Development Diary #8 - 5th of December 2007

[Raczynski]

No, I don't think that either. If they go for two-year terms, that will have to be a conscious a-historical design decision on their part.

However, as Harle points out above, the complex and problematic part in play here is the fact that we have two consuls (as indicated by Johan's quote), not the frequency of their election. If they have implemented that into this "universal" game, why stop short?

I doubt we have two consuls in the game, to be honest.

[TheLand]

I doubt we have two consuls in the game, to be honest.

One could think about it as the consul displayed being the one that wears the trousers in the partnership.

[Harle]

One could think about it as the consul displayed being the one that wears the trousers in the partnership.

I don't know, Rome was Rome because it had such a unique political system for the era. To basically turn it into another kingship with a different atmosphere would seem to do the period an injustice, considering it's a historical game.

I have to admit I'd be a little disappointed if they oversimplify the political system beyond what is historically reasonable. I don't want to have to make excuses for glaring inaccuracies, it takes the fun out of the game for me, since I kinda play these games for historical believability, if not total accuracy. And it's hard to take Rome seriously when it has what amounts to a king.

[Arthur_Currie]

Of course, I'm hoping you can switch government types because I plan to overturn the Republic and govern as an iron-fisted tyrant, so this is all moot for me...

More seriously, the complex political structure of the Republic is very tough to model accurately without being very irritating to deal with as a game player. While it's fascinating to read about, dealing with the ever changing fortunes of families is something that has to be managed carefully as not to descend into micromanagement. I will understand if Paradox takes some liberties in streamlining this process because at the end of the day, the game player makes the decisions, not the consuls.

[TeutonicKnight]

Of course, I'm hoping you can switch government types because I plan to overturn the Republic and govern as an iron-fisted tyrant, so this is all moot for me...

More seriously, the complex political structure of the Republic is very tough to model accurately without being very irritating to deal with as a game player. While it's fascinating to read about, dealing with the ever changing fortunes of families is something that has to be managed carefully as not to descend into micromanagement. I will understand if Paradox takes some liberties in streamlining this process because at the end of the day, the game player makes the decisions, not the consuls.

Shall we change your name to Nero

[Swamp Rat]

Shall we change your name to Nero

Nero?? More like Julius Caesar or Augustus if you want a fitting analogy of a Roman leader succesfully cowing a Senate that still had a semblance of power. That was not the scenario in Nero's time.

[SirGrotius]

trade sounds fun again

[barrabas]

I doubt we have two consuls in the game, to be honest.

That is very likely after this last diary. Not only because of the one picture, but because of Johan referring to JC as his "Consul". I hope it's not the case though, it would be a real pitty.

Nero?? More like Julius Caesar or Augustus if you want a fitting analogy of a Roman leader succesfully cowing a Senate that still had a semblance of power. That was not the scenario in Nero's time.

On the other hand JC and Augustus tried to keep up the appearance of a republic (perhaps the latter more than the former). Nero didn't.

[knott]

A new trade system, Well at least one of the two main problems with the earlier engine is beeing fixed

[Fiftypence]

Looks good. I'm actually quite excited about this game now.

[White Daimon]

Trade sounds good and seems very likely to give a excellent playing experience. However I have one concern.

Question/Enhancement suggestion: It already seems apperently that not everybody will have domestic acces to every vital resource and will hence have to trade for them. It also seems very likely that not everybody is going to trade this resource to you, espacially not if it has strong strategic implications like iron has. Therefore your entire supply might depend on a minor nation without any money to improve their infastructure thus restricting your use of this vital resourse. Thus I ask. Will it be possible to offer another nation to improve their infastructure? In which case the offerer would pay the entire price of the construction and receive some sort of bonus in return. Increased relations off course and in the case of trade improving infastructure you could automaticly gain that trade.

[ThePrior]

I made a thread for this by itself but heck i'll just post it here as well.

