Printable View
I know that I have stopped many Romani campaigns because I learned of an outstanding houserule which brought a new element to my game. I know that there are some factions which require a certain style of play, fighting, recruitment, goverment strategy, etc. and they can all have a big impact on how easy things go for you down the line.
What are your hardest learned lessons?
With the Romans I usually try to make the game harder as it would be, if I rushed, or only would send stacks etc.
1. Rule - Settings
Play on Very Hard (Campaign) / Medium (Battlefield) settings.
Why? Because on Battlefield anything beyond "Medium" is unrealistic. On VH the Enemy's peasants slaughter your heavy infantry. That may be an challange, but it is so unrealistic, that to me it is no fun. VH on the Campaign map is ok, because also the Eleutheroi can attack you, and the AI is more agressive.
2. Rule - Don't blitz.
Do not try to mass-conquer without thinking. Attack peoples only, if they give reason to you. Start with Epeiros and free the city of Rhegion, which renegade Legions occupied (This tells you the advisor). Don't go to Sicily. Carthage will attack you soon enough on VH. If southern Italy is yours go north.
It's not your goal to get the Reforms as early as possible. They will come soon enough.
3. Rule - Army composition
Muster Legions. 1 Legion is a Halfstack. For defense of your lands, and most military expeditions send single legions. For great offenses in real wars against Factions, send armies*. Of course, if you start a huge war later in the game, you can send far more than 1 army.
*1 army is composed of 2 Legions like this:
Roman Legion Camillan (C) /Polybian (P)
1 x Legatvs (FM)
1 x Tribvnvs (FM)
1 x Accensi
2 x Leves (C) / Velites (P)
2 x Hastati
2 x Principes
1 x Triarii
Socii (Italic/Greek example, of course the units descend from where the Legion is recruited.)
1 x Tribvnvs (FM)
1 x Akontistai / other skirmishers
1 x Peltastai / other skirmishers
1 x Toxotai / other archers
2 x Hastati Samnitici / Pezoi Brettioi / Gaemile Liguriae / other light or medium Inf.
1 x Pedites Extraordinarii / Samnitici Milites / Hoplitai Haploi / Hoplitai / other Heavy Inf.
2 x Eqvites Campanici / Liguriae Epos / other light cav.
1 x Eqvites Extraordinarii / other heavy cav.
(Notice that the Socii usually field most of the cavalry)
4. Rule - Familiy members in armies
Most of your armies have 1 General. But in my Romani-Campaigns the young Roman nobles have to prove themselves in battle first, if they want to go the political way. So my amies (Camillan / Polybian) are Composed like this
Legatvs: The General of the amy is at least 35 years old and has fought at least 10 battles, 3 of them in the offensive on enemy territory and 3 have to have been sieges. He has been in Roma and was in a lower political position, and now aims for higher positions, like Praetor or Consul.
Tribvnvs Laticlavivs: A young man of at least 25 years, who still has to serve his 10 battles. After the Legatvs, he's the highest officer in the army. He has not much political experience yet. If the second Tribvnvs is younger than 20 years, he is the one, who leads the Socii Legion in battle. If not, he's the one who commands the Roman troops, while the Legatvs watches him and gives orders.
Tribvnvs: He's at least 16 years old and has no political experience at all. When he's 20 years old, he might lead a Socii legion into battle, under the watchful eye of his Legatvs.
5. Rule - Familiy members in politics
Let your imagination play. You can imitate a senate, where different "gens" try to get more power, by weakening the power of others. Let them have other priorities. Some will want to trade with oder peoples, some want to conquer Greece, others maybe extinguish the Celts... make them act according to their traits.
6. Rule - War
Savage tribes attack your borders. Don't go an blow them off the map. Invade their territory, defeat their armies and then force them to peace. If they attack again, conquer the capital and kill the king, force them to peace and make their capital a client kingdom (imitating the whole faction to be a client kingdom). If the opposition of the former Kingdom tries to reconquer the capital and replace your client king by their own, THEN make this people vanish and conquer the rest of their cities.
