• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Descartes

Lt. General
42 Badges
Oct 12, 2008
1.212
2
  • Crusader Kings II
  • 500k Club
  • Sengoku
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Divine Wind
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Crusader Kings II: Way of Life
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • 200k Club
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Europa Universalis IV: Call to arms event
  • Crusader Kings II: Sunset Invasion
  • Crusader Kings II: Sword of Islam
  • Crusader Kings II: Sons of Abraham
  • Crusader Kings II: The Republic
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Rajas of India
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Crusader Kings II: The Old Gods
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Crusader Kings II: Legacy of Rome
  • Crusader Kings II: Charlemagne
DD 9: AUTHORITIES
I'm proud to announce that I've changed the trade system again. This time it's back to where it was somewhere around version one: provincial modifiers. Specialization, which I mentioned in the last DD, is still an important feature in the mod; In fact, almost everything I wrote in DD 8 is still relevant. The only difference is that the trade goods are technically provincial modifiers, not trade goods.

As you might have noticed in the last beta, I've been using the religion system for trade goods. It didn't work out very well, in my opinion, so I came up with a new deal: moving the trade goods to provincial modifiers and introducing a brand new feature that replaces the religion system. This feature is, obviously, the theme for today's discussion. I'm talking about authorities.

I'll start off with showing you a nice chart I made. It shows various authorities during Antiquity.

Authorities.png


I'll also show you the contents of religion.txt.

Code:
######################
# TRIBAL AUTHORITIES #
######################

authority_tribe = {
	authority_the_chieftain = {
		color = { 0.3 0.4 0.7 }
		country = {
			ruler_popularity_gain = 0.1
		}
		province = {
			# none			
		}
	}
	authority_the_elder_council = {
		color = { 0.8 0.6 0.2 }
		country = {
			tyranny = -0.05		
		}
		province = {
			local_revolt_risk = -1
		}
	}
}

#####################
# URBAN AUTHORITIES #
#####################

authority_monarchy = {
	authority_the_monarch = {
		color = { 0.4 0.5 0.8 }
		country = {
			ruler_popularity_gain = 0.1
		}
		province = {
			# none			
		}
	}
}

authority_theocracy = {
	authority_the_priesthood = {
		color = { 0.4 0.8 0.3 }
		country = {
			stability_cost_modifier = -0.1			
		}
		province = {
			stability_cost = -3			
		}
	}
}

authority_plutocracy = {
	authority_the_rich = {
		color = { 0.8 0.8 0.3 }
		country = {
			civilization_spread = 0.05			
		}
		province = {
			local_tax_modifier = 0.1			
		}
	}
}

authority_kritocracy = {
	authority_the_court_of_law = {
		color = { 0.9 0.7 0.3 }
		country = {
			tyranny = -0.05			
		}
		province = {
			local_revolt_risk = -1
		}
	}
}

authority_democracy = {
	authority_the_senate = {
		color = { 0.8 0.4 0.3 }
		country = {
			monthly_character_loyalty = 0.05			
		}
		province = {
			local_research_points_modifier = 0.2			
		}
	}
	authority_the_people = {
		color = { 0.7 0.4 0.5 }
		country = {
			land_morale = 0.5			
		}
		province = {
			local_manpower_modifier = 0.1			
		}
	}
}

authority_stratocracy = {
	authority_the_navy = {
		color = { 0.7 0.3 0.6 }
		country = {
			naval_organisation = 0.1			
		}
		province = {
			local_ship_recruit_speed = -0.2			
		}
	}
	authority_the_army = {
		color = { 0.6 0.3 0.8 }
		country = {
			land_organisation = 0.1			
		}
		province = {
			local_regiment_recruit_speed = -0.2			
		}
	}
}

You're probably wondering what the heck this is all about. :)

TFD defines authorities as "the power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge" or "one that is invested with this power". In Imperium, it signifies the latter: the ones invested with the power to rule. For some countries, it's the local chieftain, for others the senate.

Some authorities have a lot in common, such as the Army and the Navy, which is why I've put them in the same group above (stratocracy). Others stand on their own, such as the Priesthood (theocracy). All of these authorities (except monarchy) have unique effects on both country level and province level.

While authorities on country level are the ones who actually rule the nation, authorities on province level are those whom the locals would prefer to be ruled by. The Senate, for example, is the leading authority in Rome, but provinces conquered from the neighbouring tribes will all consider the Chieftain their natural authority. This leads to increased revolt risk in these provinces (made possible by the different_religion modifier). Finally, authorities also appear on a character level, where they're defined as the authority that the character would prefer to be ruled by. For example, the authority of Junius Brutus is the Senate.

