding wich faction to go with, I like both. which would you suggest me going with? I've played with the byzantines on the regular game and enjoyed it.

[k/t]

Then Byzantines it is. Sicily next.

[Caesar Clivus]

If you've played with the purple vanilla Romans, can I suggest you try out SS's historically accurate unit roster for them. Now with 99% less purple!

[NBK.]

If you've played with the purple vanilla Romans, can I suggest you try out SS's historically accurate unit roster for them. Now with 99% less purple!

Will i have to start a new campaign if i use it?

[-Myth-]

If you've played with the purple vanilla Romans, can I suggest you try out SS's historically accurate unit roster for them. Now with 99% less purple!

Disclaimer: map may have varying degrees of purple.

[Humakty]

If you've played with the purple vanilla Romans, can I suggest you try out SS's historically accurate unit roster for them. Now with 99% less purple!

Considering historical results on the battlefield of Byzantine empire troops, them having so consistently big empires seems strange. The stats of the historical units represented are probably gross exagerations.

[xsithspawnx]

Considering historical results on the battlefield of Byzantine empire troops, them having so consistently big empires seems strange. The stats of the historical units represented are probably gross exagerations.

I don't think the problem was as much with troop quality (though I'm not saying this was never an issue) as much as one of leadership/governmental flaws. Frequent civil wars, neglected armies (a political issue), and constant political scheming/maneuvering helped contribute to Rome's decline far more than any lack of quality troops (this is true in both the fall of the western and eastern empires). In this game these issues are not a hindrance and so the Roman's inherent strength is not self-defeating like it tended to be in real life. Or at least that's my take on it.

To the OP, I'm a Roman fan so go with the Byzantines, though I also enjoy the Sicilians. Really not a bad choice either way.

[Zhokar]

I played my first SS campaign as sicily and it was a bit too easy. You start off as a tiny faction and really need to work your way up the ladder, which is the fun part. The boring part is, once you have good standing with the pope (churches) and ally with 1 or 2 italian factions "blocking" entry into Milan in case Byzantine attacks, it's really easy to take the north african rebel settlements and annihilate the Moors while they are still busy on the Iberian peninsula. Just not the most entertaining starting position imho.

[Christonikos]

Go for Byzantines. If challenge is what you want, choose Byzantium. Enemies from the North, the East, the West even the South. Don't forget that you will face Jihads and great campaigns against you. If you want to prove yourself how good general you are choose Byzantium. Of course, if you like crusades and the Pope you can always pick Sicily.

[b_133]

Sicily is a very easy campaign, really.
I wanted a fairly straightforward, easy campaign to start off with as my first in SS but it's almost taking the piss, on M\M at least you're drowning in money and the campaign is on auto pilot.
Not really recommended unless you don't like a challenge but just want to steamroll everything.

[The Stig]

Sicily if you want somthing easy, Romans if you want somthing hard.

[Ferdiad]

Sicily if you want somthing easy, Romans if you want somthing hard.

no, both are easy especially on vh/vh as everyone attacks you saving me the the trouble of declaring war.