I guess someone could call it "cheap" but I noticed that the AI in all of the TW titles I've played are quite susceptible to running into ambushes so I exploit that to my fullest advantage. It comes in really handy too if you need to take a provincial capital but the defenses there are just too strong to siege. I just park my armies in ambush mode near the enemy city and usually I can lure the army out and ambush it.

That sounds exactly like the story I just told about Antioch

Yes it does! FYI, the AI in "Three Kingdoms" is unique in that it will also use ambush mode from time to time so always be cautious when moving your armies in "fog of war" areas.

The Egypt campaign is done and dusted, and what a sprawling campaign it was. The objectives were simple but with this game, ambitious indeed. Hold 85 settlements, have a big army and navy and hold provinces Italia, Alexandria, Baktria, Persia, Macedon and one more, the one with Petra and Jersusalem I think. So the conquest of all of Africa and Iberia wasn't needed in the end, but would have been for economic or cultural. And anyway, from a strategic point of view, holding those regions clears the flanks, as the map has edges, and I could then just use the Pyrenees as the frontier in the entire western half of the realm. Easy to garrison that border with a single field army.

Of course the problem is that all of the territory in between is sea, so this run was ridiculously vulnerable to seaborne invasion. So much coastline to protect. Islands like Crete and Cyprus were like whack a mole. With imperium limiting the number of armies you can build, you can't really sit them around guarding islands. Occupation changed hands a number of times. But this is fun gameplay. It gives the AI a lot of openings, makes the campaign feel agile in a sense. I played on hard and the AI was a reasonable opponent, building good armies and using them well, ganging up when they could and always opportunistic, hitting the weakest links in the frontier. AI agent play was virtually non-existent until the last 30 or 40 turns when it was everywhere. I can't say really whether this was because they only just started recruiting them, or because as I moved north I came across certain factions who were using them, when others before didn't. The same sort of thing happened with artillery. I saw none early, but at the end it was appearing on the battlefield.

I imagine I had a big tech lead, and that explains a lot of the recruitment disparity. Egypt has a very strong tech game. In other TW games I can see faction rankings, but in Rome 2? Either way, I rarely saw any top-top tier units in the AI armies, nothing stronger than regular hoplites. The AI makes up for it a bit in this game by building full stacks when they can, but then not all TW games have a mechanic that limits the number of armies that can be built, so in that sense the AI is forced to stuff everything in to the few it has rather than spam generals.

I played along with the political side of Rome 2, doing enough to sail through without any threat of civil war, maintaining solid influence throughout. I'm still not crazy about this part of the game, but so far I've managed it well enough through three campaigns and it does add some flavor and additional things to monitor and deal with. But if it was not a thing I wouldn't miss it. Early on I was worried about a succession crisis when I let my Pharaoh die heirless, but it didn't matter, and then I paid more attention and arranged marriages, and used the traits and ancilliaries to promote family expansion.

Battle maps in Rome 2 are fantastic, the campaigns are really good. There's a lot of diversity through each faction and the add-on campaigns. The three I've completed have all felt very unique. Naval combat is not very interesting, and the AI fleets just zip everywhere on full steam ahead mode so it's really hard to force battle unless they want to. But the Mediterranean as such a dominating feature on the map makes the naval side important in an operational or strategic sense and I like this. I feel it's more gunboat diplomacy than an actual weapon to hurt the enemy since they're so slippery, but overall the naval side is fun. And since fleets can capture coastal cities, strong navies make for faster conquest.

Got the achievements for winning a campaign with a female ruler, as Egypt and on hard difficulty. 6.8% have won a hard campaign, which is lower than I would think, but these campaigns are so long that I think that might reflect the length more than how many play on higher difficulties. Having a Pharaohesse...Pharaohette....is just timing, but only 1.1% have this. Makes me think most factions cannot have a female ruler? Winning as Egypt is 2.4%, but there are a lot of factions and campaigns in Rome 2. It took 177 turns.

Congrats on your Egypt campaign. If you want a much tougher challenge playing as Egypt, try playing as them in the recently released "TW: Rome Remastered" game. I managed to win as Egypt but it was a massive slog against the Roman factions. I never had a chance to steamroll the AI at all.

Thanks Panzer, it was a good run. Thanks for the tip, but I skipped remastered Rome 1, so won't have a chance to try that campaign you suggest. It's funny you mention it because I saw it on Steam yesterday and thought to myself 'that sure faded fast'. I can't remark on it because I don't have it, but the excitement sure seemed to fade quickly. Rome 1 was my first Total War game, but I ranked it at the bottom of my list. That's unusual as a 'first' usually gets a boost from being the first.

Last night I started yet another campaign, this one as Iceni in Imperator Augustus. Not sure I'll get far with my return to serious sim racing imminent. But what the hell!