Being in war with a great nation like the Ptolemaioi, who maybe have conquered most of the former Seleukid Empire (or the other way round), asks for other strategies. While fighting at the boders, send an army to their homeland, where their greatest cities are, and conquer one after another, enslave all people in there, destroy all buildings (not the wonders!!!) and then go on to the next city with your army. Leave no city guards back, they can reconquer the city if they want. It will be very, very expensive for them to rebuilt their huge cities, which will ease the situation at your real frontline in this war.
Refill your lines with mercenaries. The FM, who was the leader of the army will become fabulously wealthy. Consider this in your future roleplay.
Many more rules....
with Pahlava:
1) dude! you can not conquer AS with bunch of starting horse-archers without going insane :yes:
2) do not (i repeat: do not) raze cities to the ground and then retreat: you'll need them sooner or later! AI won't rebuild them for you (you'll be back before it do that), and you probably wont have money to do that yourself :book:
3) in newly conquered regions build barracks first, and then go for markets/justice improvements, roads etc. :juggle2:
4) do not attack armies in woods with horse archer army :smash:
5) always kill everything when you conquer a city :skull:
6) and my newest discovery: living is much more easier if you destroy Baktria as soon as possible :beam:
What other rules do you have... sounds great!Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBarbar
1) Settlements that take part in armed rebellions will be exterminated. Those who defy the imperium will not be tolerated.
2) Do not kill retreating enemies. It is dishonorable to kill a man behind his back.
3) Garrison every city. It is rare that the enemy sneaks behind the frontier but it can happen. Always protect every settlement you have unless you are conducting the scorched earth policy.
4) Do not camapaign during the winter months.
5) Show respect for the enemy culture. Brutulising the subject people is not a good way to earn their loyalty. Leave all enemy buildings standing unless you wish to replace the administration.
6) The firstborn prince will always assume the purple. Also, do not adopt foreigners or family members of a family who has previously been bribed.
7) Generals who loses 2 major battles or 1 army (at least 1800 strong) will be executed. They will charge the enemy line and die fighting in battle or be put on a ship and sunk.
8) Make extensive use of spies and diplomats. A good general will scout the way ahead and not rush blindly into things. Make sure to maintain good relations.
9) Instate puppet rulers over cities which are friendly and have been hostile because they were following orders from their king.
10) You cannot adopt anyone from the royal family. If the royal family dies out then the next most powerful family takes over. Then they cannot adopt anyone who have the new royal family name.
I usually play parthia so ive made houserules to fit their gameplay.
Ok, some more ^^
7. You're Rome - not some Kingdom, so you have no "royals". The faction leader is the most respected senator or consul or whatever. The best man has to be his heir, not necessarily his son. This is only a theoretical position, because it's integrated in the gameplay. You can ignore the "Faction leader" because in fact you have senatores, consuls, praetors etc. who all together are "the faction leaders". The most respected senator is the "faction leader" because as FL he get's some good traits, which fit with his position as great senator.
Important: you have to install "Forced Diplomacy Minimod" if you want to follow the war - rules I posted first"
8. If you conquer an enemys settlement, don't exterminate it, except of course in the situation I described in the 6. rule or if the enemy was extremely cruel to your people (f.e. exterminated one of your cities or completely destroyed one of your armies - but even then exterminate 1 city of this faction, not all)
9. fleaza's Rule of not killing retreating enemies is interesting, but I would tie it to your commanders traits. If he's a brute, a killer, aggressive or stuff, he should slaughter his foes without mercy. If he's nice, a philosopher or honourable, you should not kill retreating enemies. You can make it even more interesting, if your commander and his tribunes have different traits. If your commander orders to kill all enemies, but your honourable tribunes show mercy in battle, this can be potential for internal conflicts. The commander could even kick the young tribune out of the army, and the tribune has to search a political foe of his commander, in whose army he could continue his military education.
