Houserules

[Jurand of Cracow]

Far too many of those things would be prohibitive to the AI, which doesn't "understand" any rule imposed that way. You can't guarantee the AI will use governors appropriately, and that may only come at the cost of them not leading any armies with FMs.

True that the ability of the AI of using / solving the problems posed by the moded innovations should be a decisive factor in implementing them (or not). It's what I've pointed at in the last issue below. However, afaik, there're many other solutions that can be implemented in such a way that they concern only the player, not the AI.

[Nightsh4de]

1) my armies are regionally oriented because I do retrain units and I think it should be a local thing (its also less of a micromanaging nightmare). And I do have a royal retinue to defend my core regions, it so happens to be my original stack from turn 1 that has just been expanded over time to include to include the best factional (local) units. Its my elite stack. The other stacks across the empire are regulars with a couple of elite local units and mercs that I like to play

2) FM lead armies, yep me too, usually with a second in command but not more unless its my "training" stack for boys

3) Yes I roleplay my characters, especially my FL and FH

4) Amphibious ops ports only? sounds like an interesting idea, I´ll try it out.

5) I don´t randomly start wars, I only do it when the empire is threatened by neighbours or a collapsing nation presents objectives that cannot be allowed to fall into a foreign conquerors hands. Violating my territory should be a CB but the AI doesn´t realize what its doing so I just troll the intruder with my units and move stacks to our borders as a threat, until it leaves. I guess thats roleplaying.

6) Generals cam, yes, I was doing something similar a few versions back where I would lead from the center and move en masse to the enemy, with my nose to the ground, giving "saddle" orders as we approached the enemy line. It was pretty cool to do as you get excellent immersion. Unfortunately, since your are the only one with a brain, your peripheral units will do nothing useful unless you micromanage, so many units, like skirmishers and horse archers, would just sit there, which meant zooming away from my general to take care of details.

7) Yep slow expansion. There was a house rule about not having more settlements than FMs which I respect as much as possible. I only break it when there is a strategic imperative to do so which would be realistic. Otherwise I tend to play "peacefully". I like managing my empire more than fighting wars, so expansion I tend to do slowly.

8) allied state on auto? great idea, I´ll try this

9) roleplaying taxation. Not sure about this one, don´t really understand how to go about it.

[Sarkiss]

Having made some modifications, I always try to think how a mod designer would turn a reasonable houserule into a game mechanism, inducing a desirable behavior from the player. And for many houserules proposed here, I see possibilities for doing so.

agreed, there are mods that discourage blitzing. Byg's grim reality is one im very keen to retry again, if time allows. though when i briefly tried it years ago it felt that for such detailed mod a brand new, much slmaller in span and much more zoomed in and detailed map would serve best.

However, I don't know if it's possible to achieve the desirable outcome in some areas. My houserulesconcern those issues. For instance:
Apparently it cannot be done since you cannot differenciate between the player and the AI what makes AI losing his armies very, very often.

unfortunately, yes. one of the things i like about Rome II is that its got no captain led armies.

True that the ability of the AI of using / solving the problems posed by the moded innovations should be a decisive factor in implementing them (or not). It's what I've pointed at in the last issue below. However, afaik, there're many other solutions that can be implemented in such a way that they concern only the player, not the AI.

indeed, all the complainig about how bad the AI is can be reduced by making human player's experience more of a challenge in a realistic and detailed way. that would only enrich the gameplay imho. and there is no need to choose features on the basis of AI being able to handle them too. if that was an overriding guiding principle it would reduce the game to simplicity that would never hold anyone's attention for long.

[QuintusSertorius]

indeed, all the complainig about how bad the AI is can be reduced by making human player's experience more of a challenge in a realistic and detailed way. that would only enrich the gameplay imho. and there is no need to choose features on the basis of AI being able to handle them too. if that was an overriding guiding principle it would reduce the game to simplicity that would never hold anyone's attention for long.

