Share your Roleplaying/Houserule lessons

[Scipio Germanicus]

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.

[bigmilt16]

does anybody keep their Roman senators in the capital exclusively, except for provincial governors and legionary legates/tribunes?

[anubis88]

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 province

[Macilrille]

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).

[SwissBarbar]

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).

Yes, but these Romans are not the historical Romans, but the swissbarbarian Romans. 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.

[Macilrille]

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

[Vilkku92]

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.

[SwissBarbar]

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

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.

[bigmilt16]

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 province

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.