Since I'm using the religion system, authorities actually have a map of their own. The picture below shows Central Italy in 358 AUC, when the Romans had just conquered Veii.

2009-10-15-1.jpg


Following the conquest, Veientine nobles try to make a career in Rome. Here's one of them, still believing that plutocracy is the best way to rule a nation.

2009-10-15-2.jpg


That was all for today, I hope you'll ask me a lot of questions.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
Oh ho ho ho this is hot!

Does this mean you could have proper Optimates Popularesque politics? e.g Senate vs. People
 
Congratulations Descartes, I think this is very innovative and elegant.

I wander which use you will make of these different "regimes": is Carthage ruled by the Rich or by the Senate? Well, the Rich were in the Senate, so both... but maybe here you can consider they were in the Senqte BECAUSE they were rich, so it's plutocracy, while in Rome they were rich BECAUSE they were senators (probably a simplification), so it is a "democracy-the Senate"... As a result your authority system is broader than simply ideogology or constituion, it is the whole societal and political philosophy... It seems like perfect abstraction to me!

Now when I look at the modifiers in your .txt at the beginning, I think they could be more numerous and more powerful. These different kinds of "authorities" reall seem like they had a deep impact, so the modifiers should be more than just symbolic niceties, but really affect the way your tribe / empire / kingdom etc. behaves. If I continue with my Carthage example, maybe a plutocracy should be really much less resiliant to a prolonged war as merchants don't like total wars (faster war exhaustion...), forcing you to reach quick peace treaties. Etc. Maybe this can be simulated by events also, like plutocratic characters getting unloyal when a war drags on for too long...

So I think this is a great concept, that can perfectly capture the politics of the time if well implemented!
 
Congratulations Descartes, I think this is very innovative and elegant.

I wander which use you will make of these different "regimes": is Carthage ruled by the Rich or by the Senate? Well, the Rich were in the Senate, so both... but maybe here you can consider they were in the Senqte BECAUSE they were rich, so it's plutocracy, while in Rome they were rich BECAUSE they were senators (probably a simplification), so it is a "democracy-the Senate"... As a result your authority system is broader than simply ideogology or constituion, it is the whole societal and political philosophy... It seems like perfect abstraction to me!
I'm glad you like it. Our views on the authorities of Rome and Carthage agree completely, I've already added the Rich as the authority of Carthage. To me, it seems like the Romans were a lot more conscious of their democracy than the Carthaginians, and that they indeed were rich because they were senators and not the other way around. After all, it was possible for someone who had a talent for intrigue and public speaking to become a novus homo.

Now when I look at the modifiers in your .txt at the beginning, I think they could be more numerous and more powerful. These different kinds of "authorities" reall seem like they had a deep impact, so the modifiers should be more than just symbolic niceties, but really affect the way your tribe / empire / kingdom etc. behaves. If I continue with my Carthage example, maybe a plutocracy should be really much less resiliant to a prolonged war as merchants don't like total wars (faster war exhaustion...), forcing you to reach quick peace treaties. Etc. Maybe this can be simulated by events also, like plutocratic characters getting unloyal when a war drags on for too long...
That's an interesting idea, I'll have to think about that. Wouldn't the priesthood and the judges also be pretty reluctant to wars, though?

So I think this is a great concept, that can perfectly capture the politics of the time if well implemented!
I hope so too!
 
If this replaces the religion system, where did the riligion system go then?

pretty nice change though.
(with some work it could even be used to represent late-roman and tribal relations -with dual ownership of land- that eventually led to the rise of the barbarian kingdoms)
 
The reason I'm replacing religion is simply that I think authorities suit the religion system better. In vanilla, religion affects diplomacy and AI behaviour far too much. After all, most religious differences were actually a matter of cultural differences, as people borrowed gods from each other and just gave them a different name. That said, I don't think religion should be banished from the game, rather permeate other features. For example, I can think of a large number of domestic policies related to religion, such as the number of sacrifices made to a specific god or the reliance on auspices. The cult of Isis could reach countries via events and improve relations with Egypt.
 
This is a good idea.

Religious persecution was related to question of authority of Emperor rather than religious practices per se.

It is indeed a good idea, and I'm glad religion is still a part of the game, it had an enormous impact on the era and shouldn't be ignored.

