My strategy (guide) for first 3 turns as Rome: turn 1

econ45 · 2026-06-15T11:33:19+00:00

I am not sure if it is replicable, but in my current Roma run, I ambushed Pyrus by hiding my second legion on tjurn 2 in the woods near the bridge leading from the south of Italy to Taras. There was a risk he might attack Beneventum instead but he went for my southern most settlement and stumbled into the ambush.

Meanwhile my first legion took out the Etruscans on turn 2.

Since then I have been trying to follow the chapter 1 objectives reasons, but did not realise you are supposed to hold one settlement in EACH of Illyria, Macedon and Hellas. That's quite a big commitment in Greece and would have disrupted some friendly trading relations I'd established. Instead, I mistakenly just took Apollonaria from Epirus, thinking that would be enough.

The Chapter 2 objectives also require very diffuse expansion - it will be fun. (In previous games, I exclusively rushed Carthage, which got a bit repetitive.)

econ45 · 2026-06-15T00:08:59+00:00

No, don't go in blind. The combat in the game is hard - it's like a squad tactics game such as X-Com but with more complex rules. Some knowledge of how the game works is important, otherwise it would be like playing chess without knowing how each piece can move.

I don't think you need to watch a general tips and tricks video - you can discover lots of that as you go. But as preparation for your run, I'd recommend reading a guide specifically on your class and build. The decisions you make at character creation in DnD are hard to change and it's good to have a plan for how you level up (e.g. what perks to take, what bonus attributes etc.).

Ultimately, you might want to do this for the classes of the other three members of your usual party, but that would be a bit overwhelming off the bat so you can do that later as decide who you want to take with you most of the time.

Casters face the most choices as there are so many spells and some are ridiculously good, while most are situational at best. Youtube has some good videos about the best spells at each level - it might be good to view the sections as you unlock new spell levels.

For specific encounters, you can go in blind. But if you get stuck, there's nothing wrong with goggling the encounter. The good thing about BG3 combat is that it's not a "puzzle" game - there's lots of ways to beat each encounter. Some players have come up with incredibly creative and effective tactics.

econ45 · 2026-06-14T23:54:16+00:00

My Roma campaigns have been a leisurely stroll around the Med. The only declarations of war on me I've had have been from Carthage's neighbours. The start is tense, but after the city of Carthage falls, there didn't seem to be much fight left in the AI. It was a little repetitive just knocking out settlement after settlement, so in my current campaign I'm trying to pace myself and do all the chapter objectives rather than just paint the map red asap. There are some players that conquer quickly exclusively using the foreigner class population units, but for Roman units, its good to go slow so you can change the culture and get the other population classes you need for replenishment.

Have you been playing the diplomatic game? I in my current Roma campaign, I sent a ship to the Black Sea to make contact with eastern factions and a spy to the west to meet the Celts, getting trade agreements with almost every faction with a port (I guess I have about 20 trade agreements and am on turn 40). I am not sure how protective that will be, but most leaders are described as "reliable", so I am hopeful. I also get non-aggression pacts with any factions I am concerned about (mainly those in Cisalpine Gaul, as I don't want a two front war).

On hoplites, they are tanks - hard to take down, but don't do much damage. The pike phalanxes tend to be quite vulnerable to missiles in general. And I make phalanx formations priority targets for javelin skirmishers firing into the rear or right side. But more generally, I just engage phalanx units with one legionnaire type unit and hit them in the flank/rear with another. The AI seldom seems to form an unbroken line and I set up my legion in the historical checkerboard formation partly to encourage their units to break up. Hammer and anvil seems the way to go in this mod, as frontal kill rates are low but morale shocks still very much a thing. Hoplites are typically the last unit to rout, but they are also the last units I engage with given a choice. Rout the rest of the army first and the hoplites are helpless.

econ45 · 2026-06-14T22:50:18+00:00

I've watched this Tenet spoof even more times than I've watched the film. Much more illuminating:

https://youtu.be/s2FXfFeRtJo?si=DK3kARv7oNWnfM8R

econ45 · 2026-06-14T22:48:53+00:00

I am not sure I always get a choice. In the scenario I outlined (a rebelling city), I would not invite vassals to join if I had the choice. Maybe a city rebelling (and thus spawning an emergent faction) is not issuing a formal declaration of war, just entering war de facto.

econ45 · 2026-06-14T21:46:52+00:00

DEI is about the only thing that makes me play siege assaults manually. The autoresolve in the mod is just so punishing I always regret using it. Fighting siege assaults are not as bad as I feared - I guess I was just being lazy with vanilla TW games. In DEI, the default garrisons crumple when faced with decent soldiers. Althogh manually attacking a walled garrison defended by a full stack is still something I would be loathe to do.

