As Iāve said before Iām totally confident on what this map represents in terms of game-play. And I canāt possibly dissociate the barbarians and the important role they meant in terms of bordering relations with the Empire and their growingly assimilation that took place throughout the last couple of centuries of the Western Empire.
One thing I wanted to avoid here (mainly because weāre dealing with a different age of the empire) was the āmonolithicā aspect of Qwertās Imperium Romanum. That just wouldnāt make sense when you are focusing on the late 3rd and 4th centuries. With a big plus ā it will add extra value to the game-play and its victory conditions.
The fact that you can play both roles will always happen in every historical map. It happens in the Third crusade for instances, where you can start with both London and Cairo. Two opposite factions that are both starting points.
As for your last question Marshalā¦
I always expect to go a little step further in terms of game-play. I try to do it in every map as I did in a more affirmative way with Kingās Court. Conquer Rome ends up to be the natural direction ā a mix between certain aspects of Kingās Court style of game-play and strategic dynamics blended with all my other previous maps.
But donāt get me wrong, I donāt have anything against straight-plain-risk-style maps. In fact I love them ā but there are plenty around.
