From: johnson@rtsg.mot.com (Brad Johnson)
Subject: Re: Republic of Rome: Vatinian Law, etc.
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:06:24 GMT

farrell@cis.ohio-state.edu (christopher k farrell) writes:

>	Question for all you RoR players:  The Vatinian Law (the one allowing
>governorship through legate) is somewhat under-documented.  There are 
>certainly cases when a senator wants to go to one of his provinces, either to
>dodge the rigors of Rome (prosecution, say), or to command the provincial
>forces to defend against a war or barbarian raids or whatever.  So, when
>can a senator leave or return to Rome?  When can he be prosecuted or fined?
>On any turn when he is corrupt?  Or only when he returns the card to the
>Forum?  Anyone have any "official" answers or do I have to write to Avalon
>Hill?  As an aside, I remeber there was a list of Q&A circulating on the net
>a while (a year and a half or so?) ago.  Anyone still have it?

I regret to say that I have never played in a game where this law was
in effect, so I don't really have any experience in the matter, but I
think you raise a very valid point.  I had assumed that the senator
never left Rome, leaving governing to his legates.  I think this is
a valid approach, rationalized as part of the beauracracy of Rome:
if the senator in question had the time/ability to go off to the
provinces, he wouldn't have the legates in the first place.  (Ok, so
I'm grasping for straws.)  Anyway, we don't play with the provincial
forces rules, so our only reason for leaving Rome would be for sanctuary.

Please post the "official" answers when/if you find out....

>	We also have a couple of "house rules" we play with, and I though I
>might subject them to your scrutiny:  firstly, we don't give the temporary
>consul +5 influence for doing nothing; he's going to get the censorship for
>free anyway.  All it does is paint a target on his head.  Second, senators
>loose popularity for doing badly in a war: 1 pop/2 legions lost in a disaster,
>1 pop/3 legions lost otherwise (FRU in both cases, except in victory, where
>FRD).  It only seems fair.  Lastly, victorious senators may keep some of the
>spoils of war: none in the Early Republic, one dr/every 10T in the spoils of 
>war (FRD) in the Middle Republic, and one DR/every 10T in the spoils of war 
>(FRD) for the Late Republic.  What do you think?

I like these rules, in general.  I'll comment one at a time...

1) We use a house rule that requires a random draw for the first 
temporary consul, which usually takes the immediate target off of
Cornelius, who almost always seemed to end up with >=20 influence
in the first couple of turns 
(5[base] + 5[consul] + 5[censor] + ???[a lot from Punic War(s)])
plus buckets of popularity.  Your rule may be even better than ours.

2) The popularity loss is a very good rule, reflecting reality nicely
(at least as far as I can tell after having read _I, Claudius_).
However, I must confess my momentary lapse.  What does FRD and FRU stand for?
Also, what about Master of Horse, if present?

3) Keeping spoils also seems very interesting.  However, I would suggest
one addition:  If any spoils are kept, the victorious general is open
for [minor?] prosecution the turn following his return to Rome.  If I'm
correct, a rebel general can keep all of the spoils from the war he has 
just beaten.  Do you still keep that rule as is?

>							Chris

Brad Johnson (johnson@ebony.rtsg.mot.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board