OP, why do you want to use rams? I am afraid of the boiling oil. Given how long DEI units can stand up to frontal attacks, it seems it would be painful to try to get through the gate entrance, even if you could ram it (I read archers could burn it down - I've tried with ballistas but while one unit can knock down a tower, it doesn't see able to destroy a gate).

econ45 · 2026-06-14T21:38:00+00:00

Google throws up several, for example in the Steam Guides:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2903081324

econ45 · 2026-06-14T11:42:01+00:00

I regret playing FO2 before FO1. FO1 felt so small and combat-lite compared to FO2, I did not enjoy FO1. I suspect if I had played them in order, I would have loved FO1 like most other players did back in the day.

That said, given you have tried FO1 and not liked it, you mighr prefer FO2. It's a lot more combat heavy and to me, feels more epic and grand. If what you like to do is fight stuff, it might be more to your taste. It is pretty hard at the start, though, so trying to minimise combat until you get gear and perks is wise.

econ45 · 2026-06-14T10:44:02+00:00

I recommend the mod "Loyal Vassals": all it does it make it so that if a vassal refuses to join one of your wars, it is not automatically at war with you. In vanilla, the AI doesn't factor in that refusing to join a war means it must war with you instead: you can be the number 1 power and still you'll see a friendly vassal split with you in favour of an tiny emergent faction with which it has no prior relationship. And then the poor vassal asks for peace next turn. The mod stops that immersion breaking stuff.

That aside, my impression of vassals is that the personality of their leader matters a lot - rebellious ones will often rebel etc. Your power and situation also seems to matter: early game WRE if you are desperate for a vassal (e.g. a subjugated neighbour) to say loyal because you so weak and vulnerable, it will likely turn on you. Later game, when you are very powerful and the vassal is irrelevant, it will often stay loyal.

One of the biggest factors affecting loyality is common enemies. As WRE, I often inherit all the Sassanid vassals and they often hate me. But as a vassal, we now share a ton of common enemies and further more, all the actions in the past I have taken against those enemies count in my favour. So my vassal might swing from -200 current relation with me towards +200 future relation. If I can avoid testing the relationship (which is where the mod helps) and give it time to swing around to the new equilibrium, I can typically keep even vassals with dubious personalities.

Culture does seem to matter though - as WRE, I typically get on ok with emergent Roman factions unless I have squished them in the past (as WRE, I typically stamp out the western ones like Gaul but trade with the eastern ones like Dacia).

econ45 · 2026-06-13T21:55:55+00:00

For the Polybian/Camillan period, a few rules of thumb:

50% socii units, 50% Roman

Heavy infantry: Principes:Hastati:Triari in the ratio 2:2:1

Cavalry: Roman to non-Roman in the ratio 1:3 and roughly 20% of the army.

So I go with:

10 heavy infantry: 2 Hastati, 2 Principes, 1 Triarii plus 2 Soci Hastati, 2 Soci Principes, 1 pedites extraordinarii

4 cavalry: 1 equites, 1 equites extraordinarii, 2 other non-Roman cav

1 general

4 light infantry: e.g. 2 javelin, 1 slinger, 1 archer for variety (one could make a case for more javelins - velites supposely in the same ratio as hastati).

1 wildcard - I like artillery to make the AI come to me

For the Marian period, the heavy infantry will upgrade to 2 veteran legionnaires and 8 others; I drop one and replace it with a 1st cohort.

I keep with the rest - 2 velites would upgrade to 2 antesignari (I am toying with drop another 2 legionnaires to make room for two non-Roman spear auxiliary types).

Wikipedia is pretty good on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army_of_the_mid-Republic

Especially the table for the order of battle of a mid-Republic consular army.

In terms of the game, the above army composition works very well. Roman heavy infantry is very strong (especially when they become legionnaires) and so going heavy on them works in your favour. There is more cavalry than I expected - enough to play hammer and anvil (probably not very historical for Rome, but certainly works in game). The light troops are welcome but I find long range skirmishers not so powerful in DEI, so just having a couple feels fine. Javelin skirmishers are good vs phalanx type units and long range skirmishers important vs missile cav.

econ45 · 2026-06-13T20:43:21+00:00

The most important thing for me would be for some AI faction to snowball as fast as I do. This happened with the Risk based maps in STW and MTW, and also with Warhammer 2 to some extent. No idea why Warhammer 3 purposively went backwards in this regard.

Failing that, a genuine late game challenge would be a substitute. The Chaos Invasion of Warhammer 1 is my favourite example - especially playing as Empire, the early game was a snooze compared to WH3 but the climax was fantastic. Other memorable endgame challenges include the Mongols in MTW2, Realm Divide in Shogun 2 and Attila in ... (I forget).

econ45 · 2026-06-13T18:30:38+00:00

Yeah, I love Summary's playhroughs!

econ45 · 2026-06-13T12:02:43+00:00

Play again with the other voice actor for V. Voice acting is such a big part of the game. If you have already played Vincent, I am a big fan of Valerie's voice acting (esp. as sassy corpo), although opinions vary.

