How are you guys Romanizing conquered settlements?

[bigmilt16]

I am truly in love with EB 1.1-excellent work guys.

I was just curious as to how Roman players go about "romanization"? I used to just throw in a type II/I govt. This time around, I am installing a type IV govt, on all newly conquered settlements and upgrading as the client ruler dies. I am nearing 260 BC and I have almost conquered all of italy. I like the changes because it seems to force me to take my time when expanding. Some of the changes I've noticed:

-Not so much excessive mnai floating in the treasury, it forces me to be more economical with troop buildups and navies. It also ensures that only construction projects that I need are done. Also, my guys don't become corrupt so fast either.

-I have to slow down and provinces have much more autonomy, giving Rome a much more "republican" feel. I can't burn across the map like before, because it takes 20-30 years to completely "take over" a settlement. The client ruler becomes a "pseudo-king" of his settlement (just look at their huge entourage) but he is highly dependent on your help and will provide local forces after enough time, money, and help from Rome.

what do you guys think?

-

[Korlon]

Right, I'm doing the same thing as you. Except for Ariminium, I stick a type IV on every province I conquer. Once the client ruler dies, I stick in a type III, then 20 years later a type II, and, if possible, 20 years later a type I.

[Disciple of Tacitus]

interesting house rule, guys. I like it and will try it out in my next Romani campaign. Do you cart a FM to the province as it upgrades to lvls 2 and 3 (and 1)?

[Olimpian]

Sounds interesting.....In my Roman campaign I used lvl 3 gov mostly everywhere,thought it offers me the best balance between local and faction troops(marian era of course) and it is supposedly economy-oriented.Maybe that's why I had tons of money
If I am to start a new Roman camaign,I think I'll use such house-rules+more strict army composition to make things more interesting

[alatar]

I use 4's for new towns (especialy in camilian era), but then upgrade to 2's after a few decades. Unless it is in the farthest flung are's where it is 3's.

My army compostion is two fold...

Consular (lead by a Consul or Ex consul (at a push a prateor with alot of influence).
General
Tribunes Milities
2 Hastai
2 Prcips
2Triarri
2 Rorarri
2 Equties
2 Leves
2 Aceeni

Or none conular, which is one legion and allied troops.

[bigmilt16]

interesting house rule, guys. I like it and will try it out in my next Romani campaign. Do you cart a FM to the province as it upgrades to lvls 2 and 3 (and 1)?

Absolutely. Once the client ruler dies, a minimal financial or military foundation has been established enough for a True Roman to enter the province and take over smoothly without a worry of rebellion, and hopefully will have some local troop capabilities.

It is also great because the Italian states are truly confederation of allies for at least 30-50 years and not just neighboring states under the Senate's direct control.

You, as Rome, will not have direct control over your allies because the client ruler has autonomous control; however, I only intervene in local affairs to ensure that their recruitment stays in check (no building boats or over-sized garrisons). However, the allies cannot do much if Rome itself is not bringing in any monies and authorizing the allies to spend them.

Construction projects in Rome always take priority over allied states.

I stress once again that it forces me to slow down because I'm also paying for the allied ruler's bodyguards, which keeping my treasury in check, even after the first punic war (where you economy normally begins to explode out of control). Also, if I expand too quickly I won't be able to reinforce myself.

[QuintusSertorius]

Right, I'm doing the same thing as you. Except for Ariminium, I stick a type IV on every province I conquer. Once the client ruler dies, I stick in a type III, then 20 years later a type II, and, if possible, 20 years later a type I.

I do the same. I can't remember whether it was you or someone else who sold me on the idea.

[jtareb]

In my current romani campaign I'm using type 2 govts in Italy, Spain, southern Gaul, greece, and the balkans. These regions historically had either proconsular or propraetor governors from the beginning. In africa I use type 2 govts for tunisia and type 3 govts for the western portion( algeria and morocco). For northern gaul I plan to start with type 3 and transition to type 2. As for asia I will probably go with type 3 and 4 govts to start and transition to 2.

From my reading of the histories Rome did not rely on allied client rulers in the west as much as they did in the east. In the west Mauretania was the only allied client state to remain free from direct roman rule during the time period of the game. In the east Rome used client rulers alot due in part to the distance from rome and the high degree of civilized Greco-roman rulers already in place. Gaul is the only area which I'm still debating as its not clear to me if Caesar installed client rulers or instituted direct rule from the getgo in his conquest of gaul. The subjugated celtic tribes retained some internal political power the ten years of the gallic wars but with Caesar and his ten legions sitting on top of them just how much freedom they retained is questionable.

[Timidus]

Sounds like excellent house rules! If I can ever get my 1.1 to start again, I'll try adopting them!

Jtareb, you're exactly right on Caesar and the Gallic tribes - hard to exercise much autonomy with 10 Roman legions in your backyard; ask the Veneti - who had the audacity to revolt in 56BC, and as thanks got their entire ruling council - several hundred people - beheaded, and the rest of the tribe sold into slavery!

One thing that happened a lot historically that we aren't able to really recreate in the gaming environment is the taking/exchange of hostages; maybe that could be added into the Diplomacy for 2.0 somehow?

[Korlon]

For one, there won't be a 2.0. There will be a EB2, but EB 2.0 will never exist. Secondly, I don't think you can mod in the exchange of hostages in MTW2. If EB2 does have hostage stuff, it'll just be like how it is in MTW2, three options, release, ask for money, or kill them all.

[bigmilt16]

In my current romani campaign I'm using type 2 govts in Italy, Spain, southern Gaul, greece, and the balkans. These regions historically had either proconsular or propraetor governors from the beginning. In africa I use type 2 govts for tunisia and type 3 govts for the western portion( algeria and morocco). For northern gaul I plan to start with type 3 and transition to type 2. As for asia I will probably go with type 3 and 4 govts to start and transition to 2.

From my reading of the histories Rome did not rely on allied client rulers in the west as much as they did in the east. In the west Mauretania was the only allied client state to remain free from direct roman rule during the time period of the game. In the east Rome used client rulers alot due in part to the distance from rome and the high degree of civilized Greco-roman rulers already in place. Gaul is the only area which I'm still debating as its not clear to me if Caesar installed client rulers or instituted direct rule from the getgo in his conquest of gaul. The subjugated celtic tribes retained some internal political power the ten years of the gallic wars but with Caesar and his ten legions sitting on top of them just how much freedom they retained is questionable.

I can totally understand the use of type II govt's off top. That's how I've always played my Roman campaigns before 1.1 too actually. I wanted a different feel because it simply felt too easy to expand at my will, and spend to the point of recklessness because my coffers were so full all the time.

Something just didn't seem right about having some local magistrate, king, or governor rule a settlement without him having to be "dependent" on Rome for his survival. These house rules allow for the settlements (at least for a few decades) to provide that feel that Rome is the center of the Roman world. If Roman money, soldiers, and political autonomy isn't there, the allied settlement can't romanize, or thrive at all.