The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
By this math it is impossible to re-elect a leader in the first 20 years as a republic, without changing back to a despotic monarchy. And the 10% is that percentage points or 10% of your current tradition? So if I'm at 30% republican tradition, if I re-elect am I at 27% or at 20%? I like the idea of republican tradition, but re-electing leaders should be a viable option, and actually kind of the normal mode (people prefer to vote for what they know, president have a tendency to get re-elected right?). I would also prefer at least the choice to become a republican dictatorship instead of a despotic monarchy.
Not the same persons that make EUIV and The Republic so the DD yesterday means nothing.
It's important to know how frequent are the elections
If we take the USA system, they have Presidential elections every 4 years, and before they made a law in that sense (after Roosevelt) it was still tradition (enstablished from Washington himself when he refused the third mandate arguing it was dangerous for the democracy to have so much power in one man hands for so much time) that a President shouldn't stay in position for more than 2 mandates, a.k.a. 8 years. To make this realistic, it should be possible to re-elect someone once without losing the Republic form. So they need to loosen up a little the parameters.
If every republic gains 1% tradition per year, republic forms like noble republic will have an easier time to keep tradition high while sometimes re-electing a ruler than republic forms with elections every 4 years, while forms as a republican dictatorship don't have to worry about losing tradition with re-election as at all, since they only elect a new ruler when the old one dies.
Noble republic shouldn't be able to re-elect a king (who ruled for life). Election of his dynastic heir should be equivalent of that.
I think there should be a difference between elective monarchies (like the HRE and I believe Poland at some point) and noble republics where a lower noble represent the state for a while (like some Italian city states had at the time).
My impression was that EU3s noble republic was based primarily on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. But yeah ideally, there would be a distinction between city-states (like in Italy), elective monarchies (Denmark, Poland until 1569), and noble republics (PLC).
I assumed it was based primarily on Florence, but I played Republican Tuscany before I even noticed Poland was a Noble Republic on later start dates.
It would also be better if re-electing a ruler would cost more tradition the more often you do it. A second term should be fairly cheap, a third term should be quite expensive, and even more terms should but your republican tradition really in jeopardy and risk a dictatorship or monarchy.
is there any chance of u guys talking about Persia? :-? thats a challenging country and the only big rival to Ottomans in mid-east, plus a big block to russian goal of "reaching warm waters of south". i rly like to know about it and play as that, historicaly has lotsa oppertunity for being great, neighbours to mess with and conquer, lotsa risk for decisions and a big chunk of potential for fun specially if u bring ottomans to their knees!!! hehe!... so what say u devs?