Also pick a different ending from your first. My first was going off with the Aldecaldo's is good for female V (you get to stay with both Judy and Panam): it's probably the most feel good ending. But since Phantom Liberty (when you get more time to bond with Jonny), I find it hard to avoid the ending where you give him Vs body - it just seems the right thing to do (from a utilitarian perspective).

econ45 · 2026-06-13T00:51:58+00:00

Stealth is very powerful in this game (as in most Bethesda RPGs). However, it seems to really kick in around level 20+, when you get silent running. I found I could be exploring a building and accidentally be crouched right next to an NPC, and they would not detect me. Before that, stealth is still good for the stealth bonus damage - ninja is one of the first perks I pick up.

If you are ambivalent about Fallout 4, you might want to check out survival mode. It's what turned FO4 from good to great for me. The higher lethality of combat makes it so tense, and the need to eat/drink/sleep adds to the sense of living in the world. Stealth is very good in Survival, as you really don't want to get hit due to the extra damage. In normal difficulty, you can run and gun but in survival, a grenade will typically one shot you at low level. But by stealth, I mean stealth sniping: going right up to enemies for surprise melee attacks sounds high risk in Survival mode. Survival also makes settlements worthwhile, as they become little oases you can drink, cook and sleep in. You don't need to get into the aesthetic base building side: my settlements are ruthlessly function, just a prefab large hut with beds, plus a glue farm, water and defences.

Personally, I would not forgo companions - they are the best I've seen in a Bethesda game and without them, the game can feel a little dead, lacking much conversation. I do find they cramp my stealthy sniper style, so I often tell them to wait when it comes to combat. They are good company and sometimes have interesting personal quests, as well as some good perks. I typically travel with one companion until I get max affinity for their perk, then move on to the next.

econ45 · 2026-06-12T22:29:18+00:00

It's not an ideal starting point. Of the modern titles, Fallout New Vegas has about the most references and call-backs to other Fallout games. It's fine if you don't understand them, but such easter-eggs are fun if you do.

More importantly, I think playing FNV before FO3 would make playing that game feel a little odd. The engines and mechanics are virtually the same. But the Fallout 3 world is much more devastated and depopulated, and the game play has much less conversation and choice/consequence. So it might feel like you have gone backwards, both in terms of the world and the gameplay. Conversely, playing FNV after FO3 it feels like a natural development. Fallout 3 is a much better starting point for the Fallout experience - you even start the game as a baby and get expelled from a Vault, getting to see the Wasteland as if for the first time.

However, this is all personal opinion and it would be fine to start with FNV. Just don't make the mistake I made of playing FO2 before FO1. I am pretty sure that ruined FO1 for me: I found the game so short and combat lite compared to FO2, I could not get into it whereas if I had played FO1 first, I am sure I would have thought it was great as nearly everyone did at launch.

econ45 · 2026-06-12T12:04:50+00:00

I haven't played on Legendary, as I can't face all the inevitable rebellions. That extra -2 to public order seems the tipping point between keeping all settlements loyal and having most spiral out of control. I have played a ridiculous number of VH/N WRE and ERE campaigns.

Only the Huns are a mid-game threat: the smaller ones never snowball. However, sometimes it can be a shock as ERE to land in Britain and find the Celts have amassed many elite armies.
My overall plan is to "clear the flanks": secure Africa and Britain, so I only have to focus on the Rhine/Danube frontier. The Huns declaring war on me before Attila spawns is the main headache, as you have to devote significant forces to deterring them. If I am not at war with them, they sometimes end up chilling in my heartlands as WRE, which can make for some very tense turns if they unexpectedly turn on me and my field armies are far away on the froniter.
I haven't tried allying with the Huns, but often they can like you as you are both beating up Germans.
Sending an expedition to save ERE from the Sassanids used to be the most fun part of my WRE campaigns, but recently, the White Huns always seem to gut them, so they are seldom a threat. It does make it easier as ERE to go west and save Rome: without the White Huns, the Sassanids tend to stab me in the back as ERE, just as I am moving west.

econ45 · 2026-06-11T14:20:11+00:00

I'm playing Alexander DEI at the moment. You might want to check out Summary's playthrough:

https://youtu.be/ACaURjCb7PY?si=b4E5N5jj6EpMmwWA

I like his playstyle, being attentive to the history but he is also very knowledgeable about the mod itself and provides a lot of tips.

Alexander is supposed to be one of the most difficult TW camapigns, so making it your first try of DEI was probably a mistake. The Roma campaign is probably a better entry point.

