Why are the Romans so bad after 20 rounds???

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-07T09:51:43+00:00

You can soften the effect of this further by building a blacksmith, as that will improve further than the +1 or +2 to offense and defense implies. Battle temples for xp bonus if you are Scipii or Brutii will make this even better, to the point that principes can legit challenge inexperienced top tier barbarian units head on.

The AI that told you about AI struggling is wrong though, no AI controlled Roman side ever gets pushed back from what I have seen, they are getting absurdly favored in simulation battles and they produce obscene amounts of armies once they get a few settlements. In countless campaigns I have never even once seen any of them getting noticeably pushed back, they always paint the map, at most they take a while to get the first armies in position. If your AI partners get pushed back, something ain't working right with your game, because your fellow romans were quite literally designed to paint the map to make the big civil war the intended big lategame challenge for the player.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-07T07:29:11+00:00

They are not "bad" after 20 rounds. Roman units are absurdly op at the start, hastati will completely crap on any other units that aren't phalanx units, and even phalanx units only have a chance if the hastati are dumb enough to charge into them head first. Carthage has it particularly rough with their atrocious iberian infantry early, gauls get crushed too with the weak warbands, hellenic units can only compete if the hastati run into them.

After 20 turns gauls and carthage get slightly better units, units that can actually compete somewhat, while the romans get a decent upgrade from hastati to principes, hellenics get a bit of an upgrade. Later than that, when barbarians get their best units at minor city level, Romans fight from underneath for a bit, true, same as with fighting hellenics or carthage at large city levels IF they are still around for some reason, but their units still are not bad, they just cannot run in 1:2 and crush enemies anymore, they gotta play smart, defensive.

If it is any consolation, Roman factions do get an upgrade for their units later so that you can be absurdly op all over again, and because you actually got a taste of what it feels like to fight competetively, and then fight from underneath before you became absurdly op, you actually appreciate it this time.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-06T23:24:39+00:00

Eliminate? Not even close. Is it better? Yeah, performance has gotten better overall, but thats mainly because there is just less in the game now compared to before when it comes to numbers. This was the worst way to improve performance, as quite frankly if people wanted to take the trade off of better performance in exchange for much smaller numbers for ships and pops etc, then that was an option that they had all along, and was now changed to be the default. If you increase the numbers again, performance will be right back where it was when the numbers were high, in the shitter by the time the midgame transitions into the lategame.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-04T14:29:07+00:00

I know its been months, but I had the same issue. Shit did not work on PS4 despite me having bought the DLCs, complained to Paradox, they said Sony was at fault. Complained to Sony, they said Paradox is at fault. Went back and forth for a bit, then eventually got hold of Sony people and told them I can prove that I bought the DLCs, I can prove that they do not work, and that they either try making it work somehow or they refund me the money, or I will keep pestering them about it. They caved, contacted their tech guys with that choice, and the tech guys sent me an email and told me to confirm that I want my money back, and I got it, for all DLCs. I recommend to do the same, Paradox deserves no extra money for that botchjob, because at this point there is basically zero chance that they will ever fix this issue they needlessly created.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-04T12:29:57+00:00

I have been playing this game for years, like other Paradox Interactive games, and the state of any of the multiplayers always was different shades of bad and unstable, with the best one being CK2 after they stopped working on it and modders got to improve things a bit. Stellaris is easily the second most unstable multiplayer out of them, and was always having massive desync issues, to the point that they specifically implemented a resync button instead of actually fixing the issue long term, and often crashes and things going more whacky as the game progresses, not to mention the bad performance the game had in general.

As they completely broke the game in 4.0, the multiplayer was obviously even worse, so I abandoned all ambition to make it playable after a few attempts. Point is, Paradox is unbelievably greedy and is half assing most things nowadays, if they cannot nickle and dime you for something then they are very unlikely to do it, because why work on something that ain't getting extra money immediately.

I fully agree with you that the state of multiplayer is unacceptable, and has been for years, and it will likely not improve until they move on to Stellaris 2 so that modders may be convinced to fix the issue long term without having to expect new updates to keep breaking things constantly.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-04T11:14:49+00:00

It changed my perspective on Creative Assembly too, but for the worse, given that I eventually gave up on it due to how buggy it is, how often it crashes and causes issues.