And a mercyless commander can be rebuked by the senate, who is concerned about the good reputation of the republic.
10. Fix a certain rule of how your city garrisons have to be composed. Example:
2 Roarii/Velites or Hoplitai Haploi for settlements up to 6000 people
2 Roarii etc. and 1 Skirmishers/Archers for settlements up to 12'000 people
2 Light Inf. + 1 Heavy Inf. + 2 Skirmishers/Archers from 12'000 people upwards.
besides that:
1 FM per settlement if possible, of course only if they have deserved it (f.e. they have to have been commanders of an army and after that politically successful to get a city to govern).
Even settlements near dangerous borderlines don't have more garrison. If it's too dangerous station a legion near the city or at a strategically important point, by building a fort.
11. Client Rulers in Type IV Governements are Kings, and therefore have an army of their own, whicht must fight for Rome whenever the Senate calls. There you are free how these armies have to look like.
12. Like fleaza said: Do not camapaign during the winter months, at least in the north. In Egypt or the Sabean kingdom, it might be possible. Always camp in forts if possible. Roman armies build camps after every march.
13. Romans adopted sons quite often. But make sure you don't adopt idiots like dumb/uncharismatic etc. And don't let your daughters marry such idiots too.
14. Also like fleaza had the idea: Generals who lose x (put in a number) important battles, or a whole army should return to rome and be punished by the senate. Since roman citizens are not to be punished by death – except they are traitors – they mostly are banished to somewhere. Send this man to a city far away, where he remains for the rest of his life in shame, or even a client kingdom, where he can serve a client king of rome in this king’s army, as a second officer or so, but be must never again fight in a regular legion or army of Rome. (Of course you can roleplay a cool story, of a general who was banished, but in times of great danger, they beg him to return etc.... ;-) )
15. Don't always retrain your army. Units can be retrained when they have lost not less than 50% of their soldiers. Historically armies had their full theoretical strength only rarely.
16. Every legion has 1 Spy and 1 Diplomat (they can be integrated in your army, as you know, they don't take away the slots of your soldiers). Armies (2 Legions have 2 Spies and 2 Diplomats)
17. Mercenaries can only be hired by a decision of the senate in Rome, in desperate situations. The General of course has to inform the senate first, that he needs to hire mercs. He has to send a messenger (spy) to rome, who after that has to return to the general with the decision of the senate. Since you will have many spies at the borders of your empire, an intelligent general can use a "chain". He can send a spy to another spy, and this one to the next spy again, and therefore bring his message faster to rome.
18. Notice: After the Marian reforms, the Legions are tied to the General, not to the senate. So a very wealthy man (this is a trait) can hire mercs without asking the senate. After Marian reforms also civil wars and even the change to an emperor is possible, if one is mighty enough.
I barely have time left these days...But whenever I play EB (and Stainless Steel) I make it a must that I completely destroy Barbaropolis.
I think that counts as a houserule doesn't it?
Not if you play with Rome :laugh4:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
houserule and a matter of honour at the same time :yes:
Whenever a Fm is coming of age, I send him to the Biggest city in this area of the world (Capital or "second capital" - in my Pto campain its Alexandreia and Damaskos) until he reaches his early 20ies. At least.
except my lastest campaign that goes really ugly, I Usually had these rules:
1. Try to "Pokemon Training & Breeding" an Heir, that means if your starting faction heir is too old for further training, wait until his son is 16 years old, made sure that child get a good education in 4 years, and at 20 years, give him army, and let him goes berserk on Campaign with rather minimal facility given, that will help a lot to build his "characters" (gaining 8++ stars in the process). After some sucessful command points, set him as the Heir, repeat that process with his son. (I named it "Pokemon Training" because 3 or 4 battles each turn on enemy lands is just like what you do in Pokemon games to level up).
2. Use another FMs as Governors only except on border provinces and emergency..... that suits well because that boys in training are the "hero" of their story......