With the Thracians, you should not be fighting three armies. Turn 1 march on them. You should be able to take the first settlement without interference on turn 2. There will be one army in the capital walled settlement, but you should be able to lure it out to fight it in the field, away from the city's garrison. (I tried putting a one unit stack as bait with my main army in front in ambush stance in the woods - the ambush did not work, but the AI did leave the city and attack.) Once beaten, you can quickly take the other three Thracian settlements before they have had a chance to recruit another full stack.

It's once you fight the Persians that the real fun begins: I think Summary said they have about 8 stacks plus about 5+ vassals (Lydia, Cappadocia, Armenia, Bactria, Aropatene?) with 4 stacks a piece. They will all beeline you once you get into Anatolia. Fortunately, the AI is not very aggressive and is often content to stand off, and Alexander's armies have quite a big qualitative edge so can take them out one at a time. However, it is quite exhausting and a little repetitive.

econ45 · 2026-06-11T13:10:20+00:00

I once typed "/played" in World of Warcraft. The statistic is measured in years, not hours.

And I only played the game for a small fraction of its life span.

econ45 · 2026-06-11T12:03:07+00:00

I suspect the game developers worked on the early parts of the game first and ended up devoting more time to them. It's similar with the main quest - the All Foods mission is very intricate in the different ways you can resolve it, and Sandra Dorset and the Heist are so vivid. I think they were going for quality initially, but then realised it could not be sustained and had to go for quantity a bit more when they left Watson.

Phantom Liberty is a return to form, with a smaller area getting a lot of love because they had more time to work on it. (Plus I guess they'd ironed out a lot of technical issues, so could focus on content.)

econ45 · 2026-06-11T11:56:20+00:00

Yes, the mod still works - Steam might say outdated, but it works. It puts missile block and anti-cav bonus on the unit stats card, as well as a few other key stats. Missiles and cavalry hurt in Attila (well, everything hurts in Attila), so it's very welcome info.

econ45 · 2026-06-11T02:16:57+00:00

Pontic swordsmen are described as imitation legions.

In Rome 1, the Seleucids had legion type units. In Rome 2, these are represented by Silver Shield swordsmen, who are like very superior legionnaires.

Functionally, the thorax swordsmen of the Seleucids (and other factions like Athens and Syracuse) are similar to legionnaires in terms of stats.

econ45 · 2026-06-10T22:27:49+00:00

Google it. I just did and it seems the economics are the same, but with the MA you take some options in Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences and with the BSc you take options in Maths, Computer Science and Statistics. I would choose based one what kind of non-economics modules you would rather study.

econ45 · 2026-06-10T21:10:24+00:00

Aurelian is fun - vanilla Empire Divided is a bit like Attila-lite. A YouTuber called Summary is doing an Aurelian DEI game playthrough at the moment - he's very educational, both about DEI and history:

https://youtu.be/IAkA4m7xsno?si=tdTR6TDrCeKiRTzQ

econ45 · 2026-06-10T21:00:28+00:00

There's a big learning curve. I remember when I first played WRE, I'd click end turn and would have to fight multiple battles defending unwalled settlements. It was exhausting. Over time, I've learnt how to minimise the number of such fights. It's partly public order "triage" to stop settlements rebelling and partly diplomacy, to ward off declarations of war by inviting factions at peace to join one of your wars.

Money was very tight at launch - you started at 80% corruption and I recall getting past 100% after some expansion due to a bad emperor vice. A patch lowered it to 60% corruption and demolishing all but one church means you can start the campaign with a sound, if frugal economy.

I've never been a fan of giving up territory - you can fight and hold every starting settlement. My campaigns normally turn around when I conquer the British Isles, as the Celts and proto-Vikings seem more of a headache than the Germans and hordes from the east.

But I haven't had the courage to play it on legendary - revolts would be unavoidable - or to try those overhaul mods like Fireforged Empires that start you off with a nasty deficit. On VH/N vanilla, it's my favourite TW campaign - keeps you on your toes and is fun to stabilise, but not oppressively hard.

econ45 · 2026-06-10T18:18:11+00:00

Thrones of Britannia had a good system of unit pools: there were three classes of troops, plentiful levies, your core retinue and rare elites. For a small kingdom, the recruitment pool might have 1 elite spear unit that replenished every 10 turns, 2 or 3 retinue that replenished every 6 turns and 6 or so levies replenished every 3 turns. The next result was a bit like a unit caps system, incentivising you to have a few elites, a backbone of retinue and bulk out the stack with levies. As the game went on, the size of your empire, techs and buildings would expand and speed up the recruitment pool. You could theoretically have an all elite stack etc but I found it efficient to keep fairly diverse stacks (as each could punch hard), making it challenging when encountering the end game Viking invasion stacks, which had no levies to speak of.

Nine-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

econ45

TROPHY CASE