We don't always have the option of distinguishing between the player and AI - a lot of settings are global if they fall outside the campaign_script or EDCT.

[charlieh]

I thought I'd create a generic house-rules list, taking ideas from different people who have posted here and put them into one description. I have placed them under different headers, although this is arbitrary. Please note, this is, ultimately, my personal preference, but could be useful as a template to build from.


Generic house rules

Army
⦁ Historical army compositions: http://docdro.id/4rh521w (PDF, from Anubis88)
⦁ Greater mercenary emphasis, if evidence supports (e.g., Qarthadastim, Ptolemaioi)
⦁ A "full stack" is no more than 16 units
⦁ Only one army at a time on active campaign
⦁ Family member leading army (preferably, FL/FH)
⦁ No more than two of any unit. If you want four phalanxes, they are different types, e.g., Phalangitai, merc phalanx and levy phalanx
⦁ No more than four cavalry units - including FM's. No more than half of this can be melee/heavy cavalry (again FMs are included in this)
⦁ No more than 2 dedicated missile units (archers/slingers) - though this would be harder with eastern/steppe factions
⦁ No more than one elite unit - Agema and equivalents go only with the FL/FH
⦁ After a campaign, march army back to a settlement of origin. Then disband levy/citizen soldiers and keep professionals. If a military settlers construction programme finishes in that province, disband all troops
⦁ No retraining, build new units and merge
⦁ If conducting amphibious operations, land only at ports

Settlements
⦁ Four units minimum to garrison a settlement (two levy spearmen, one levy javileneer, one levy missile)
⦁ Auto-manage for allied states (recruitment can be player controlled)

Strategy
⦁ Unless there is an obvious reason, no starting wars. Leave this to the AI
⦁ No more than three battles per war (including naval), or, conquering one province from the enemy faction. If either of these two conditions are met, send diplomat to obtain a ceasefire (use force diplomacy, if necessary).

Miscellaneous
⦁ Educating young family members, up until the age of 21, at capital

[QuintusSertorius]

No more than two of any unit. If you want four phalanxes, they are different types, e.g., Phalangitai, merc phalanx and levy phalanx
No more than four cavalry units - including FM's. No more than half of this can be melee/heavy cavalry (again FMs are included in this)
No more than 2 dedicated missile units (archers/slingers) - though this would be harder with eastern/steppe factions

Just to note, these three don't apply to steppe factions and to a degree the Bosporans too. They will have lots more cavalry than four units, with many more dedicated missile units, and possibly repeats too.

Baktria can justify more than 4 cavalry units as well.

[Humbug_Total]

9) roleplaying taxation. Not sure about this one, don´t really understand how to go about it.

With this I mean to tax the cities not to the maximum amount possible without getting unrest but more in a role play approach, meaning the following:For City Empires (Rome, Carthage, Pergamon and more) it could be sensible to leave the taxes very low and give them a lot of entertainment, while the rest of your subjugated population has to pay for that. Also if one enemy or a region gave you a lot of trouble before you conquered them you could punish them by high taxes, even if it will give you problems with public order. With that you have to deal otherwise (garrison, governor, law buildings). An the other hand the Romans obliged some subjugated people to give them troops rather then taxes and vice versa. This could be mirrored.

[Baharr]

The ones I always follow are -

1. Maintain realistic army composition, i.e. only small amount of "elites", royal guard type units present only in the royal stack
2. Don't retrain field armies, instead reinforce and merge; do retrain garrison units post-siege (for sanity's sake)
3. Maintain reasonable garrisons in all settlements, i.e. 2-3 levy spears/militia + 2-3 levy missile units - except for major cities, which get a context-sensitive selection (e.g. Sabaean royal infantry in the capital or hoplites replacing levy hoplites in the garrisons of major poleis)

Everything is also context-sensitive depending on campaign. E.g. Parthian allied clan stacks will have more diverse cavalry from different tribes, not just the "classic" parthian horse archers/cataphracts, Carthaginian stacks will be mercenary-heavy, etc.

