Imperator - Development Diary #13 - 20th of August 2018
- Thread starter Johan
- 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.
If possible you want these people not to be populists to begin with. Find out the next generation of leaders and make sure they do not become populists is a good idea.The leader might be particularly talented
I don't recall if in EU:R characters, who were unhappy by their lack of success in their faction, could become populists.
So for example, a prominent general which you pushed aside to avoid him becoming too powerful, could become a populist. He is still skillful, but he is in the troublemaking faction.
Last edited:
Agree it look nice like an improvement over EU: Rome should be.
They could. Characters with the ambition to obtain a title would gain a small amount of populist conviction every month until they got it.
I wish we will be able to tear down the Senate's power though tiranny, personal power and maybe military action to top it. Dictatorial Rome is best Rome.
Im pretty sure you will be able to do that as that was something you could do in EU: Rome.
Sorry, by asking if populists were bad I didn’t mean morally. I mean for the health of the Republic or people or whatnot.
Populists gaining power supposedly have no advantages for you. But I wasn’t sure that makes sense — populists are historically disruptive, yes, but because they failed to take power through traditionally approved methods (hence the criticism for flattering the common people).
But in IR, if populists control the Senate.... haven’t they taken power in the traditional way? Haven’t they proven the need for their ideas? If so, then having the populist “bonus” actually be a negative suggests that populists could never be good for the state.
I’m not sure about that part. Unless the idea is, because populists represent discontent and failure of the traditional governing class, that populist penalties are knock-on effects of whatever failures brought them into power to begin with.
It’s a frame of reference that would be very pleasing to the classical senatorial historian I guess
I'm not very pleased by this design choice too... the populare were an important faction, and Rome adopted quite a lot of their projects. Dole, italian citizenship, Lex Agraria and so on. Actually, the Lex Agraria was a huge necessity for the development of Rome... and the senatorial class was holding back Rome's progress in order to keep their privileges.
I was actually prone to play this game with the sole objective of creating a Gracchian Revolution. I mean, PDX hasn't laid all their design choices, and it would be actually awesome to see Rome with its dual "power" governemnt: the Senate and the Assembly. So populare could give some bonus at the Assembly, but a penalty in the Senate, while a Optimate supremacy would give the exact opposite.
...
Oh, by the way, it is not the case that the populare were leftists. Actually, it's the other way around: the Left as a whole was always inspired by the Conflict of the Orders and by some populare ideals (agrarian reforms are almost always a left-wing policy). Babeuf, one of the most famous french revolutionaries, and the forefather of socialism was known as Gracchus Babeuf. An obvious reference.
Marx even criticized most left-wing idealization and reliance on the ghosts of Rome, of the famous populare tribunes and revolutionaries. He also called workers by the name of "proletarii", also a roman reference. So, yeah, a lot of left-wing imagery came from the populare and plebeian movement. However, I would bet that a grachian populare roman would, if he happens to time-travel to our current time, identify himself as a left-wing socialist; and a optimate in the same scenario would probably identify himself as a right-ring conservative.
Last edited:
Ok, so I'm going to backtrack completely on my previous statements that Populists weren't all bad.
Turns out, they are - at least with declaring war. And I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong!
Populists don't have a particular dislike for war, but they also won't agree to it unless they have very specific conditions. In other words: if you're faced with a Populist-majority senate, the best you can do is get the Populist leader into the consulship and ramp up that Tyranny. This is less of a "do what you want" tactic, and more of a Populist mitigation tactic.
Here's the full breakdown of what each faction likes and dislikes, when it comes to declaring war:
Military Party
Likes (max +205%, not including Martial skill):
Likes (max +145%, not including Finesse skill):
Likes (max +115%, not including Zeal skill):
Likes (max +155%):
Likes (max +100%):
Turns out, they are - at least with declaring war. And I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong!
Populists don't have a particular dislike for war, but they also won't agree to it unless they have very specific conditions. In other words: if you're faced with a Populist-majority senate, the best you can do is get the Populist leader into the consulship and ramp up that Tyranny. This is less of a "do what you want" tactic, and more of a Populist mitigation tactic.