However, persecutions related to what you're thinking of (I think) did not happen until quite some time after the games timeframe.
 
Wow, I thought you had been a bit to quiet lately and that you were working on something. Great concept, lots of quesitons are spinning in and out of whats left of my brain, I hope you dont mind.

1) From the screenshot it appears the standard senate factions are still in place, are you going to change this/add more,ie, wouldnt mercantile equal Plutocracy

2) Are there going to include hybrids or would that be represented by a domination of two authorities ,eg, Rhodes, I have read was a like a Naval Plutocracy, would this mean that it would generally bounce around between both authorities. Sparta is a good example of mixed monarchy/oligarchy

3) Can you use vanilla events or are new batches of events going to have to be baked ?

4) Does the inner hub represent 6 main types of government ? If so, will there still be variations of governments within the six ?
 
Religious persecution was related to question of authority of Emperor rather than religious practices per se.
Good point. You could say the Christians considered Jesus their authority, instead of the Emperor, which got them into a lot of trouble.

However, persecutions related to what you're thinking of (I think) did not happen until quite some time after the games timeframe.
True.

1) From the screenshot it appears the standard senate factions are still in place, are you going to change this/add more,ie, wouldnt mercantile equal Plutocracy
I might change the factions, yes. One idea is to use the traditional division, optimates and populares. The five factions would then consist of one conservative, one semi-conservative, one neutral, one semi-radical and one radical faction. I would obviously have to remove most of the current senate modifiers. What do you think?

2) Are there going to include hybrids or would that be represented by a domination of two authorities ,eg, Rhodes, I have read was a like a Naval Plutocracy, would this mean that it would generally bounce around between both authorities. Sparta is a good example of mixed monarchy/oligarchy

I have to choose one of them. Btw, in my opinion, Sparta should be ruled by the army.

3) Can you use vanilla events or are new batches of events going to have to be baked ?

What kind of events?

4) Does the inner hub represent 6 main types of government ? If so, will there still be variations of governments within the six ?
Nope, the inner hub represents ideologies to which the authorities belong. It's possible for a country to have monarchy as its government and the priesthood as its authority (Tarquinii, for example), since governments are entirely independent of authorities.
 
I might change the factions, yes. One idea is to use the traditional division, optimates and populares. The five factions would then consist of one conservative, one semi-conservative, one neutral, one semi-radical and one radical faction. I would obviously have to remove most of the current senate modifiers. What do you think?

Yes, that sounds good. So the optimates are conservative and the populares radical.

What kind of events?

I was thinking of events that change character and province ideology. Also events which make the ideology more important. A character is less likely to be loyal to a leader with a different ideology or one at the opposite end of the spectrum. Provinces with different ideologies should have a few modifiers.
So I guess some of the religious/modifiers events would cover off these areas.


One other area of importance in politics and the economy is land. In this era for Rome, the control of the land by the rich optimates was a large political driver for the populares. Likewise in Sparta, two radical kings arose towards the end of its history, trying to propose a division of the land back amongs the Spartiates. Some writers portray the whole class struggle throughout history as landholders vs non-landholders.

In game, this is represented by character land holdings. In a republic, for example the domination of the land by the optimates could be represented by characters having holdings, on the flipside where no character has a holding in the province it represents the small landholders having dominance in the province.

Currently these holdings rarely have much of an impact in the game but I have almost got my mini-mod working for holdings (for monarchies). It will allow monarchs to grant and take away holdings, via titles and decisions. Everything is working nicely except, when a character gets multiple holdings it has no effect. I just need to block the character from having multiple holdings. I will email you through a copy of the "beta" so you can have a look.
 
Maybe it's already been suggested, but could a characters ideology influence their ambitions and titles influence ideology? This would add some much needed order to the relatively lackluster ambition system already in place while adding a new wrinkle to character management. Love what your doing with religion by the way, very creative thinking.
 
Yes, that sounds good. So the optimates are conservative and the populares radical.
Yep.

I was thinking of events that change character and province ideology. Also events which make the ideology more important. A character is less likely to be loyal to a leader with a different ideology or one at the opposite end of the spectrum. Provinces with different ideologies should have a few modifiers.
So I guess some of the religious/modifiers events would cover off these areas.
Absolutely.

One other area of importance in politics and the economy is land. In this era for Rome, the control of the land by the rich optimates was a large political driver for the populares. Likewise in Sparta, two radical kings arose towards the end of its history, trying to propose a division of the land back amongs the Spartiates. Some writers portray the whole class struggle throughout history as landholders vs non-landholders.