[Jurand of Cracow]

With this I mean to tax the cities not to the maximum amount possible without getting unrest but more in a role play approach, meaning the following:For City Empires (Rome, Carthage, Pergamon and more) it could be sensible to leave the taxes very low and give them a lot of entertainment, while the rest of your subjugated population has to pay for that. Also if one enemy or a region gave you a lot of trouble before you conquered them you could punish them by high taxes, even if it will give you problems with public order. With that you have to deal otherwise (garrison, governor, law buildings). An the other hand the Romans obliged some subjugated people to give them troops rather then taxes and vice versa. This could be mirrored.

I have two questions on this:
1. as "max'" do you mean a "green" face or a "yellow" face? (happy/content)
2. there's always a trade-off between a) low unrest, high population growth with low taxes (long-term benefits) and b) high unrest, low (or negative) population growth with high taxes. This should be balanced by the mod and the decision of a "right" situation should be left to the player - it's a part of the game what you do prioritize. Why do you need a home rule? Which parameter is not balanced that you need to introduce something artificial?

[Nightsh4de]

With this I mean to tax the cities not to the maximum amount possible without getting unrest but more in a role play approach, meaning the following:For City Empires (Rome, Carthage, Pergamon and more) it could be sensible to leave the taxes very low and give them a lot of entertainment, while the rest of your subjugated population has to pay for that. Also if one enemy or a region gave you a lot of trouble before you conquered them you could punish them by high taxes, even if it will give you problems with public order. With that you have to deal otherwise (garrison, governor, law buildings). An the other hand the Romans obliged some subjugated people to give them troops rather then taxes and vice versa. This could be mirrored.

Its interesting that we approach the issue of taxation from diametrically opposite standpoints, as I never consider trying to extract as much money from my citizens as I possible can i.e. having as high as possible taxation. I do however roleplay that I am a benevolent ruler who only raises taxation to maximum level during national emergencies (i.e. I have low taxation everywhere, which promotes growth, which helps me level my cities quickly, which gives me the quickest possible national development and more money in times of need)

I am also lenient on the newly conquered provinces because if I wanted to punish them, I will have done so previously by conquering their entire nation and slaughtering the citizens of every single province. No need to drag it out though. Needless to say, I do not do this often, as I am a merciful and peaceful ruler.

[Rad]

[Nightsh4de]

LOL

[Humbug_Total]

I have two questions on this:
1. as "max'" do you mean a "green" face or a "yellow" face? (happy/content)
2. there's always a trade-off between a) low unrest, high population growth with low taxes (long-term benefits) and b) high unrest, low (or negative) population growth with high taxes. This should be balanced by the mod and the decision of a "right" situation should be left to the player - it's a part of the game what you do prioritize. Why do you need a home rule? Which parameter is not balanced that you need to introduce something artificial?

1.: it depends. Before that rule my approach was to tax as much as possible without reducing growth below 0.5 and without causing public order to drop below 75%

2. I use I to less to balance the game but to roleplay mine. Three examples:
as roman I had constant war with Epeiros with them sending army after army. To punish their population for all the trouble they gave me I subjected them to heavy taxation to make up for the cost of their constant invasions.
When I was playing Carthage and I conquered a new territory where I decided to build a settlers colony I dropped the taxes to low to simulate a government policy to attract new settlers living in said colony. Conveniently lower taxrates really translate to more growth.
Playing the Romans again, after taking a region and establishing an allied state I either choose if this state is subject to tributes (high taxes, only recruitment for own garrison) or sending soldiers to my army (low taxation, free recruitment). This is a practice the Romans actually used.

