It's a really, really small nitpick, but the Etruscan Hoplite unit card states that 'The long Roman conquest of Etruria, begun in 396 BC with the capture of Veii, was finally completed when the consul M. Fulvius Flaccus took Vulsinii in 264 BC'. In contrast, the province description for Etrvria states that 'At the start date of EBII, Etruria was largely pacified'.

From what I've read, the Roman capture of Vulsinii itself was not part of Rome's wars against the Etruscans; rather, the Romans attacked Vulsinii by the urging of some of the citizens of Vulsinii themselves. The historian Cassius Dio wrote:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
"In the consulship of Quintus Fabius and Aemilius they made an expedition to Volsinii to secure the freedom of its citizens; for they were under treaty obligations to them. These people were the most ancient of the Etruscans; they had acquired power and had erected an extremely strong citadel, and they had a well-governed state. Hence, on a certain occasion, when they were involved in war with the Romans, they resisted for a very long time. Upon being subdued, however, they drifted into indolent ease, left the management of the city to their servants, and used those servants also, as a rule, to carry on their campaigns. Finally they encouraged them to such an extent that the servants gained both power and spirit, and felt that they had a right to freedom; and, indeed, in the course of time they actually obtained this through their own efforts. After that they were accustomed to wed their mistresses, to succeed their masters, to be enrolled in the senate, to secure the offices, and to the entire authority themselves. Furthermore, they were not at all slow to requite their masters for any insults and the like that were offered them.

Hence the old-time citizens, not being able to endure them, and yet possessing no power of their own to punish them, despatched envoys by stealth to Rome. The envoys urged the senate to convene secretly by night in a private house, so that no report might get abroad, and they obtained their request. The senators, accordingly, deliberated under the impression that no one was listening; but a certain Samnite, who was being entertained by the master of the house and was sick, kept his bed unnoticed, and learning what was voted, gave information to those against whom charges were preferred. These seized and tortured the envoys on their return; and when they found out what was afoot, they put to death the envoys and the other more prominent men as well. This, then, was the occasion which led the Romans to send Fabius against them. He routed those who came to meet him, destroyed many in their flight, shut up the remainder within the wall, and made an assault upon the city. In that action he was wounded and killed, whereupon the enemy gained confidence and made a sortie.

Upon being again defeated, they retired and underwent a siege; and when they were reduced to famine, they surrendered. The consul scourged to death the men who had seized upon the honours of the ruling class, and he razed the city to the ground; the native-born citizens, however, and any servants who had been loyal to their masters were settled by him on another site." (Dio's Roman History, Book 10)

Admittedly, the passage I quoted is a translation, and may not be entirely accurate for all I know. Still, it seems to indicate that the Vulsinii had already been subjugated by this point by the Romans, and that the conflict that led up to the razing of Vulsinii was Rome intervening in its ally's affairs. Perhaps the unit card should be corrected to reflect this? Unless of course there are other sources that contradict this, in which case I apologise.

(Sorry for harping on this point; I've been a little particular about this topic after coming across a thread in the Rome II forums about how the Etruscan League should be playable and how the Roman-Etruscan war at the start of Rome II was historical because 'Etruria only lost its independence in 264 BC, Wikipedia says so'.)