What exactly is the logical reason for you starting the Mod in 202 BC?

[Darth Salat]

Why not in 270 BC or even better, like EB did, in 275 BC, to emulate war against Pyrrhus? Pretty much the only reason why I'd stay with DeI in future. It's just the same dramatical design decision as making Rome 2 without family tree. Why would I start as Roman with an already big Empire? I hope the Grand Campaign does not start in 202?

Would it at least be possible to make a submod, that starts at 275 BC?

[Causeless]

It's largely because of Attila's campaign map. It's simply not suited to represent Greece with any detail, which is a big issue for that time frame.

[Petellius]

We'll have other campaigns that delve into that area sometime after initial release but as said above the map doesnt support any earlier time frame wise, we struggled enough with the time we already have in 202.

[ABH2]

Rome's empire wasn't that big. They own a few extra regions, and that's not going to make the starting spot fun for the player when you are at war in 3-4 spots depending on what you do with Carthage. And being nearly broke.

Syracuse, Illyria, and Greece all weak spots for an earlier start date. By comparison, Northern Italy, Spain, and Gaul are strong points of the map compared to Rome II. So the map emphasizes areas the player will be getting into at 202 BC and de-emphasizes the weak points.

This is a question answered repeatedly on the forums for those who look.

[Petellius]

that's not going to make the starting spot fun for the player when you are at war in 3-4 spots depending on what you do with Carthage. And being nearly broke.

And on the verge of a massive manpower problem.

[Thorrbert]

Rome's empire wasn't that big. They own a few extra regions, and that's not going to make the starting spot fun for the player when you are at war in 3-4 spots depending on what you do with Carthage. And being nearly broke.

Syracuse, Illyria, and Greece all weak spots for an earlier start date. By comparison, Northern Italy, Spain, and Gaul are strong points of the map compared to Rome II. So the map emphasizes areas the player will be getting into at 202 BC and de-emphasizes the weak points.

This is a question answered repeatedly on the forums for those who look.

I understand why you decided to start in 202 BC. It´s a good decision with the given campaign map. But I am also concerned about the starting size of the roman republic. It is not a big "empire", but owning the complete italian peninsula, sicily and some territories in Spain and Illyria would be enough to be unstoppable in Rome II (as a human player, of course). Do you have any ideas to counter this? Beeing at war with 3-4 other empires doesn´t necessarly mean, that they really attack you (and Carthage is on the edge of defeat at this time). Being nearly broke: from my experience it isn´t too hard to build up the economy fast. Manpower: interesting new feature, don´t know the impact. But historically this should not hinder the Romans. To have a large pool of recruits (and to make this pool accessible) was the big advantage of the Romans during the classical republic. But this only as a sidenote. The question is: does the mod provide mechanics to hinder steamrolling early on, especially the Romans, that start with a decent territory now.

Thank you for all the work you did (an do)!

[Petellius]

Yes we have mechanics in place to hinder steamrolling at all, though these might not be noticeable on initial release