3. Build only one Full Elite Stack for one great Empire. (but there was really one full elite stack, means all Phalangites are Argyraspidai, the side guard is Thraikioi Rhomphaiakoi, Archers are Kretans, and Cavalries are Hetairoi) If you got all Makedonia and Hellas in your Hands, when you got the money and resources to maintain it.... but try not to build another super-elite armies. And that super elite army can only led by a really high stars faction leader / heir (if for somewhat reason can't be led.... let that army garrison a city)
That's it...... :2thumbsup:
I only play the Romanii as I don t know why I feel its not right to play the others, even when I tried I stopped after a couple of turns.
I use the 'Accurate Timeline' link from the search. There it explains nearly everything. Apart from those I keep all my other family members in rome and never blitz and use historical time conquests only. Read it out and you have it all.
Etienne
- slow expansion
- historical or at least balanced armies (elites only in king's or prince's armies, city specific armies as KH, factional core units + regional levies and specialists), I like to make reforms, like Thorakitai and Thureophoroi armies as Helenes, more organised armies as "barbarians" after many years of contact with "civilised" peoples
- FM roleplaying, giving them duties they are supposed to do, like vigorous ones have to be active, blooded and naturally born commanders command armies, peace lovers are managers, give them education - academy (or whatever you have), than commanders fight rebels, managers (by that time they already have few traits determinig their fate) start developing smaller cities, than they move to larger armies/cities, roleplay some internal strugles
- with RTW AI it is difficult but try acting diplomatically wise
I am playing as the Sweboz at the moment, and due to Northern europe, in our time frame being "only just" in the throngs of the advanced Iron age I have been playing very slowly.
First off.. Most of my early army would consist of the "youth" skirmishers.
After each battle my army would be sent to its corresponding Home pronvince and disbanded, due to no real standing professional germanic army anywhere untill maybe post AD (correct me if im wrong)
Majority of my pronvines are ruled with type 4 or type 3 governments With a High king and lesser kings.
It wont be untill very later in my campaign that more type 2 and then type 1 governments appear.
Taxes are on low most of the time and then raised while a war is being fought.
Buildings are built in a quasi-technological order. once i had built mines i could then build blacksmiths, with black smithers the traders were upgraded to market places. larger ports where then built.
After the early wars and then acess to mines I could then validate myself into building larger barracks which could produce the "Dugunthis(sp)"
After a loss of a major battle with serious causlties or a win with serious causlties. I cant raise another large army untill 8-10years later to try to simulate a large loss of the 15-40 age range of the male population.
Family members fight in the battle line, I pretty sure this is correct many germanic leaders being just petty chieftans, in the eyes of romans, were only in control due in some part to fighting prowless. Im aware that up untill maybe the 11th century AD germanic leaders still fought in this way. Most notably Harold Godwinson of the English.
Also i fight in either single line in guard mode or just as mass of units to simulate the mindset of the northern germanic fighter from the late BC period.
Of course I RP, with the aphistemnoi(sp) and yes this occansional bandits or pirates as neighbouring units from neighbouring pronvinces. E.G i did not take on the cimbri or goths of scandanavia untill pirate fleets were pilthering trade from the southern Baltic.
Oh, I havent built any soap makers yet, because i wasn't sure that germanic tribes at this point had it. So i would not build them untill comming into contact with celtic peoples (in game this means sharing a border with one of the gaulic factions. Please tell me if there is evidence they do.
overall since im playing the campaign on very hard. having no standing professional army untill i feel i have, in theory, created enough stability and technology, not to mention economically, IT will be a very hard game because the A.I is going to go stack crazy at me once i share another border with a faction.
Currently im role playing that the sweboz want to control the coastline around the baltic since Over land travel in northern europe is so slow and dangerous.
I only have three real rules.
1. Never put taxes on more than "high".
2. Only family members can lead an army.
3. Never start a war for conquest only. There must be good political reasons for doing so.
If Im playing an easier faction I add some other rules to make it harder
I have noticed that govt. types have pros and cons...
