I have 1/2/3 free units by city size so yes the upkeep is significantly reduced. I also added a couple of improvements that add tax revenue and/or reduce corruption. My unit upkeep is still 3400/turn so minor tweaks aren't going to get me to a balanced budget. I need to add that I have my research slider at 0 in order to get my research timeline back to the historical one, so this gives me a couple of thousand extra surplus per turn. At something like 2/2/6 (and I need to run with luxury at 6 or war brings nearly instantaneous cities in revolt), I would be running a surplus of about 1000/turn which is probably reasonable at the peak of the Empire. It seems pretty clear to me that my changes which made the first 150 turns or so reasonable have made it too easy at this point. As for the other discussions, Carthage was about right, Numidia was OK and did not attack Carthage in my game(s). Aegypt was very tough to beat but never a threat to beat me. Of course, I now have almost 600 Legions and 200 Eques Legionarii (if my Latin pluralization capabilities are adequate) so that makes most threats beatable. It is also clearly way to big an army to be able to field, even at the peak of the Empire. The suggestions about obsoleting research improvements to force one to up that slider are reasonable. And now my question - what exactly does one do between 70 AD and, say, 300 AD? My Empire is fully expanded. My hudreds of servi are rapidly upgrading every tile. The Rhine line is complete and the Danube and Tigris/Euphrates are well along. The impassable tiles prevent the type of punitive expeditions that Rome mounted along the northern frontier. Fighting slave rebellions is not completely fulfilling. Just curious as I suspect I have 100 turns of mostly tedium ahead of me before hitting a challenge again. The early game forces one to expand/expand/expand to keep up with Rome. The late game will force one to fight/fight/fight to prevent the historical fight. The middle game...?