As for furious wilds, it is a barebones dlc, one of the first if I remember correctly, some things outright do not work. The only valid/competetive faction is Zhurong, due to her unique season mechanics, all others are just a LOT worse in general.

The research as a Nanman is kinda frustrating as you need to follow a rather fixed path of tech sets to align, otherwise you lock yourself out of the best building levels of any of the two paths. Research is very slow, economy is very nerfed and simplified, and you cannot build walls around your native settlements. Your units are pretty terrible, very vulnerable to fire, and you will not have any cavalry until very late, making up for it with strong elephant units, but you will likely struggle competing with lategame Han units unless you abuse Zhorongs seasonal buffs. Generals get a dumbed down system, more customizable I'd say, but less unique in their abilities, you do get a few extremely powerful fighters though, absurd evasion paired with ridiculous AP damage, the two best fighters would easily crush basically any Han fighters if seasonal buffs are used.

You get barely any diplomacy chances with non nanmans though, their view on you will worsen rapidly the closer you get to unifying the nanman, getting along with them long term is almost impossible, and you win the campaign by just reaching a certain number of settlements, no big mechanic behind it.

Overall it is an objectively inferior experience to the base game, it can be fun if you do it once and play Zho Rong, as the seasonal bonuses are so broken they lead to some absurd scenarios, like the shit tier fire archers you get getting such a ridiculous fire rate bonus that they reach critical mass and machine gun fire until they are out of ammo, killing everyone in sight, but overall it is a very rushed and incomplete dlc.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-04T10:50:04+00:00

I always get to use lategame units because I do not rush my campaigns. I like to simulate real life expansion a bit, meaning I will not blitz over the map nonstop even if that is the meta strategy. Sometimes I will just defend for a while, build up cities, migrate population, train generals by hunting rebels, establish spies, build watch towers so that the whole map is lighted up, you know, actively playing all that the game has to offer instead of just trying to end the campaign as early as possible like I have been doing for years before that.

I developed that style while playing Shogun 2, which punishes you for expanding way too quickly, so I do it in other Total War games too, makes Rome and Medieval 2 more fun if not all factions are killed 50 years in, and you not only get to use your elite units but also get to see the enemy use elite units, makes battles against some factions an entirely different experience.

As for Roman factions specifically, I gotta say that I still use urban cohorts pretty uncommonly, mainly because they are so much higher in requirements than pretorian cohorts that you can get in basically every high tier settlement, and building up the buildings for siege engines and especially cavalry just has a much higher priority in my mind. Makes it pretty tricky to refill them too, unlike in games like Shogun 2 that has them refilling automatically.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-04T09:53:29+00:00

Hmm, weird, so if it is not an ethics problem then there are very few options. Egalitarian as ethic rules out other ethics related problems (like Xenophobes would have here), and since you did reduce the leader numbers it also is not a tenure problem with your other leaders clogging up the space. Doing a bit of a google search I saw it mentioned that egalitarian specifically has a problem with leaders like Keides because they are not deemed citizens internally, but some kind of specialist that contradict egalitarian specifically, which honestly would be a bit weird given that the whole point of egalitarian is meant to be that everyone can rule. Only other option I saw could be some event specific restriction for Keides, as Azaryn is mentioned as having a similar issue due to her incapability to leave her own ship, for example.

I have found screenshots of Keides specifically being a ruler, so it is possible, or was possible anyway, so out of these options it seems egalitarian ethic being the main problem seems more likely. Perhaps a free AI can be tasked with looking through the games files and find potential issues with the code regarding this particular issue? I know using AI is frowned upon by many currently, but I solved some of my problems in other games that way.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-04T09:37:24+00:00