I hope that paradox includes this interface in the game. Its said that who ever controlled the grain controlled the mob (Rome). It would be neat to have the player able to subsidize grain to lower revolt risk. And if the grain supply is cut off there would massive revolts in the city.
One reason why Egypt was so important strategically in those days was its massive grain production that fed the population in Rome and why it was consolidated into the Roman empire.

[wilcoxchar]

Question/Enhancement suggestion: It already seems apperently that not everybody will have domestic acces to every vital resource and will hence have to trade for them. It also seems very likely that not everybody is going to trade this resource to you, espacially not if it has strong strategic implications like iron has. Therefore your entire supply might depend on a minor nation without any money to improve their infastructure thus restricting your use of this vital resourse. Thus I ask. Will it be possible to offer another nation to improve their infastructure? In which case the offerer would pay the entire price of the construction and receive some sort of bonus in return. Increased relations off course and in the case of trade improving infastructure you could automaticly gain that trade.

Don't we already have this in the form of sending gifts to other nations to increase relations, thus (possibly) making trades of strategic resources more profitable?

[White Daimon]

Don't we already have this in the form of sending gifts to other nations to increase relations, thus (possibly) making trades of strategic resources more profitable?

Yes. But you are missing the point. I would like to offer another nation to improve the infastructure in one of their provinces. I will pay all costs, because that province produces a vital resource that is very importment to me and the benefit of having said resource avaible to more of my provinces far outweighs the cost of improving that infastructure.

[Horachte]

I will pay all costs, because that province produces a vital resource that is very importment to me and the benefit of having said resource avaible to more of my provinces far outweighs the cost of improving that infastructure.

This might be reasonable from players point of view - as otherwise you have to send gift after gift and pray it will be invested in infrastructure, with no guarantee that you will be able to trade the resource later on. But is it anyhow historical?

[Magister Populi]

I don't know, Rome was Rome because it had such a unique political system for the era. To basically turn it into another kingship with a different atmosphere would seem to do the period an injustice, considering it's a historical game.

I have to admit I'd be a little disappointed if they oversimplify the political system beyond what is historically reasonable. I don't want to have to make excuses for glaring inaccuracies, it takes the fun out of the game for me, since I kinda play these games for historical believability, if not total accuracy. And it's hard to take Rome seriously when it has what amounts to a king.

Harle, are you hoping for something more like this?

http://www.dcegames.com/paxromana/PoliticsUk.html

[Radamanthus]

One question to ask is: What does having two consuls buy you in terms of gameplay?

Obviously some realism has to be thrown out because both consuls, the human and the computer, can't have equal power. The computer would be countermanding your orders and spending your money and it would be a gameplay nightmare.

One solution is to have one consul handle the military and the other the economy. But this still has the problem that the human has to give up some control over their country to the computer and the computer certainly won't be sharing the same strategic vision as the human. I'm sure most people would say, history be damned, I'm disabling this AI consul (assuming it could be disabled).

So what we are left with, in terms of a second consul, is simulating the relationship between the two consuls. If they like each other things go extra smoothly and if they dislike each other things go less smoothly than normal. This kind of interaction, seems to me, is best modeled with events and modifiers, something the EU engine is already good at.

Frankly, if the two consul notion is left off, I won't be too distraught, as the intrigue surrounding elections has many more gameplay possiblities than the intrigue around the two consuls. As for elections every two years instead of every year, this seems to be clearly a gameplay decision. If you want the elections very complex at all, then you don't want to have them popping up every 10 minutes of gameplay. The player would then be spending far too much time managing elections, to the point where they may become tedious.

[azid]

this game looks really hot! good job so far

[Molleby]

Harle, are you hoping for something more like this?

http://www.dcegames.com/paxromana/PoliticsUk.html

?

I thought that game had been discontinued?

[Caradog]

I'd think this would make establishing coastal colonies via sea more attractive than the cumbersome process of constructing extensive road networks to service colonies with no port access?.