Here's the full breakdown of what each faction likes and dislikes, when it comes to declaring war:
Military Party
Likes (max +205%, not including Martial skill):
- Not being in a civil war (+50%)
- Having manpower (max +50%)
- Having <=10 War Exhaustion (max +20%)
- Military Party influence in the senate (max +20%)
- Ruler Martial skill (no max)
- Ruler being friends with OR himself being Military Party Leader (+15%)
- Ruler being in Military Party and having up to 20 Tyranny (max +40%)
- Being in an Aristocratic Republic (+10%)
- Already being at war (-30%)
- Ruler being rivals with Military Party Leader (-15%)
Likes (max +145%, not including Finesse skill):
- Target country ruler has different culture (+15%)
- Target country ruler has different culture group (+15%) -- they're basically the xenophobes of Imperator
- Having <=10 War Exhaustion (max +10%)
- Target country is a Tribe (+20%)
- Civic Party influence in the senate (max +20%)
- Ruler Finesse skill (no max)
- Ruler being friends with OR himself being Civic Party Leader (+15%)
- Ruler being in Civic Party and having up to 20 Tyranny (max +40%)
- Being in a Democratic Republic (+10%)
- Being in civil war (-50%)
- Ruler being rivals with Civic Party Leader (-15%)
Likes (max +115%, not including Zeal skill):
- Base (+10%)
- Target country ruler has different religion (+20%)
- Religious Party influence in the senate (max +20%)
- Ruler Zeal skill (no max)
- Ruler being friends with OR himself being Religious Party Leader (+15%)
- Ruler being in Religious Party and having up to 20 Tyranny (max +40%)
- Being in a Theocratic Republic (+10%)
- Being in civil war (-50%)
- Ruler being rivals with Religious Party Leader (-15%)
Likes (max +155%):
- Base (+50%)
- Having no war exhaustion (max +20%)
- Mercantile Party influence in the senate (max +20%)
- Ruler Charisma skill (no max)
- Ruler being friends with OR himself being Mercantile Party Leader (+15%)
- Ruler being in Mercantile Party and having up to 20 Tyranny (max +40%)
- Being in an Oligarchic Republic (+10%)
- Being in civil war (-50%)
- Having trade access with target (-50%)
- Having >10 war exhaustion (max -40%)
- Ruler being rivals with Mercantile Party Leader (-15%)
Likes (max +100%):
- Base (+10%)
- Target country being a monarchy (+15%)
- Ruler being friends with OR himself being Populist Party Leader (+15%)
- Ruler being in Populist Party and having up to 30 Tyranny (max +60%)
- Ruler being rivals with Populist Party Leader (-15%)
Last edited:
I get the feeling I won't like the typology of government forms in this game.
What is an aristocratic republic? Is this in the period sense of aristocracy meaning the rule of the best (the most qualified or the most virtuous); or in the modern sense of aristocracy, meaning rule by wealthy landowners. If it's the latter how does this functionally differ from oligarchic republic since the oligarchs would by large be wealthy landowners? I imagine the game won't even try to differentiate between oligarchic republic (i.e. mixed constitution with oligarchic bias) and oligarchy.
Theocratic republic is also curious. In the states of the period the high officials already had significant religious duties, e.g. conducting/organizing omens, sacrifice and festivities. And incidentally a state where any kind of power is restricted to cadre of appointed career religious officials would not be a kind of republic at all.
What is an aristocratic republic? Is this in the period sense of aristocracy meaning the rule of the best (the most qualified or the most virtuous); or in the modern sense of aristocracy, meaning rule by wealthy landowners. If it's the latter how does this functionally differ from oligarchic republic since the oligarchs would by large be wealthy landowners? I imagine the game won't even try to differentiate between oligarchic republic (i.e. mixed constitution with oligarchic bias) and oligarchy.
Theocratic republic is also curious. In the states of the period the high officials already had significant religious duties, e.g. conducting/organizing omens, sacrifice and festivities. And incidentally a state where any kind of power is restricted to cadre of appointed career religious officials would not be a kind of republic at all.
Last edited:
Can't wait for this game! I also hope we can continue our games through crusader kings and onward. That capability in current games is so enjoyable.
No, Populist movements are bred out of discontent. If the populous is happy, then there is no reason for a populist movement to form, and a populist leaders power only grows as the discontent of the nation grows. Hence, populist leaders create disruption and discontent in order to increase their own power. This is why populist movements are bad, always have been both historically and in modern times.
The problem with this setup is that there are several things that aren't accurate for Republican Rome:
1) The Roman Republic didn't really have 'parties' in the modern sense. Politics were built around personal relations, not factional ones.
2) The Senate was not a legislative body in the sense of a modern parliament. Senators were enrolled on a property and age basis, not elected and the Senate itself had very little formal power. For example, decisions regarding war and peace were the purview of the Comitia Centuriata, not the Senate. There should probably not be a Populist faction in the Senate since that would in general be a contradiction; populists would generally try to become either magistrates or Plebeian Tribunes. Also, there should probably be some mechanic to represent the Assembly and Tribunes, since conflicts between the Senate and Assembly happened on several occasions.
1) The Roman Republic didn't really have 'parties' in the modern sense. Politics were built around personal relations, not factional ones.
2) The Senate was not a legislative body in the sense of a modern parliament. Senators were enrolled on a property and age basis, not elected and the Senate itself had very little formal power. For example, decisions regarding war and peace were the purview of the Comitia Centuriata, not the Senate. There should probably not be a Populist faction in the Senate since that would in general be a contradiction; populists would generally try to become either magistrates or Plebeian Tribunes. Also, there should probably be some mechanic to represent the Assembly and Tribunes, since conflicts between the Senate and Assembly happened on several occasions.
That's why it's called factions, not parties. Groups of people with similiar interests.
I'm curious- is there a reason for that? I ask because well, via dev responses only, this is the last reply on the topic so....
If you get populists you are doing something wrong, if everyone was happy there would be no reason for populists to exist.
I really hope that the game doesn't get dumped on us with the Populist Faction acting as is (even the indirect bonus feels contrived), their contribution to Roman politics and its legacy would make for a much more potentially exciting experience than the way they're being presented at the moment.
The agrarian reforms should at least make some kind of appearance and one should garner bonuses for certain pops and consequences for others, with the new pop dynamics, I'm sure that the populists can have direct and indirect impacts on those.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi#Gracchi_reforms
The agrarian reforms should at least make some kind of appearance and one should garner bonuses for certain pops and consequences for others, with the new pop dynamics, I'm sure that the populists can have direct and indirect impacts on those.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi#Gracchi_reforms