1. building the highest govt. type available when you conquer a new city
Pros:
-gives you tons of cash
-lots of mid-advanced level structures available; hence, enhanced stability and cash from better developed structures.
-if you can get a FM into the settlement, you will make even MORE cash because it will be governed AND advanced.
Cons:
-many of your settlements/provinces go without a governor; hence, you don't make as much money and have as much stability in your settlements
-serious chance you may run low on FM's to command an army should a big time war break out
-it takes anywhere from 1-6 years to stabilize a newly conquered settlement (including time to build the government and get a basic military barracks up)! THIS IS HUGE because this can cripple an invasion and/or turn your generals into "attuned governors" while they sit in a new province
2. building type IV's in every newly conqured settlement
Pros:
-every settlement is governed.
-guaranteed stability in every new settlement
-endless supply of generals
-the BEST local troops (great in Gaul!)
-attacking army doesn't get bogged down in nation-building every new settlement.
Cons:
-you are stuck with a local king/tyrant/warlord, for better or worse, for at least 40 years. That's a looong time
-you cannot build ANY advanced civic structures
-you have to pay a hefty, regular bribe to keep the alliance in tact
The biggest trade-off is advancing your society for local military capacity. Stability is going to come either way, but you honestly should not build a Type IV unless you genuinely need the local military capacity from the region. As Romans, this is most needed in the Gallic and African provinces.
when i play rome i use entirely different rules. these rules are for when playing kingdoms. and the 'dont kill retreating units' only applies to enemies who have similar culture/ethnicity to your own. i also garrison settlements according to their needs. for example. id garrison cities which were a safe distance behind the frontier with a couple of decent troops. on the frontier id garrison them with decent troops, around 5-10 units and id garrison powerful/historically important cities like antioch with decent troops + 1 elite.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBarbar
Playing as the KH:
Only the Hegemon and Kleronomos (sp?) can command large forces as they are the top military leaders in the Koinon.
Cities with governors receive the most funds as they are led by talented and influential men.
Not much else. Any other rules are game-specific. For example, my current Hegemon is royally pissed at a faction for breaking a ceasefire and attacking an ally, so when/if he conquers their capital he's gonna burn it to the ground and kill/enslave everyone. :skull::whip:
does anybody keep their Roman senators in the capital exclusively, except for provincial governors and legionary legates/tribunes?
I don't since i dont have the patience to look at everyone what their current status is. However, i keep all of my FM's in rome, until i need them to lead an army, or when one is old enough i let them govern a provinceQuote:
Originally Posted by bigmilt16
SwissBarbar, what sort of Rome are you playing? Historically Roamns were exceedingly brutal and did indeed exterminate a lot of enemy cities.
I am compiling a sketchy timeline for Roman expansion for those who want to follow history and many of those cities we see on the map was devastated by Roman conquest then rebuilt later.
My houserule as Rome is to exterminate enemy populations unless they have something in common with you (Rhegion, etc), or has been a long-term ally (rare in EB).
LOL! Actually, you answered exactly what I asked, anubis88. I was curious because I thought I was the only one who did it. I at least keep the students and senators in rome at all times. I tried to span them out to individual cities in my last campaign, but it didn't feel right having a people's tribune in tarus, or a consul parked in capua. Rome is really unique in that the only FM's who actually governed were the provincial governors. The senators collectively did the actual governing in Rome, so it certainly does not feel right having one individual hog the glory of governing the city all by himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by anubis88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
Yes, but these Romans are not the historical Romans, but the swissbarbarian Romans. :juggle2: Meaning a brutal general may exterminate more than a kind one. Of course, if you try to replay Roman history, that's ok. But in my campaign they don't go an conquer. They mostly go to war, when the enemy attacked first and treat them with respect, except if the general is a complete berserker.
