Dictators?

[JFeatherston]

Maybe in times of emergency, like x amount of provinces lost, Rome can have a dictator with power to raise vast numbers of legions and money but for stability hits and it would only last for 6 months.

 

[Kaelic]

Why would a Roman dictator cause a stability hit?

 

[JFeatherston]

Because the Romans were used to a republic, what if the Joint Chief of Staff declared a National Emergency and assumed power

 

[Duuk]

the Romans were used to the dictatorship though. It happened quite often.

And for exactly 6 months, IIRC.

 

[Kaelic]

Perhaps you need to brush up on your Roman political system A Dictator was an elected position with a maximum term of 6 months for specific purposes and was not really anything destabilising when it happened.

Dictator was a political office of the Roman Republic. A legal innovation of the Roman Republic, the dictator (Latin for "one who dictates (orders)") — officially known as the Magister Populi ("Master of the People"), the Praetor Maximus ("The supreme Praetor"), and the Magister Peditum ("Master of the Infantry") — was an extraordinary magistrate (magistratus extraordinarius) whose function was to perform extraordinary tasks exceeding the authority of any of the ordinary magistrates.

The Roman Senate passed a senatus consultum authorizing the consuls to nominate a dictator, who was the sole exception to the Roman legal principles of collegiality (multiple tenants of the same office) and responsibility (being legally able to be held to answer for actions in office); there could never be more than one dictator at any one time for any reason, and no dictator could ever be held legally responsible for any action during his time in office for any reason. The dictator was the highest magistrate in degree of precedence (Praetor Maximus) and was attended by 24 lictors.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dictator

Yes it was a time of crisis and yes political tension was heightened, but it most certainly wasn't destablising.

 

[hildoceras]

Yes it was a time of crisis and yes political tension was heightened, but it most certainly wasn't destablising.

well there we disagree as I think we should see the stability as a measure of the state of crisis of a nation. So if you need a dictator, you're already in trouble ! Then the stability marker should traduce it.
But we'd agree that it is for game purposes (lesser economy, possibility of revolts etc.)

 

[Swamp Rat]

Or when having a dictator the civic tech bonus in the political setup of military republic could be cancelled until the 6 months has passed.

I agree that it should in game terms be a event that symbolizes a crisis and therefore have some sort of negative effect on the nation as well as having some sort of positive effect on the military.

 

[El-Wrongo]

Dictators were there so in times of crisis there wasn't a need for political wrestling over what to do, I think that they having a destabilising effect is not historical. If you want to introduce a destabilising effect when loosing a certain number of provinces this should happen for all nations and not be tied in with the dictator effect (if any is implemented which I kind of doubt).

The Romans won their biggest wars exactly because they were able to raise armies time and time again, and had dictators to run a nation without any "fuss". Look at the second punic war. The Romans lost 80 000 men twice (IIRC, but its been a long time since I read up on Roman history) and still raised armies to fight.

 

[Zakath]

I'd say a dictator should only happen if you have stability issues, and instead of reducing stability it should boost it for the duration of the Dictatorship. of course, that's just me

 

[Mannisks]

I'd say a dictator should only happen if you have stability issues, and instead of reducing stability it should boost it for the duration of the Dictatorship. of course, that's just me

I agree with that. I mean, if installing a dictator would worsen the crisis, why install one?

 

[hildoceras]

no it doesn't worsen the crisis : because there is a crisis [and the player thinks he needs a dictator for whatever bonuses it gives] the stability value should represent it.
"Economy is bad, Parths are coming from the east, Gauls from the north, Cartagians from the west : we are doomed !!! ... and still the stab value is at +3 "

 

[Zakath]

But if you're involved in three wars and have a bad economy, you're already pretty likely to have a bad stability or at least war weariness of some sort.

As for a dictator, reducing the stability would be quite strange considering that he's there to cause stability. Maybe you should require a low stability, or other negative modifiers, before the senate would even consider instating a dictator? After all they were terrified of creating a new king, something which they hated after the Etruscan puppet kings.

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

I suggest that if the country is at a time of crises stability lower than +1 or having lost lots of national provinces, a dictator could be appointed. It would make military units cheaper and reduce stability cost, but at the expense of making virtually everything else, like missionaries, traders, colonists, buildings much more expensive.

 

[Raczynski]

I suggest that if the country is at a time of crises stability lower than +1 or having lost lots of national provinces, a dictator could be appointed. It would make military units cheaper and reduce stability cost, but at the expense of making virtually everything else, like missionaries, traders, colonists, buildings much more expensive.

That actually make sense.

 

[minority]

It should be open to all who have the "Republic" government system too, and be optional.

Great idea!

cheers

 

[Zuckergußgebäck]

It should be open to all who have the "Republic" government system too, and be optional.

Great idea!

cheers

Of course, I was thinking like having a little button that says "appoint dictator".

Six months later, you get the option either keep the dictator or return to being a republic. If at war and the dictator criteria are met, nothing will happen if you keep him. If the crisis is over though, the fun begins!

 

[Tangent]

If time goes as quickly in Rome as it does in EU3 and CK then six months will not be enough time to do anything at all.

 

[hildoceras]

if Rome is besieged it may save the game

 

[takedown47]

Perhaps you need to brush up on your Roman political system A Dictator was an elected position with a maximum term of 6 months for specific purposes and was not really anything destabilising when it happened.



Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Dictator

Yes it was a time of crisis and yes political tension was heightened, but it most certainly wasn't destablising.

Yes you're correct. But there would be political tension and maybe even destablisation but this would occur because of external events/circumstances which required the dictator to be elected in the first place. ie. Gauls invading Italy would be destabilsing event which requires a dictator rather than a dictator gets elected, everything destabilises and then the Gauls invade lol :wacko:

 

[unmerged(78037)]

Of course, I was thinking like having a little button that says "appoint dictator".

Six months later, you get the option either keep the dictator or return to being a republic. If at war and the dictator criteria are met, nothing will happen if you keep him. If the crisis is over though, the fun begins!

ya, just like the button of "war tax" in EU3,

it gives you some advantages for waging wars, maybe faster reinforcement speed, but also causes some other problems, like increasing stability cost maybe.