My review goes up tomorrow where I touch on a few of these things, but I don’t mind saying now that, for example, It’s a shame Rome uses a standing army system when at the start of the game they would have still largely used the annually raised citizen legions.
I think anyway - my own personal reading is more around the mid second century where the standing army was already starting to emerge, but it was more of a case they kept raised legions in situ in places like Spain to fight off the Iberian tribes, which ended up having significant consequences to the economic and socio-political landscapes back in Rome. Many ended up staying in the army so long that their land-holdings back home got neglected and bought up by the Senatorial class (who then imported slave labour to work them), which mean’t they then fall out of the minimum property requirement needed to be eligible for the army in the first place.
It’s a fascinating transition that’s not really represented in the game at all. So my own personal choice would be to make Rome similar to basically every nation in CK2 prior to the inclusion of Retinues, where they would have had to raise legions annually for a task and then either disband them once the war was over, or keep them in place (which would have trade-offs but could lead to a reform chain that would eventually switch Rome over to a standing army).
It’s perhaps not easy to have such a system for a single nation so I can understand them wanting to keep an even experience across the board. I find that more of a shame than Rome not having a second Consul though, which is less important in the context of a grand-strategy game (IMO).