I have now played a few games with the lastest beta patch and I thought I would give some feedback. First off I want to say again how much I'm enjoying this game, and how impressed I am with the work you've done on it, before and after release. Truly an excellent job.
The game is a lot tougher now, the hard level is really hard, which is a good thing. The AI seems more aggressive in terms of recruitement, in both land and naval units.
I especially enjoy the ability of the AI toward the late game to back me into a corner : I have a big enough army to beat the romans and then siege Rome, but the AI avoids combat, so I get stuck. I would get defeated one way or another if I tried to siege Rome, and if I were to split my force, the romans could just move whatever force they want in Rome through naval movement and crush my force sieging the city. I lost several games this way (because usually when that happens I'm runing behind in terms of victory points). Brute force or sheer numbers don't ensure victory, which is definitely a very good thing.
There is however one game where the AI made a very big mistake : I had an army with 33 units outside of Rome, and the romans had 2 armies : one of 15 units in Rome, and one just outside with 19 units. Usually the AI is pretty good in evaluating these kinds of situations (that's how I get backed into a corner), but in this instance it decided to move the units which were in Rome, to take back some city in Northern Italy, thereby leaving Rome empty. This is how the situation looked when my turn came :
So if I attack the 19 units army, it declines combat, as it should, but then I'm free to storm Rome, which I can do successfully. (I only have a save game right after the roman army declines combat, I don't know if it would be of any use). It seems the AI sometimes attaches too much importance to the retaking of cities in Italy, instead of concentrating units and confronting the threat to Rome. The situation in the screenshot is exceptionnal though.
Another rare occurence that should be adressed nonetheless IMHO : the election of new (and different) leaders can leave a force without leader. Most of the time the romans move their armies in a coastal city, so no problem, but I have seen a force of 7 units left in Corfinium whithout a leader. I could siege it with just 1 unit without any risk. I think that kind of thing shouldn't happen. (I don't have any saves illustrating that though, sorry).
I like the change made to the pursuit phase of the battle.
I'm not a big fan of this however : "Reduced somewhat Hannibal’s personal influence with the Carthaginian Senate. It now takes a greater number of victories for his influence to rise much above 10 percent. This only applies to the “Hard” level of play." I like that feature (the way the Senate works on hard level), and the additional dilemmas it creates, but the Senate felt independent enough before. And I would really like to see more coherence in its decrees. (If it allows me to send troops to Gaul, it should allow me to send troops to Italy in the subsequent turn(s), no sending troops in Sicily when I have full control of the island, or to Gaul when I control Cisalpine Gaul or at least Genua, etc.)
A final minor, very minor thing : when I'm on the defending side (during the ai turn) of a naval battle with more than 8 units, they are not placed automatically on the front line. Even though in this case I don't have an admiral, and therefore all units are interchangeable. It's really just a very small detail, just thought I'd mention it.
