what is the point of having these 3 small Alpes regions ?
Especially the red and white dot areas ? The white one is not different in path/borders than the other one.
And then the green one has access to (too) many great territories in France and Germania ?!?!
If the idea is to recreate the terrain difficulty (mountain paths), in that many small territories on the map simulate slow progress in reality, then why not had these 3 territories put in sequence (from west to east) ?
ALso I find there are a LOT of Legio Romanum cluttered in "Asia", which, together with the cities and being in the map corner with three sides fairly easy covered, means that conquering Asia is THE key to win the game.
Why is that so ?
If you took basis in history on a certain moment that there happen to be more roman armies active/fighting in Asia than in the west/or africa, then that is a bad excuse. Because in your map the players/armies are bound to return
and fight inside
the Roman Empire territories whereas those historical armies in Asia were doing border offensive actions versus the arab-asian tribes and kingdoms and the rebellion troops within palestine.
Better focus on balanced gameplay disposition of bonusses than on historical snap shots.
and a third thing:
What is the point of creating "fleets" when there is no use made for them in the map ?
One player can make cross channel invasions (Britain, Gibraltar, Sicily, etc) without being hindered by the player that holds the "navy" in that area.
That is silly. They all act as "appendices" in the map. Useless , except for a bonus when you control many of them.
It is so easy to recreate the notion that only by controlling the seas locally can you transport your army over a channel.
That is more realistic and makes gameplay a bit more interesting/exciting.
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intellegor ulli.