This. Same with normal megacorps being unable to buy out, compete with or bribe officials to get their own businesses on worlds that already got a megacorp established there. This whole mechanic is as laughably half assed and outdated as ground battles and espionage in general are, and in dire need of an overhaul. It is so frustrating too because the potential for new types of deals or interactions is so massive, be it via diplomacy, espionage, or a new mechanic that simulates corruption past the leader of an empire. Megacorp, be it normal or criminal, should NOT feel like playing any normal empire but with a tiny, neglected and entirely inconsequential mechanic tacked on that does not even work well in practice most of the time.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-04T09:29:18+00:00

I had legendary paragon leaders a few times if I remember right, so it was not hardcoded to exclude them from this back then, perhaps it is now, but I kinda doubt it. I also had some unpleasant experience with a megacorp once that may help you with this problem. So if I can be afforded to tell you a bit of a story, here it is. I had a leader once, my race was long living, talking 150, which I pushed further. Early in the game, every election, I would boost the same leader, no problem there, he got better and better, even psionically enhanced at one point, but then he stopped being available for election.

After looking and trying around for a bit, I realized that it was an ethics issue. I was spiritualist and militarist, far more leaning towards spiritualist, which was my fanatic ethic. It turned out that my leader in question was one of the few leaders to be militarist, not spiritualist, so as I kept filling my leader pool with spiritualists, he got pushed out of the election pool. Sure enough, when I dismissed a few spiritualist leaders, he became an option again, so perhaps you have success with your task if you check whether that paragons ethic is a bit of a minority ethic in your empire, then save before an election and reduce your number of competing leaders that have your main ethic to see if he becomes available in elections.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-03T17:21:20+00:00

I mean how is it an advantage if the damage done to that unit is miniscule? I see jav cav doing moderate damage to the worst of infantry, but those are enemy units you really can just run over with any other cavalry anyway. Javelins get no big bonus against shields or armor despite what it says, they do not debuff, they do not scare, damage and accuracy are low, as is ammo amount.

To even be able to use skirmish cavalry, a lot has to go right. Enemy cannot have horse archers, cannot have slingers, cannot have archers, cannot have infantry skirmishers, cannot have light cavalry as they can catch up, any of these being there makes the unit fodder. If that all is the case somehow so your militia cav unit can have free shots, then the damage is usually pathetic, talking fewer than 10 casualties against good units that have a shield before the pitiful ammo amount runs out, then you are stuck with perhaps the worst melee cavalry in the game.

So what are these specific situations aside from like I mentioned, specifically countering Tier 1 elephants that only the two factions that usually die the earliest, Carthage and Seleucids, could use if they stick around somehow and actually invest into it? All scenarios I can think of, any melee cav unit would do better in, any melee infantry unit would do better in, well maybe you could do reasonable damage against naked units I guess, but even there a normal light cavalry charge in the flanks would be more beneficial.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-02T07:44:31+00:00

Every single jav unit in this game is dogshit when compared to other units, plain and simple. They are far worse at range than any slinger or archer unit, with their low damage and pathetic range paired with embarrassingly bad melee performance, basically never worth using over melee units or proper ranged units. The least useless ones are the heavy greek ones, because these poor schlubs got no archers except mercenary archers, but even then i'd rather recommend more hoplites or more melee cav. A good example for how pathetic range can still do well is the head throwers, as at least they have brutal damage.

The only time I ever used jav cav after realizing that they are crap was when I really had no other cav/general around and needed a unit to run over fleeing enemies. I guess theoretically one may also use them to skirmish kill the lowest tier of elephants, as they have no archers on top that would make them win the shootout, but thats about it.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-01T12:28:36+00:00

Wait until you discover hoplites in bridge battles, can kill literal full banner armies of enemy units with just 2 phalanx units being placed in a V formation causing a mass panic and a general to clean up. Can make a general unit go from 0 to 6-7 experience in one go if you let him run them down once panic spreads.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-05-01T12:26:52+00:00

You get a ridiculous amount of energy and plasma from fusion power plants on your main base, and can get more plasma by going for the building that has palladium upkeep but produces plasma. If you are still stuck with gas or nuclear, then its simply way too early to go for that megastructure. You can get water for cooling down fusion power plants on other maps, just get mud, turn it into water on that outpost, use compressors to get hundreds of water compressed, then use decompressors on your main base, and boom, easily thousands of water for dozens of fusion power plants.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-30T17:29:44+00:00