I have enjoyed playing Rome Remastered but it does indeed play radically different from Rome 2. It's really like playing an entirely different game. Actually I'd say Rome Remastered plays closer to a Paradox strategy game than it does Rome 2.

In what way? Do you mean the dynastic side, so it has shades of CK, or Imperator perhaps (never played)

Remastered has a LOT more in-depth mechanics when it comes to settlement management and economics (trade, taxation, resources, etc). The interface also is a bit reminiscent of Imperator.

And then there is the labyrinth-like complexity of the character traits and skills as well as the family tree and political mechanics. FYI, I never played the original TW Rome title so I can't really do a straight comparison between that and Remastered.

I see, thanks.

I don't care much for Rome 2's trait system, but you've read me complaining about all of them since Med 2.

One of the things I miss is how some titles grant bonuses based on how you use the general. Put him in ambush stance a lot and he gets higher ambush chance, or forced march grants movement range bonuses over time. Rome 2 does not have this.

Rome 2 has traits you choose when the character ranks up, and also ones granted automatically. Virtually none of them are negative, which fine, but you also don't have that interesting dilemma of what to do when one of your generals or governors becomes a craven, alcoholic ,flaccid, embezzling, incestuous hunchback with a lisp. We'll just march you off to the front....alone.... yeah, recon... recon, that's it.

I've said it before and it doesn't need repeating,but I will anyway, that the Stainless Steel mod for Med 2 was the best trait system I've seen.

But! In Rome 2 it's partly affected by the TPY set up. Without changing it, the characters come and go so fast that unless they are fighting battles every turn their promotions are limited, and they'll attain just a few generic traits.

This all changes dramatically with more turns per year. It was probably much better in RotR (i could go check my comments) and it certainly is in the Imperator Augustus campaign I am playing now. I'm a few dozen turns in yet my King has aged just a few years, and he is being metaphorically showered with traits. Every turn it seems, and some turns like four or six of them. It's been a very busy start, the generals are continually engaged and their 'veterancy' is through the roof. If I stick with it I could see them reaching maxed status, whatever that might be. This is much better to me.

I think IA campaign is 4 TPY.

I picked that Imperator Augustus campaign as Iceni back up and it's nearly done and dusted now. Having just finished a few runs in Three Kingdoms I was still in the mood for more Total War, and finding no inspiration in the remaining TW3K choices I had a rummage through the library. Considered reinstalling both Napoleon and Attila but went back to Rome 2 instead. It's interesting to hop around and see how different each title is in ways both small and large. How both good and bad features and mechanics pulse and fade through the series. For example how garrisons work. Each game seems to handle it differently.

Iceni are a good faction, starting in London, which isn't called London of course, but some sort of thing that ends with 'ium'. I tend to gravitate toward factions with a good selection of ranged units, especially archers, and especially archers with AP. I also have an irrational disregard for chariot units, so Iceni was a stretch for me. But I liked their starting position -- claim the isles for a secure seat of power before crossing the channel and expanding through western Europe.

Once again, the campaign objectives in Rome 2 are ambitious. In this one we must hold 80 regions, sack 35 different towns, hold six key provinces and field 240 units. I had to go to war with my game-long friends to take the final province, Gaul. That's how it goes.

I've talked throughout this thread about things I like and don't like. Playing again, another thing I like is how generous Rome 2 is in regards to campaign map movement range. Partly it's due to always taking perks, traits and bonuses that grant additional range. But it's great to be able to move an army say from Genoa to Athens in two turns. Other games it would be five or six. Sadly this generous range doesn't carry over to the sea, where it takes eight years to sail from Rome to Sicily. I exaggerate, but that's how it feels. Imperator Augustus is four years per turn, better that the one YPT of the main campaign, if I recall correctly. Another thing I like about Rome 2 is how effective cavalry is at cleaning up the routers. Much more efficient than other TW games.

And that is that. Imperator Augustus run as Iceni the English barbarians completed on hard/hard in about 170 turns. Virtually every campaign takes 160-170 turns it seems. So that's four Rome 2 campaigns done and dusted.

Baktria in main campaign
Taras in Rise of the Republic
Egypt in main campaign
Iceni in Imperator Augustus

I think I enjoyed the Rise of the Republic campaign the most, but these are all cut from the same cloth. I wish there were short campaign objectives, and I could pick a nit here or there, but Rome 2's a good Total War game. It's probably good that I waited so long to get it, and when I did it was at its most seasoned and polished. Maybe time for Warhammer 3 to add yet another one to the pile.

Have you played the Caesar in Gaul campaign? It was the very first DLC released for Rome 2. That's a pretty short campaign.

No, just those four listed. Not sure if I have every DLC, I bought the Emperor Edition I think it is called. I'll either try that one or Hannibal at the Gates if or when I play another Rome 2 campaign. I'd like something similar in size and scope to the Eight Princes campaign in TW3K.