I'm starting to think, playing this game, that a lot of the complaints are really happening because players don't know exactly what is going on behind the scenes of the game. So here's a list of common complaints and some explanation as to why I think these mechanics are as they are. (Note, technical issues and glitches like the graphics I am not talking about here, more like game mechanics)


==Diplomacy==


This is the biggest one, I think. And one I think players are missing a lot of how the game handles it because we're used to the AI catering to us in previous games. Here how Diplomacy seems to work. When you offer a treaty or demand something, it determines the profit of the offer or demand, versus the various ramifications that agreement would have. Here's an example that's pretty common.


You are AI Macedon. Player is Epirus and it is the beginning game. Player wants a Treaty. You see that you would be importing everything from Epirus in this treaty and your profit is somewhere around 60, while Epirus gets around 200. If you were to accept this treaty, you would lose favor from Sparta, whom you wish to remain on friendly terms with since they threaten your client State, Athens and are in a treaty with them. You are on friendly terms with the Player due to gifts, and you have a weak economy. So you counter offer with a demanding of payment to make up for the lost favor with Sparta and little profit to you from the agreement. As every merchant knows, you set the price a little higher than you think is fair. Player comes back with a counter offer 1000 less. You counter somewhere in the middle, Player accepts. (True Story)


The AI thinks much more deeply than before about Diplomatic actions. I noticed with several factions that when I finally get them to trade with me, since I'm the one exporting I get a lot of profit while they see little. Then little might I know, they might end up in a negative light by a stronger faction elsewhere on the map that they feel threatened by. Thing is, you need to play on Normal or Easy, and there's a simple reason why. Hard is hard. Difficulty plays a part in that things shouldn't be easy for the player on higher difficulties. If the AI demands more on higher difficulties, that makes things harder for the player since it's the difficulty setting.


==Turn Time==


Ok, this one is real simple and unfortunately, probably impossible to fix (unless you don't mind a shallower AI). When you are computing the turn for a faction, there are a lot of different variables needed to be processed in order to determine the best course of action. You need to take into account military strengths of neighbors, economics of various provinces, where to spend money, diplomatic status of every known faction, etc. Thing is, in Rome II there are, what, 144 factions? That's a lot of factions. And they all need to perform these same processes on each of their turns. In previous games, you didn't have a lot of factions, so there was less to do. In Rome II, there are a lot more and it doesn't matter how large they are. What can be done to mitigate this is to have the smaller factions start dropping like flies after a while, but given the dynamic AI system Rome II has, that would ultimately take away from the experience.


==Unit Recruitment/Army Cap==


I honestly think, what CA was trying to do was not just try and change things up, but give us a more historically accurate representation of the ancient world than their first game. And they went pretty far with that, and it leads to a lot of their reasoning behind certain mechanics, such as these two. Lets start with the recruitment, generals often recruited troops from the populace. Scipio Africanus did it in Southern Italy, Marius did it in Allied Gaul States, Caesar did it in his Civil War, Spartacus did it in his rebellion. We often think of troops coming from a barracks, and while it's true many troops in that era did, it was not always the case which is why generals now recruit directly. Now as for the unit cap, in the ancient world they didn't tend to field a lot of standing armies. In the Roman Republic, the army was voluntary, in fact. There was no professional army. it was like that in Hellenistic States as well. An Army could only be supported, whether by rations, lodgings, or by funding, by the wealth of the State which was measured in land. So it makes sense that your armies are capped according to the land you own, after all a lot of armies could only be made of land owning citizens.


Now here's the thing with that, in order to use these you must make use of the different stances. Raiding in enemy territory, using fortify to block access. When you have this cap, you start thinking about the placement of your armies. Do you send one off to war and keep one behind? Do you use one to guard the pass while the other recovers? This kind of thing happened in the past. While Hannibal was off campaigning in Italy, Carthage was left undefended and Scipio Africanus took that opportunity to lead a force there, forcing Hannibal to return to Carthage. Another thing you'll notice, like in Shogun II, there is an area which an enemy army cannot pass without attacking your army. However, unlike in Shogun II, there are a lot of areas on the map that are choke points. You army can defend in that location, and can make use of fortify to great effect. It leads to an entirely new way of thinking, that actually makes the game feel more fun when you start doing so.


==Garrison Sizes==


I've seen it like this, either a garrison is small or very large. This depends on what is in the settlement. With a small village, it makes sense the garrison with be very small. With large cities, however, it makes sense the garrisons be large. In ancient warfare, sieges were the way you won wars. This would lead to garrisons and walls to make cities more difficult to siege and take. In the past sieges were not small things. They were the center of strategy and often took long periods of time to conduct. Alexander's campaign is a good example of this. Sieges were never easy, and it took a large dedicated force to succeed in one. They's what they make so here, with a large garrison (which would have been likely larger in real life) it ensures a small or under strength army cannot take a big city. It will take a dedicated force in order to do so. Just like in the ancient world it did.


So please, before you guys make (yet another) complaint thread, lets think about the reasoning behind why something are as they are and how they might make sense given the era. Lets instead put our attention to where in needs to be, like magical powers like Second Wind or Multiplayer not automatically making your general the kind with Rally.