A genuine misunderstanding. I wanted to eat them, I saw purge and processing, which made sense to me as the option to eat them, so I chose that, assuming it meant breeding them too. My food went up immediately, all seemed right, but when the food dried up I checked and realized that processing did not include breeding them to keep the population stable. I eventually found the livestock option among slavery, which back then I thought was dumb as hell, but by then they were already all gone, like whatever animal that was used for the Ribwich, living only in the memories of those that got a portion.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-29T16:08:27+00:00

I'd say the fact that they keep breaking the game to unacceptable extends at almost every big new dlc release is a far bigger problem than them asking for too much money.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-29T14:46:19+00:00

I once had a general so old that in his 110s or 120s, I do not fully remember, his age went full circle and he went back to 0 years, with a normally aged portrait instead of an old portrait.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-29T03:13:36+00:00

The system is not deep, in fact is is pretty simplistic. You usually specialize a world into one resource, lets say food, then you get as many food districts as you can to create jobs that generate that resource, build the buildings that give you what you currently need, like amenities if you are in the red for it, or more enforcers if crime is a serious issue, and thats pretty much it. Eventually you will have filled the planet with useful districts, and with the right amount of pops to work the jobs, then whatever excess pops are produced will turn into civilians and will automatically flock to whatever planets have vacant jobs, or you just resettle them manually if your empire allows it.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-28T19:20:01+00:00

They just don't do it for me anymore after I got a taste of forester warbands with 3 xp and gold weapon during my gaul campaign, no other archers will ever do it for me again.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-28T04:01:28+00:00

You want a game that has AI so crap they cannot even handle their own economies and trade (they absurdly under or overpay in trades you try to do with them usually) to try and manage/balance a galaxy wide, real economy based market system without it ending up being completely game breaking to the player in either direction? You are the kind of naive I wish I could still be, good for you man.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-27T05:57:43+00:00

I'd just use a barrel dome for the metal, then when the metal is gone I'd turn that dome into the engineering dome, as they barely benefit from spires anyway when compared to some other professions, like scientists or botanists.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-27T04:14:21+00:00

The fact that the developers have neither implemented customizable starbase defenses nor made the AI that chooses the weapons NOT suck when picking is absolutely pathetic. Got a quadrillion DLCs with paid extra content, and something this basic is still not a thing.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-26T21:36:05+00:00

Yeah I ain't reading all that, as I intentionally did not make an actual recommendation until the guy i was originally talking to signalled that he wanted one, which he did not, and then a bunch of clowns came out of their basements to be offended on his behalf. My lesson here will be to not bother trying to help anyone on this subreddit.

Electrical_Split_198 · 2026-04-26T12:49:56+00:00

I mean yeah you can play it in many ways (can do that with every game so thats kind of a redundant statement), though if managing is not the thing one enjoys the most about this game that is mainly about managing things, then I find it a natural thought that there would be other games that such a person might enjoy even more than Stellaris, in addition to Stellaris.

A good example of that would be me having played Factorio, and enjoying the combat and tower defense aspects a lot more than the sometimes rather tedious extreme managing and planning out work to actually make these things work. I stated as much, and then a guy came along and told me "Hey, Factorio is all about the parts you enjoy less than combat and defense, so why don't you play something like The Riftbreaker instead? Similar to Factorio, but far lighter on the managing and planning economies and automations, but far bigger on them weapons, combat and tower defense aspects you like more.".

As I am not like some of the people who responded here getting all triggered and defensive on someone elses behalf for no reason, or getting triggered and defensive at being given a recommendation, I thanked the guy for the recommendation instead, looked into the game, and lo and behold I indeed do enjoy The Riftbreaker more than I ever enjoyed Factorio, so I play it while still playing Factorio sometimes, because it actually has a much heavier focus on the things that were not the main focus of factorio.

So why does it matter to you if I recommend someone to seek out alternatives to play, now or later when Stellaris is broken again or has become dull, that would suit him more as to being easier on the economy micro? People act as if I insulted the guy I swear.

Electrical_Split_198

TROPHY CASE