Whether the Res Publica Romana was a conscious imperialist or not is a question still being debated (Imperialist or "Stumbling-into-empire). These two represent each extreme in the opposite viwpoints Badian, E.: Roman Imperialism in The Late Republic, Oxford, 1968.
and
Harris, W. V.: War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327- 70 BC, Oxford, 1979.
With most others in between, for example
Beard, Mary & Crawford, Michael: Rome in The Late Republic, London, 1999.
My own point of view is that the Roman constitution forced young patricians into searching for military glory in their Cursus Honorum, but I have elaborated on that elsewhere and even quite recently.
But my point is that whether or not the enemy had provoced them or not, in fact especially if the enemy had provoced them, the Romans did not treat war like a game or in a sort of chivalric manner. The Romans were very practical and very brutal. When I put the timeline online, you will see many cities with "Exterminated", so play as you want to, but be aware that you are playing ahistorically if you have Romans acting like chivalric Kings in the Middle Ages. If so it is indeed SwissBarbarians, not Romans.
But whatever ticks your dicker is fine by me, enjoy your own style:juggle2:
Some of my houserules:
- I always have a FM or allied general leading my armies. Period.
- I try to have a Governor in my settlements, unless they are/were governed in some other ways (e.g. they have Thenxos or town is called Athens) or I need someone to lead an army
- I build the most advanced goverment possible in conquered regions. However, if the settlement's defenders impressed my general (or I want their regionals) I leave them their indenpendence and only make them my allies (Type IV and Client ruler). Note: Doesn't apply to homeland. Period.
- I won't betray my allies. Period.
- If my ally betrays me, I will show them no mercy and burn their cities down.
- I try to capture homeland regions before I expand elsewhere. If I have to attack other faction's lands before my whole homeland is mine those attacks will only be raiding (so I won't keep their settlements)
- Balanced/historical armies. Period.
Of course, I roleplay a bit, so you could replace word 'I' with 'Faction leader' or whatever strikes your fancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
Of course I enjoy my own style, I don't say that you should not enjoy YOUR style. My style is not better, but different from yours.
IIRC the queston in this thread was not "how would the ancient Romans play EB" but "What are YOUR houserules when playing the romans?". So I answered to that.
Remember the EB-FAQ: "EB is about making your own Julius Caesar or Hannibal" and so it is also about making your own Romans or Carthaginians. If you want it REALLY 100% historical, without your own influence, read a history book.
I agree with the above statement.
It's nice to have a game that is close to being historical at the start. But once you take over, your the factions god and YOU make the decisions. I just wish there was more options/features for the "god" to force it's people to adapt to.
Besides, it's almost pointless to try to stay too close to history as the AI will do whatever it wants.
Guys- guys, I never said you should not play as you wish I merely pointed out that Swissbarbar's Romans are acting ahistorically chivalric towards the vanguished, and as most houserules are created to follow history as well as limit the player; that if you want to treat your vanguished enemies historically (not how you expand or wage war), they should often- very often be put to the sword. It is the historian in me that feels I have to point such inaccuracies out- especially as the guide to conduct becoming of a Roman in the AAR section is very wrong in this area, despite being an otherwise good guide.
There you go, have fun as you please, but think not that Romans were benevolent towards the vanguished, they were not and this statement of Quintus,is in direct contradiction of historical evidence. Romans were brutal!Quote:
While the game doesn't really properly represent the reality of siege warfare - ie that if a settlement surrenders it is well treated, if it resists and is assaulted it will be sacked - there are some simple rules. Extermination is rare. Only two settlements were razed to the ground (and in the same year - 146BC), Kart-Hadast and Korinthos.
But houserules are often to make sure you face the same challanges your faction faced. I mean it is like a waiter. A waiter in Germany gets a good wage and the tips are just a bonus. A waiter in the US gets a low or no wage so if he doesn't get tips he'll starve. Maybe increase the upkeep of roman units to compensate?
The Houserules are to make it more realistic, not more historical ;-) That's a difference. But we should not dispute, let's play just as we want to, as you said it.
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissBarbar
Do you understand what TK is saying?
nope ^^