I do all of this with little regard to my overall treasury or the public order in those settlements. This has to be met by other means first. Only if no other way is feasible I would touch taxations of one of my roleplaying cities. In cities with no special background or I don't see the opportunity to roleplay I leave the taxes on medium by default and change them according to demands and circumstances.

[Jurand of Cracow]

as roman I had constant war with Epeiros with them sending army after army. To punish their population for all the trouble they gave me I subjected them to heavy taxation to make up for the cost of their constant invasions.

I'm not sure if the Romans were thinking in such a way. One-time contribution could be in a view of "punishing" (that one after the conquest), but then I don't think they thought of the taxes as "punishment".

Playing the Romans again, after taking a region and establishing an allied state I either choose if this state is subject to tributes (high taxes, only recruitment for own garrison) or sending soldiers to my army (low taxation, free recruitment). This is a practice the Romans actually used.

That's perhaps true.

[Humbug_Total]

I'm not sure if the Romans were thinking in such a way. One-time contribution could be in a view of "punishing" (that one after the conquest), but then I don't think they thought of the taxes as "punishment".

AFAIK and I'm by no means a Roman historian they most common practice was to sack and enslave a troublesome opponent, which I already incorporate in my current campaign. My example might not be historically correct, but it seems for me feasible enough given how Roman's treated subjugated people and with the limitations the game has.

[Stannis Baratheon]

About the non retraining thing: i think that's too harsh. It's impossible to get foot soldiers up to decent levels of experience as its very hard for a lot of them to not die through harder battles player should be aiming for. I'd do that for cavalry only maybe, but cavalrymen fight stupidly in melee as dictated by the engine anyway. Once every 20-30 years to simulate the retirement of the soldiery maybe.

[myarta]

Lot of people with the retraining thing. I find that personally I start to feel stressed and frustrating when my armies are 'untidy', kind of a compulsion thing (but not to use the term incorrectly for people who have the formal condition). So after a period of war I like a good peace, and I spruce up my armies, re-balance force distribution, and most importantly retrain them all to 100%. Then I feel calm again and ready to get it messy again in the next fight.

That's one downside to me of the many different unit types. You end up with a lot of guys with only 40 left that make your battle line very wobbly and weird, unless you leave the partials behind in a settlement and then bring them back later to merge with the full units that just took casualties. I appreciate the variety of units but I love playing the Romans because of their standardization, and increasing standardization as you get the reforms.

Nothing to do with balance, just my mental enjoyment while playing.

[Nightsh4de]

Lot of people with the retraining thing. I find that personally I start to feel stressed and frustrating when my armies are 'untidy', kind of a compulsion thing (but not to use the term incorrectly for people who have the formal condition). So after a period of war I like a good peace, and I spruce up my armies, re-balance force distribution, and most importantly retrain them all to 100%. Then I feel calm again and ready to get it messy again in the next fight.

That's one downside to me of the many different unit types. You end up with a lot of guys with only 40 left that make your battle line very wobbly and weird, unless you leave the partials behind in a settlement and then bring them back later to merge with the full units that just took casualties. I appreciate the variety of units but I love playing the Romans because of their standardization, and increasing standardization as you get the reforms.

Nothing to do with balance, just my mental enjoyment while playing.

You Sir, are a man after mine own heart. I cannot abide untidy armies either and I also like using a more standardized stack. My variety comes from raising local unit stacks, that way I end up using all the lovely units EB2 has to offer anyway. But mixing stacks with loads of different units, all from different provinces? Noooooooooooo thank you!

[myarta]

Yeah, that's what I do as well. I like to use the locals, but I will have one army with one type of auxiliary and the other army stack has the other, rather than having two of each type in each army. That way at least they can combine together after a battle instead of having half a unit of Bataroi here and half a unit over there in another stack somewhere else.

[Sarkiss]

i've got a peculiar way that units need to be ordered in a stack: long range foot units first, followed by short range foot, then light foot, medium and heavy foot, phalanx, elite foot. then cavalry in the same order from long range lights to elites.