Dayyālu
Arcane
I like the idea behind the combat encounters a lot - that you don't have to actually defeat your opponents, only survive long enough for the other boys in red to break their backs. This is how it should work in way more games.
Defeating opponents is still recommended (well, you get some recognition and it's even the point!) and the game spices up combat with duels and special encounters (like your common bandits during foraging) that require a different approach. And of course, there's the final boss of the game (that's both a massive pain in the ass for weak characters and a stroke of genius from the author, if I may say).
But even if the game is somewhat on the "light" side, it's worth the seven or so bucks.
If you run out of time, forage/hunt till you have enough food. Your superiors will be more understanding if you're late but have enough grub.
Italians aren't Romans, thank God. Thanks, but we truly got the worst run I've ever had on a foraging mission. I'm not joking, first one I fail ever. Four villages, three with random events that lessened the amount of food found, two failed Fishing checks, no way to find food out of the villages.
A RNG outlier.
Can you tell us a bit about Roman approach to religion? I'd be very interested
"I like to ask simple questions: the Understatement of the Century"
Roman religious belief is frankly an insanely deep (and wide) subject, and I've completely forgot the authors I've studied, like, almost a decade ago. Even the terms aren't directly translatable (religio doesn't means exactly religion!) but to oversimplify: the Romans thought of themselves as a deeply religious people, and it was an essential part of their self-representation. The stereotypical Roman hero from the augustan literature, Aeneas, is not only a warrior hero in the typical tradition, but he has also the greatest pietas, that we can roughly translate as the greatest respect for the Gods, for the family, and for the State. If a Roman would compare himself to another people, even before their military prowess or anything else, he would have probably pointed out that they were pious.
Roman belief can be personal (and we have proof of that) but the essential part is social and public: what's essential is partecipation in the religious community (be it your family or even more importantly the state) performed in public places. Following correctly rituals and keeping a good relationships with the Gods guaranteed the success of the Roman state and of course of the individual Roman. As you say, it's a rather "contractual" approach, but it was indeed typical of the Mediterranean and Near Eastern religion of the time (amusingly and similarly enough, what's the Jewish relationship with God if not a pact?).
There's of course the immense variety of Gods (that evolves through time thanks to cultural contact) and the religious orders (that almost all have, unsurprisingly, a public role). You can have belief in the supernatural and the otherwordly, the role of public festivities and the immense role of divination (how the heck where you supposed to know the will of the Gods?).
Again, if I have to move a critique to Legionary's Life, is the complete absence of religion bar a couple bits and the Sacrfice option. I do understand the author's approach, but it was such a central part of Roman life that it feels somewhat off to let it go.
To make an amusing and typical example: Publius Claudius Pulcher before the naval battle of Drepana performed, as expected, divination through sacred chickens. He threw some food at them, and by reading their feeding pattern he would understand the chances for the battle. Cicero tells us that the chickens refused to eat, the worst sign possible, and that utterly terrified the Romans: Pulcher tried to play it smart by throwing the chickens out of the ships and saying:
"If they won't eat, they'll drink!"
The battle was of course lost and Pulcher got convicted for the blasphemy. We don't really care if this happened or not, but it's useful to see how even Cicero, a cultured man centuries later, perceived that in military matters, like in all things, divine help was sought and needed, and that the real reason of the defeat wasn't the enemy or anything, but the failure of the Roman general to heed the will of the Gods properly, and committing a sacrilege.
Funny to notice how Polybius apparently doesn't tell us the story, but Polybius was a soulless greek, what should he know about being loved by the Gods
By the way read Polybius, he's frankly awesome and the source of the vast majority of this game's setting
(also if I say heresies regarding Roman history, pliz correct me, it has been a decade and it ain't my field of expertise)