Considering I am writing this on my phone from overseas, this will be extremely simplified. I expect to write a more detailed analysis that touches more specific points when I return and get a feel for the changes myself, especially the war mechanics.
Overall, completely revamping the war system may or may not have been a necessity, but the way they did it was innately flawed. A two-phase system for superiority on the ground and air? Rimskaya has fought many a defensive wars for a long time, and our military is in a situation where that could be detrimental. We don't raid much at all, considering our negative stance on offensive war, but for those who rely on it, it means a great struggle for attacking larger countries, and said larger countries holding an even greater monopoly over the masses of smaller nations.
They then spent time adding new national projects, which are naturally meant to be mostly late game, but are so expensive that it takes time to save up for just one... unless you have massive amounts of resources and/or the military to snatch resources from smaller countries.
Aequitas was built off the dream of breaking the monopolies, even if just in part. That, for now, may still be written off as an unrealistic pipe dream. But the responses from the forums to these changes reflect already an uneasy sentiment from many nations that there is a hierarchy that is, even if slowly, breaking Orbis for many new players, and even some middle-aged states.
Feel free to leave your critiques and thoughts here, and stayed tuned for the larger analysis. Expect it sometime after July 5th, within a week of then.
