What specific Rome 2 Total War campaings did you complete?

[twgamer20197]

People:
When you play a Grand Campaign, do you seek to achieve the 3 final victory conditions? Or just one of them? Now in my current GC as Rome I already achieved both Military and Cultural victories. But I can't achieve the Economical victory. Not for the moment at least. The reason is because I just need to meet one requirement: having a trade agreement with 15 factions. I can't now because there are less than 15 surviving factions now.
Maybe it is better to aim for the Economical or the Cultural victory first because if you leave the Economical victory for the last victory to achieve, it would be harder because many factions start to hate you when you are very expanded on the map. Even some of your military allies or client states/satrapies start hating you gradually over time and they break treaties with you.

[douglas]

Played almost all of the factions, most only a few turns.

Actually completed: (As I recall, it's been awhile since I played.)

Rome - Julii (several)
Octavian
Aurelian
Rise of the Republic - Rome (twice)

[twgamer20197]

I'm currently in a Grand Campaing as Rome. I already achieved both the cultural and the military victory conditions. Now I want the economic victory. I can't because there are less than 15 surviving factions. Is there any way of reviving some factions?

[LuckyPistol]

Only if a Barbarian faction goes on a liberating spree

[twgamer20197]

Only if a Barbarian faction goes on a liberating spree

what if I intentionally make the public order decline in certain provinces I have? By removing all the public order buildings and letting the rebel armies each take one city. And then coming with my armies to attack them and then converting them into my client states and at the same time offering them the trade agreement?

[LuckyPistol]

what if I intentionally make the public order decline in certain provinces I have? By removing all the public order buildings and letting the rebel armies each take one city. And then coming with my armies to attack them and then converting them into my client states and at the same time offering them the trade agreement?

That can work, but you need to make sure they are the correct rebels (native to the faction that started in the region), and you need to double make sure you don't trigger a slave revolt.

[Jake Armitage]

I don't really think you have occupation decision options when a settlement is held by any kind of rebels

[Alwyn]

People:
When you play a Grand Campaign, do you seek to achieve the 3 final victory conditions? Or just one of them?

Now in my current GC as Rome I already achieved both Military and Cultural victories. But I can't achieve the Economical victory. Not for the moment at least. The reason is because I just need to meet one requirement: having a trade agreement with 15 factions. I can't now because there are less than 15 surviving factions now.
Maybe it is better to aim for the Economical or the Cultural victory first because if you leave the Economical victory for the last victory to achieve, it would be harder because many factions start to hate you when you are very expanded on the map. Even some of your military allies or client states/satrapies start hating you gradually over time and they break treaties with you.

In the Grand Campaign, I normally start a new campaign after achieving any one of the three victory conditions.

As you said, it's probably best not to leave the economic victory condition for too late - unless your faction can liberate others.

[twgamer20197]

Ok. That's a good option, Alwyn.

People:
Do you usually try to advance quickly in a campaign? By advancing quickly I mean taking all the cities you can as soon as you can. In my opinion that sometimes is not convenient because it can backfire. For example if you don't have enough armies to play the campaign very offensively, you could fall into this trap:
In the next turn after taking a city ( Let's imagine you had to fight an army that was garrisoned there and it was a litttle hard to win. You got significant casualties in the battle ), you could be attacked by two or more armies at the same time. That was a mistake I made several times. I learned it the hard way.
If you don't have enough armies, you should not rush to take a particular city even if it's unprotected and you can reach in that current turn. First, you should send a spy to check the area to see if there are enemy armies that can reach ( in the next turn ) the city you want to take.

[Alwyn]

I usually alternate between expanding quickly and consolidating.

You make a good point that sometimes we can take a city, but the depeleted army might lose to an enemy counter-attack. I have similar experiences - if I keep expanding and don't consolidate, there are likely to be public order problems and my front line armies become reliant on low-tier units and mercenaries (as higher tier units are lost over a series of battles).

[twgamer20197]

I usually alternate between expanding quickly and consolidating.

You make a good point that sometimes we can take a city, but the depeleted army might lose to an enemy counter-attack. I have similar experiences - if I keep expanding and don't consolidate, there are likely to be public order problems and my front line armies become reliant on low-tier units and mercenaries (as higher tier units are lost over a series of battles).

If there are 2 or more armies that can reach the city in the next turn, I'd put my army in the ambush stance so that those armies don't see it. It is possible that in the next turn they go somewhere else. And if I don't have a spy there, I'd avance slowly in the ambush stance for the time being till I a spy arrives there or I recruit another new spy.

I got to see a campaign from a gamer where he was attacked twice in a row after he took a city ( by making the mistake I mention ). He managed to win both. The second battle was of course, a phyrric victory. But he had the advantage of having experienced units.

[Alwyn]

Good idea about using ambush stance - I'll try that more often.

Yes, I can see how a player could handle that situation with experienced units and when defending a settlement - depending on the units and tactics on both sides.

[twgamer20197]

Good idea about using ambush stance - I'll try that more often.

Yes, I can see how a player could handle that situation with experienced units and when defending a settlement - depending on the units and tactics on both sides.

Exactly. Depends also on the enemy's faction and what kind of units the enemy army brings. For example if it's Parthia, it might bring lots of both mounted and infantry archers. You might have trouble here if you are an hellenic faction with a few range units. But if you are Rome, you can put your legionaries in testudo mode to try to absorb an important part of their projectiles.

[twgamer20197]

One more completed campaign. In one type of victory at least:
Imperator Augustus as Mark Antony's Rome: Economic Victory.
I'll continue the campaign to achieve the rest of the victory types. Now I learned that in case you want the 3 victory types in a same campaign, you should first aim for the economic victory unless you are a faction that has the option for liberating a settlement instead of occupying it or making it your client state.
I had to do big diplomatic efforts in order to try to maintain the trade agreements with at least 15 factions. I had to donate them money in numerous occasions to keep them liking me so that they don't break the trade agreement.

[twgamer20197]

Update:
- I completed a campaign as Lepidus in Imperator Augustus ( vanilla version )