In game, this is represented by character land holdings. In a republic, for example the domination of the land by the optimates could be represented by characters having holdings, on the flipside where no character has a holding in the province it represents the small landholders having dominance in the province.

Currently these holdings rarely have much of an impact in the game but I have almost got my mini-mod working for holdings (for monarchies). It will allow monarchs to grant and take away holdings, via titles and decisions. Everything is working nicely except, when a character gets multiple holdings it has no effect. I just need to block the character from having multiple holdings. I will email you through a copy of the "beta" so you can have a look.
Sounds good! It would add a whole new dimension to characters if holdings could be controlled efficiently.

Maybe it's already been suggested, but could a characters ideology influence their ambitions and titles influence ideology? This would add some much needed order to the relatively lackluster ambition system already in place while adding a new wrinkle to character management. Love what your doing with religion by the way, very creative thinking.
Some ambitions are very ideology-oriented, such as "start war with x", so they should definitely be linked to an authority. I also agree that titles should influence authorities. In fact, there's already an event in the second beta that turns disloyal generals to the Army.
 
Our views on the authorities of Rome and Carthage agree completely, I've already added the Rich as the authority of Carthage. To me, it seems like the Romans were a lot more conscious of their democracy than the Carthaginians, and that they indeed were rich because they were senators and not the other way around. After all, it was possible for someone who had a talent for intrigue and public speaking to become a novus homo.

As a matter of (historical) fact, that is not exact: you needed to be rich to become and keep being a senator (if I remember right 1 million sextertii). The main purpose of the quinquennial (=each five years) census was to assess the financial situation of each citizen, and so to classify him into one of the five 'clases'. Originally there was even necessary that your money came from landholding and not from trade nor industry. You could lose your status and your seat in the Senate if you didn´t fill those conditions.
An homus novo was someone without ancestors. G. Marius (the main example of that) was immensely rich, so as to be able to buy his brother-in-law Lucius Iulius Caesar (father of G. Iulius Caesar) a seat in the Senate.
 
I was thinking of Cicero, who wasn't (as far as I know) immensely rich when he entered politics. There's also quite a lot of politicians who had ancestors that were slaves, which is marked by -anus (nice suffix :p). Still, I suppose you're right, anyone couldn't become senator. You have to agree that the Romans were very conscious of their democracy, though.
 
I was thinking of Cicero, who wasn't (as far as I know) immensely rich when he entered politics.

Cicero's family was only rich, not immensely rich, but he was related with some influential Romans like Lucius Licinius Crassus. I think, the Senat had not many members without at least some links to an important family until Caesar.

There's also quite a lot of politicians who had ancestors that were slaves, which is marked by -anus (nice suffix ).

Like "Romanus"? ;) Do you have a source for this? I always thought that "-ianus" markes somebody associated with "-" (i.e. Christus [like Jesus Christ] and Christianus [like somebody, who believes in Christus] or Gaius Octavian, who was renamed to Gaius Iulius Caesar Octavianus after Caesar adopted him).

(see http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:163826/FULLTEXT01 or http://scheppler-online.de/vorlage34/Tutorium04/Zusatz-TutoriumEichstaett.pdf and search for "-ianus", sadly in German and not English)
 
I have the source to rule them all, Wikipedia. :D
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurelius_Heraclianus:
The suffix '-anus/a' in a cognomen often indicates that the person concerned or an ancestor was a slave of the gens from which the cognomen was formed.
Neither Romanus nor Christus can possibly follow this rule, since there's no gens called "Romi" or "Christi". When it comes to Octavius, I found another nice passage at Wikipedia. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Julius_Caesar_Octavianus:
Although Romans who had been adopted into a new family usually retained their old nomen in cognomen form (e.g. Octavianus for one who had been an Octavius, Aemilianus for one who had been an Aemilius, etc.) there is no evidence that he ever bore the name Octavianus, as it would have made his modest origins too obvious.
Apparently, -anus doesn't necessarily indicate slave ancestry, but also what family you have previously belonged to. This is confirmed by your sources as well ("Bei Adoption wird oft das ursprüngliche nomen genile mit dem Suffix –ianus als zusätzliches cognomen angenommen"). Still, I would like to point out that slaves "belonged" to the families they were employed by, which makes it quite probable that they got a cognomen ending with -anus once they were freed.
 
Last edited: