The optimates within the senate wanted one thing, the populares another. The senate wanted Caesar to return to Rome to stand trial, not to pay more attention in Gaul
- 1
- 1
A potentially controversial spicy hot take (maybe?) - Republics should drop Great Families.
- Thread starter Lord Lambert
- Start date
-
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.
I would like to give governors more autonomy, to build cities, have levies, etc... like vassals but within the nation. This autonomy could help build you empire faster (free PI) at the expense of more dangerous civil wars
The PI will be local and only for your governor to use, and the cities built by your governors will not be the ones you would like. A uber controlling player will never allow autonomy.
The wealth generated will be local as well, they will pay tribute to Rome and manpower, but the moment you asked for more, loyalty will decrease or you could get a no as an answer.
When declaring war, you will control their levies. In peace time the governor could rise levies and keep legions for barbarians, pirates or local uprisings.
Last edited:
- 2
- 2
- 1
It would take to long to break into history lessons but the short version is the Senate allocated and set the scope of the Consuls duties and provinces to engage in action. When Sulla marched on Rome after he was relieved of his command in the East this was a watershed moment for the Republic as it was the first time* a Roman had defied the Senate with the army he had allocated to him and marched on Rome, and it was the first time an army he'd been in charge of was willing to do so.
From there as more and more the power devolved to who controlled the troops the Republic couldn't survive, culminating first in Caesar and finally in Augustus who fully neutered the Senate as an institution.
*possibly.
Last edited:
- 2
All the Governors, army commanders and offices should be elected in a republic. You should get more interesting options to influence this process. This way you get the advantges and disadvantages for being a republic. At some point you start to drive into a civil war, becuase you will not be able to switch the not loyals ones fast enough with a simple bribe. Or they will go incredible corrupt. Also things like the election of the governor by the natives, which maybe upset the senate.
Connect also the pop with the election process. This way you can represent the war of the italian for their civil rights.
You can also take some of this options for monarchies also.
Connect also the pop with the election process. This way you can represent the war of the italian for their civil rights.
You can also take some of this options for monarchies also.
- 2
I think a major issue is that the scorned families feature too prominent and suggests more urgency than it actually requires. I also believe that a bit more power to the factions would be beneficial since historically the resistance at least in Rome came from political factions (multiple families and their clients united by a common interest) and not just a familiy (blood relatives) themselves.
Playing a Republic on the other hand shouldn't be overly burdensome compared to other government systems. Or if it is it should at least have some major benefits for putting up with all the hassle such as a higher stability equilibrium.
While I agree that having the Senate do most of the decisions would be historically accurate I don't think that playing such a system would be very interesting especially if you sometimes also want to concentrate on other things than internal politics. One could also argue that as the "spirit of the state" you take up part of the historical responsibilities of the Senate.
Playing a Republic on the other hand shouldn't be overly burdensome compared to other government systems. Or if it is it should at least have some major benefits for putting up with all the hassle such as a higher stability equilibrium.
While I agree that having the Senate do most of the decisions would be historically accurate I don't think that playing such a system would be very interesting especially if you sometimes also want to concentrate on other things than internal politics. One could also argue that as the "spirit of the state" you take up part of the historical responsibilities of the Senate.
- 6
It depends how good is the UI for such things and the mechanic around. Also i love the domestic politics. Go for Monarchy when you want more direct control.
- 1
Governors are likely to buy holdings where they rule, and command their levies atm. You can use client states if you want that level of autonomy
- 2
There's nothing wrong with the game (especially Rome) having 'Great Families' because they did in real life. In Rome there were two classes of people basically (three if you count slaves). There was the noble Patrician class and then there was the Plebeian class. The Patrician class was a small percentage of the population but they held most of the power, especially in the beginning of the Republic. Inside the Patrician class there were certain families that were very old and/or prestigious. You could even have a 'Great Family' like the Julii who were very prestigious but didn't have a lot of power or money left and allied themselves with the Plebeians.
The Plebeians were mostly farmers who worked the land of Patricians. They didn't have many rights at the beginning of the Republic but over time they fought for more and got them. The Tribune of the Plebs was very powerful and had a veto over the Senate if I recall. The Senate was all Patricians I believe. About 300-500 in total. The Plebeians had representation through the Plebeian Council (also known as the Tribal Assembly I think). There were 3 Assemblies.
The Senate and Patrician class were generally conservative though. The conflict between conservatives/Senate and the Plebeians went on for hundreds of years. Roman armies were even defeated in battle because commanders didn't like each other and didn't want to cooperate. This internal political conflict eventually became violent (Gracchi Brothers murdered) for multiple reasons and then the Republic crumbled into pieces. Caesar was a champion of the Plebeians for example.
This is probably the biggest thing that bothers me about the game. They released a game called Imperator Rome but did not even come close to properly modeling and simulating Rome's internal politics and government.
The massive wealth and hordes of slaves that were brought to Rome because of their conquests, eventually completely destabilized the Roman economy and political system. It led to mass unemployment, massive concentration of wealth, 3 slave revolts, 3 or so civil wars, mass imprisonment/executions of citizens, multiple dangerous violent demagogues rising etc. They basically became victims of their own success. Massive problems developed internally and the Roman society/government failed to properly address them which eventually led to disaster. As the Roman Senate and its loyalist forces (Pompey) were defeated in battle by Caesar and his loyal Legions.
A lot of the things that happened in Late Republic Rome have started to happen in the United States recently. It's been written about in the news a lot in recent decades. Rome was the superpower Republic of the ancient world. The United States is the superpower Republic of the modern world. The United States government is in fact partially modeled on the Roman Republic government. There is in fact an ancient concept developed by the Greeks called Anacyclosis which is a cyclical theory of political evolution. John Adams called it the "creed of his life". Cicero also talked about it. And Machiavelli.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Imperator doesn't model any of this really. The problem with Imperator in general is that the mechanics don't really reflect historical reality. This is a major reason why (especially at release) all nations feel basically the same and the game sort of feels like it's a copy-paste with a Rome skin on it.
For example the way that all major characters in your country want to destroy you and start a civil war because they didn't get a random job doesn't make any sense and is really nonsensical and goofy. People don't try to destroy their country and start a civil war because they were denied a job offer lol.
Also FYI Roman dictatorship wasn't a technology invented in someone's shed lol. It was an actual political office that was invoked in times of emergency and then eventually was established by force. Paradox should hire historians like Mike Duncan from The History of Rome podcast to consult with. Or just read Wikipedia more lol.
The Plebeians were mostly farmers who worked the land of Patricians. They didn't have many rights at the beginning of the Republic but over time they fought for more and got them. The Tribune of the Plebs was very powerful and had a veto over the Senate if I recall. The Senate was all Patricians I believe. About 300-500 in total. The Plebeians had representation through the Plebeian Council (also known as the Tribal Assembly I think). There were 3 Assemblies.
The Senate and Patrician class were generally conservative though. The conflict between conservatives/Senate and the Plebeians went on for hundreds of years. Roman armies were even defeated in battle because commanders didn't like each other and didn't want to cooperate. This internal political conflict eventually became violent (Gracchi Brothers murdered) for multiple reasons and then the Republic crumbled into pieces. Caesar was a champion of the Plebeians for example.
This is probably the biggest thing that bothers me about the game. They released a game called Imperator Rome but did not even come close to properly modeling and simulating Rome's internal politics and government.
The massive wealth and hordes of slaves that were brought to Rome because of their conquests, eventually completely destabilized the Roman economy and political system. It led to mass unemployment, massive concentration of wealth, 3 slave revolts, 3 or so civil wars, mass imprisonment/executions of citizens, multiple dangerous violent demagogues rising etc. They basically became victims of their own success. Massive problems developed internally and the Roman society/government failed to properly address them which eventually led to disaster. As the Roman Senate and its loyalist forces (Pompey) were defeated in battle by Caesar and his loyal Legions.
A lot of the things that happened in Late Republic Rome have started to happen in the United States recently. It's been written about in the news a lot in recent decades. Rome was the superpower Republic of the ancient world. The United States is the superpower Republic of the modern world. The United States government is in fact partially modeled on the Roman Republic government. There is in fact an ancient concept developed by the Greeks called Anacyclosis which is a cyclical theory of political evolution. John Adams called it the "creed of his life". Cicero also talked about it. And Machiavelli.
Social class in ancient Rome - Wikipedia
Patrician (ancient Rome) - Wikipedia
Plebeians - Wikipedia
Status in Roman legal system - Wikipedia
Tribune of the plebs - Wikipedia
Plebeian Council - Wikipedia
Roman assemblies - Wikipedia
Roman magistrate - Wikipedia
Gens - Wikipedia
Julia gens - Wikipedia
Julii Caesares - Wikipedia
Gracchi brothers - Wikipedia
Social cycle theory - Wikipedia
Imperator doesn't model any of this really. The problem with Imperator in general is that the mechanics don't really reflect historical reality. This is a major reason why (especially at release) all nations feel basically the same and the game sort of feels like it's a copy-paste with a Rome skin on it.
For example the way that all major characters in your country want to destroy you and start a civil war because they didn't get a random job doesn't make any sense and is really nonsensical and goofy. People don't try to destroy their country and start a civil war because they were denied a job offer lol.
Also FYI Roman dictatorship wasn't a technology invented in someone's shed lol. It was an actual political office that was invoked in times of emergency and then eventually was established by force. Paradox should hire historians like Mike Duncan from The History of Rome podcast to consult with. Or just read Wikipedia more lol.
- 4
- 1
- 1
No offense but I feel like this is an extreme "throw the baby out with the bathwater" solution to a problem that barely exists. All that needs to happen is to revisit the family job quota. Assigning jobs to parties doesn't make any sense. The families in Rome competed with one another for offices. The parties fought over reforms.
If you think assigning jobs based on a quota is tedious and annoying, then this won't fix that.
If you want the parties to be more important, this doesn't really fix that either.
If you want the families to be less important - why? Surely you want more engagement, not less.
The problem is your central premise is wrong. Families should feel more important in republics than monarchies - not less. Because in republics families actually have power over the executive and legislative functions of state (rather than in monarchies where they are patrons and bureaucrats). In republics, you want families competing.
Should the family system be revisited - absolutely. For everyone though, not just republics.
Should families be eliminated/marginalized - absolutely not.
Should parties be more important - absolutely.
Should parties replace families - no.
What I think:
Add in a proper cursus honorum for families to compete in - this will flesh out the internal government and family squabbles considerably.
Add in a reform system - V2 probably is the best model here. I think people would like to see the Conflict of the Orders play out between the tribunes and the Senate. You can't do that when there are no tribunes (I don't mean military tribunes) and nothing to argue over (land reform, voting reform, plebian admission to the Senate/consulships, etc.).
If you think assigning jobs based on a quota is tedious and annoying, then this won't fix that.
If you want the parties to be more important, this doesn't really fix that either.
If you want the families to be less important - why? Surely you want more engagement, not less.
The problem is your central premise is wrong. Families should feel more important in republics than monarchies - not less. Because in republics families actually have power over the executive and legislative functions of state (rather than in monarchies where they are patrons and bureaucrats). In republics, you want families competing.
Should the family system be revisited - absolutely. For everyone though, not just republics.
Should families be eliminated/marginalized - absolutely not.
Should parties be more important - absolutely.
Should parties replace families - no.
What I think:
Add in a proper cursus honorum for families to compete in - this will flesh out the internal government and family squabbles considerably.
Add in a reform system - V2 probably is the best model here. I think people would like to see the Conflict of the Orders play out between the tribunes and the Senate. You can't do that when there are no tribunes (I don't mean military tribunes) and nothing to argue over (land reform, voting reform, plebian admission to the Senate/consulships, etc.).
- 8
- 1
All great - but let's not call Mike Duncan a historian. He's a great podcaster and a great popularizer of history, but not a historian (he'll plainly state it himself in interviews). Historians study for years to get PhDs and spend their careers struggling to find a research job in universities that would increasingly rather have them as temporary adjunct employees. They have it bad enough, let's not diminish their degrees and hard work too.There's nothing wrong with the game (especially Rome) having 'Great Families' because they did in real life. In Rome there were two classes of people basically (three if you count slaves). There was the noble Patrician class and then there was the Plebeian class. The Patrician class was a small percentage of the population but they held most of the power, especially in the beginning of the Republic. Inside the Patrician class there were certain families that were very old and/or prestigious. You could even have a 'Great Family' like the Julii who were very prestigious but didn't have a lot of power or money left and allied themselves with the Plebeians.
The Plebeians were mostly farmers who worked the land of Patricians. They didn't have many rights at the beginning of the Republic but over time they fought for more and got them. The Tribune of the Plebs was very powerful and had a veto over the Senate if I recall. The Senate was all Patricians I believe. About 300-500 in total. The Plebeians had representation through the Plebeian Council (also known as the Tribal Assembly I think). There were 3 Assemblies.
The Senate and Patrician class were generally conservative though. The conflict between conservatives/Senate and the Plebeians went on for hundreds of years. Roman armies were even defeated in battle because commanders didn't like each other and didn't want to cooperate. This internal political conflict eventually became violent (Gracchi Brothers murdered) for multiple reasons and then the Republic crumbled into pieces. Caesar was a champion of the Plebeians for example.
This is probably the biggest thing that bothers me about the game. They released a game called Imperator Rome but did not even come close to properly modeling and simulating Rome's internal politics and government.
The massive wealth and hordes of slaves that were brought to Rome because of their conquests, eventually completely destabilized the Roman economy and political system. It led to mass unemployment, massive concentration of wealth, 3 slave revolts, 3 or so civil wars, mass imprisonment/executions of citizens, multiple dangerous violent demagogues rising etc. They basically became victims of their own success. Massive problems developed internally and the Roman society/government failed to properly address them which eventually led to disaster. As the Roman Senate and its loyalist forces (Pompey) were defeated in battle by Caesar and his loyal Legions.
A lot of the things that happened in Late Republic Rome have started to happen in the United States recently. It's been written about in the news a lot in recent decades. Rome was the superpower Republic of the ancient world. The United States is the superpower Republic of the modern world. The United States government is in fact partially modeled on the Roman Republic government. There is in fact an ancient concept developed by the Greeks called Anacyclosis which is a cyclical theory of political evolution. John Adams called it the "creed of his life". Cicero also talked about it. And Machiavelli.
Social class in ancient Rome - Wikipedia
Patrician (ancient Rome) - Wikipedia
Plebeians - Wikipedia
Status in Roman legal system - Wikipedia
Tribune of the plebs - Wikipedia
Plebeian Council - Wikipedia
Roman assemblies - Wikipedia
Roman magistrate - Wikipedia
Gens - Wikipedia
Julia gens - Wikipedia
Julii Caesares - Wikipedia
Gracchi brothers - Wikipedia
Social cycle theory - Wikipedia
Imperator doesn't model any of this really. The problem with Imperator in general is that the mechanics don't really reflect historical reality. This is a major reason why (especially at release) all nations feel basically the same and the game sort of feels like it's a copy-paste with a Rome skin on it.
For example the way that all major characters in your country want to destroy you and start a civil war because they didn't get a random job doesn't make any sense and is really nonsensical and goofy. People don't try to destroy their country and start a civil war because they were denied a job offer lol.
Also FYI Roman dictatorship wasn't a technology invented in someone's shed lol. It was an actual political office that was invoked in times of emergency and then eventually was established by force. Paradox should hire historians like Mike Duncan from The History of Rome podcast to consult with. Or just read Wikipedia more lol.
- 5
- 4
Would love the possibility of an Alcibiades-like character who is so politically powerful they can convince the state to declare unwise wars at bad times and win military appointment for themselves despite being a subpar commander. All in the interest of their own political advantage. Would be great.
Side note here. I would also love to see the Athenian democracy better distinguished from the Roman Republic (and to a lesser extent the Carthaginian system could use some work too).
- 3
- 1
I forgot to add. Plebeians in Rome were connected to Patrician families by patronage. Basically like a loyalty oath with different benefits and duties. Kind of like a version of feudalism between aristocrat families and common Romans. Patricians may have been connected to other Patricians this way too but I can't remember.
The Laws system in the game really isn't very reflective of actual history either. The Laws should include all the major laws that were actually enacted in Rome. We know all about them, they're not secrets. And one Law in a category shouldn't arbitrarily cancel out all the other Laws in a category. Unless it actually makes sense to. Paradox really needs to get away from overly simplistic arbitrary 'gamey' design and embrace historical reality.
I have a strong feeling that the original people making Imperator wanted to make a boardgame more than a historical simulation videogame. This is actually a feeling I am having more and more with Paradox's games. The presentation of Paradox's games is getting much better but the mechanical design is getting worse in my opinion.
One of the major things that destabilized Rome was after all their crazy conquests they captured a massive number of slaves. All this basically free labor poured into Rome and into the hands of filthy rich Patricians and oligarchs. Huge plantations sprouted up everywhere and took over/bought all the regular Roman farmers land. The Roman middle class was basically wiped out. There was mostly only the rich and the poor. All these poor people ended up in the cities which caused all kinds of issues including a large burden on the state.
The Laws system in the game really isn't very reflective of actual history either. The Laws should include all the major laws that were actually enacted in Rome. We know all about them, they're not secrets. And one Law in a category shouldn't arbitrarily cancel out all the other Laws in a category. Unless it actually makes sense to. Paradox really needs to get away from overly simplistic arbitrary 'gamey' design and embrace historical reality.
I have a strong feeling that the original people making Imperator wanted to make a boardgame more than a historical simulation videogame. This is actually a feeling I am having more and more with Paradox's games. The presentation of Paradox's games is getting much better but the mechanical design is getting worse in my opinion.
One of the major things that destabilized Rome was after all their crazy conquests they captured a massive number of slaves. All this basically free labor poured into Rome and into the hands of filthy rich Patricians and oligarchs. Huge plantations sprouted up everywhere and took over/bought all the regular Roman farmers land. The Roman middle class was basically wiped out. There was mostly only the rich and the poor. All these poor people ended up in the cities which caused all kinds of issues including a large burden on the state.
- 3
- 1
- 1
To be honest, the entire Great Families mechanic is kind of really bad and should just be rebuilt from the ground up, but focusing politics in republics around families is the right move, rather than around political parties which didn't even exist in the time frame. Factions existed, sure, but they were usually ad-hoc and formed around specific issues of that moment, nothing like the "body politic" that's in the game now. These factions were also heavily influenced by the relationships between individuals and their families.
- 5
- 1
- 1
I don't think the great family mechanic is something that needs to be changed for republics.
However i wouldn't be mad if your suggestion was implemented either.
However i wouldn't be mad if your suggestion was implemented either.
In the Roman system of politics Patrician and Plebeian isn't a term to distinguish between richer and poorer social starta at least not during the timeframe of the game. There were about as many Patrician as Plebeian consuls in Rome at that time. Both may be senators and had clients and richer and poorer families belonging to them. The term simply tells who your ancestors were, in which assemblies you can vote and in some special cases which political career path you may take.
I disagree that it actually were the families who demanded that all family members need to have jobs. The Cornelii for instance didn't really care what became of Sulla a member of an impoverished branch. The family gives a legacy and possibly a family fortune to build upon which may help quite a lot but ultimately everyone had to carve out his career, his clout and name himself especially by association to people with common interests. This is symbolized in the game by the parties although I agree that these were not the clearly defined entities of today. For the sake of the game however I think it is an acceptable compromise to be able to manage them.
In the end it's also not just Rome that has to work with the system. I'm not that familiar with Athenian Democracy and other similar systems in Greek city states but to my knowledge families were even less important there. Political sucess depended mostly on personal traits such as good oratory and social skills and the friends and votes earned by them.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Maybe not all republic forms but certainly removal from certain forms e.g democratic republics but not aristocratic etc. It would be nice for the different republic types to play differently, other than minor differences. I like the families system in general but I have found it scares new players off, some variety in how the republics work might give them enough freedom of choice to avoid mechanics they don't like or towards mechanics they do enjoy.
- 5
I like the way you have now: great families and some of them their leaders are party leaders too (resulting in very powerful persons).
- 1
But if there were no great families, who would there be to imprison and steal all their holdings. I demand a answer Lambert! Who?! Who?!
- 1
I agree with Lambert's basic idea, with the slight modification that the number of jobs demanded should be proprotional to the parties' power in the senate.
That is literally exactly what the major difference was lol. Patricians were the wealthy elites and aristocrats of Rome. The Plebs were the masses, everyone else. It took literally hundreds of years of political fighting for the Plebs to acquire equal rights as the Patricians. And in the end they never were fully equal with the Patricians. Rome's entire political and social history is one long drawn out battle between the wealthy conservative aristocratic Patricians and the Plebeians.
- 1