-
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.
- Status
There are other republics too, Rome wasn't the only one. But like I said I don't see problem with having large number of families, unless you can play only as one family. Roman political factions usually weren't about individual families, but factions were groups of senators who gathered around influential personalities. If I play as Cinna I want to control whole Populares faction not just Lucius Cornelius Cinna and his immediate family members. The difference is that if I played only as one family I could control the republic only as long as Cinna is consul, but if I play as Populares faction I could appoint his supporters to consuls and continue ruling the republic while Cinna is taking break from the consular office.
Last edited:
The problem is that Cinna, being the head of the Populare after Marius's death, was consul every year until he died. Head-of-faction, and head-of-state.
In the Early-Mid Republic that could never happen. The most influential people could still only be consul once or twice in their lives, and had to rely on their auctoritas, their rhetorical power, and their standing with others to influence the politics of the day.
So you can't play as the head of the faction; appointing supporters to consul only started after Marius and Cinna took the city and only presented two names in the consular election (hey, I wonder who'll be elected?). Playing as a faction leader during the Pyrrhic War, there's a huge chance every year that you'll have little official influence (it wasn't always Optimate vs. Populare, you know).
Yep, I know that Cinna was consul 4 times, but in game there might be breaks from power if things don't go exactly like they did in history. In my vision you could play as both Marius and Cinna (and their allies) if you decide to play as Populares faction. The reason why I suggested rather generic name for the factions is that political parties and alliances had tendency to change according to situation and they weren't more or less permanent like modern parties are. Vae Victis already has Senate with political factions and that could be a basis to which we should build.
Of course this is only assuming that we play as an individual.
Rome 2 would (hopefully) follow the mold of EU:Rome, and be a mix between Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis. There are characters, they have marriages and traits and relations and jobs and hopes and dreams and etc. etc. etc., but you don't play as one. You play as whoever's head of state.
Another thing I'd like to see, though, is more consulars at the start date. It's literally impossible that only Lucius Aemilius Barbula is available as a general in the Pyrrhic War start; there have to be some other consulars, or even praetors, or experienced military tribunes that can become legates. It's a hassle to have to accept the Senate's suggestion for a general (usually a Populist), rather than be seen as...catering to the populists. I never understood this.
Like I said earlier: "Personally I think that you should be able to play as state like in original EU:Rome or alternatively as political faction." I don't have anything against playing as state like in Europa Universalis rather than dynasty. I don't believe that CKII: The Republic style of play would fit with EU:Rome, especially if you have 200 families instead of 5. Playing as faction could work, because it would allow you to go to intentionally start a civil war against the consuls/senate to get rid of annoying political party. That could work if you play as a state also, if you could decide which side you want to take when there's a civil war. In original Rome I was occasionally disappointed that I had to defend the republic against the character who I wanted to make the ruler of the republic (sure there's the save/reload as rebels trick, but I don't use that ever).
I concur, but the only problem is that the Military and Populist Factions (if we keep the old faction system) would nearly always win in a civil war.
I think the strongest argument for allowing the player to pick a side in a civil war is found in history itself: Julius Caesar led the rebels. If we express history in terms of EU:Rome's gameplay, Rome lost the game. That strikes me as silly.
I've never played a civil war, but doesn't the rebel tag switch to the normal country, and you just keep playing as them?
Yes, but the original country is treated as having been destroyed I think.
Juste une petite remarque. ^^
:wub: Roman republican legio, it is that :
--> Princeps and Triarii
--> Hastati and Velites
:glare: It is not that :
:wub: Roman republican legio, it is that :
--> Princeps and Triarii
--> Hastati and Velites
:glare: It is not that :
Obviously it would need some balancing. When I think how factions should work, Avalon Hill's old board game "The Republic of Rome" always comes to my mind. It handled factions better than any computer game about Rome which I have seen. In that game no single faction could become dominant without allying with other factions and if one becomes too strong others are likely to ally against it. And at the same time they have to cooperate against Rome's external enemies.
Last edited:
I don't think it's necessary to play as an individual or a faction. Simply playing the nation as it is in the current game works just fine for me. What I would like to see is individuals with some autonomy and sense of direction. If a character wants to be consul someday, he should understand the steps needed to get there, and try to take them on his own so the player doesn't have to micromanage the careers of 200 different individuals. Playing a republic should not be about finding make-work jobs for teenagers.
Actually, they already try to take those steps on their own. All those events where they pester you saying, "That guy isn't the right guy for the job, I am!", or "Hey, this office is empty, put me in it!"
Though I agree that things could be handled better. In real life the consul didn't exactly pick the magistrates himself, and the cursus honorum is, as far as I can tell, entirely ignored (maybe it has some influence on what the character's next ambition will be, but it seems doubtful). But, naturally, the player needs to have some control over things...
Though I agree that things could be handled better. In real life the consul didn't exactly pick the magistrates himself, and the cursus honorum is, as far as I can tell, entirely ignored (maybe it has some influence on what the character's next ambition will be, but it seems doubtful). But, naturally, the player needs to have some control over things...
Last edited:
I'd like to have a single election day and simply press a button for the winner of each major office. Candidate eligibility and minor offices should take care of themselves. If an officeholder dies before the next election, have the senate nominate a temporary replacement. This would make large republics much simpler to play.
Juste une petite remarque. ^^
:wub: Roman republican legio, it is that :
--> Princeps and Triarii
--> Hastati and Velites
:glare: It is not that :
Very true. Always annoys me when games and movies/tv get this wrong. It is like people in the future making a film about george washington and they have him driving an M1 Tank (just because in the future the M1 Tank is the most recognizable image of what people think america was).
To be fair, the Roman State began regularly providing arms and equipment for a charge instead of requiring propertied men to buy or make their own by--I think--the Third Punic War (and CERTAINLY after the Marian forms, which forced the state to pay for everything in Head Count armies). This means that the identical legionaries presented are relatively accurate for well over half the game's time period, whereas the first two pictures are good for certainly before the Second Punic War.
- Status