Imperator - Development Diary #14 - 27th of August 2018

[Bulzome2335]

Here's a system I think could work (probably will be in a DLC but whatever).

Have the Roman pops organized into the assembly of the plebs, assembly of the centuries, etc. that existed historically and vote in these for the two consuls and offices as appropriate. (similar to elections in vic 2 where the player can have some influence). You would also need to allow the player (and the parties??) to bring about intrigues (bring in gladiators to 'convince' the voters to vote a certain way, bribery, forming street mobs etc.) that raises tyranny but increases vote share (this would help simulate the fall of the republic later in the game as each side starts forming their own street mobs and such)

This gives you 2 consuls, each organized behind a party's platform, and can also be used to elect lower officials.

A few advantages of this system are as follows:

1. It can simulate the disfunction that occurs when 2 opposing consuls are elected (Julius Caesar and Bibulus come to mind).

2. It is still possible for the player to have influence (get your friends/allies in the consulate to get the policy you want). Even with 1 year consuls

3. Faction influence matters more (a faction may be small in the Senate, but if popular enough among pops can still ruin you through tribune vetoes).

4. It forces the player to decide between following the conventions of the republic, or getting what they want but raising tyranny. (e.g. shutting out/threatening the tribunes, intimidate the vetoing consul, etc.).

5. It is better able to simulate trying to hold the republic together, especially near the end.

6. Allows more flavor in passing laws to change the powers of each assembly (similar to changing election laws in vic 2) as well as more accurate Roman politics (dealing with street mobs would be an interesting event)

To address the issue that 1 year elections hurt your ability to act. That was why the Romans choose them, and I think from a gameplay perspective it is interesting as it forces you to choose between getting new people all the time who may disagree with you and stymie your plans, or keeping in your golden consul (Gaius Marius) but raising tyranny a bunch.

Sorry this is a bit of a mess, I am just putting out a bunch of thoughts. I do understand that their are limitations on dev resources and time during development, but I would like for this to be implemented at some point (DLC would be fine).

This right here. Honestly, I could have dealt with the one consul thing. And the pseudo-council that's supposed to represent the Cursus Honorum. But seriously elections for a historically elected position like Tribune of Plebs not being in the game? Or am I misinterpreting this wrong and can it be changed by a change in the Republic's electoral law? I understand that there are many nations in the game, but I don't know. I would expect some unique internal and external mechanics for the nations that shaped this era of history, Rome, Carthage, Alexander's Successor States, the major states, there should be something unique about playing The Roman Republic and not be the same as playing as Mediterranean city-state #84. I understand not having things like a fully historic Cursus Honorum as there should be a balance of gameplay and historical accuracy. But all of this just seems like your throwing historical accuracy out the window to needlessly streamline and simplify the game, I mean, god man, were not HOI4 players. But seriously, it is a grand strategy game, I'm all for gamers learning how to play new or different or more complex games, but don't do what you did from HOI3 to HOI4 and streamline and simplify it to the point where its, as many have said, a map painter, just to appeal to a wider audience. How are people supposed to become better at different genres of a game if a genre keeps dumbing down its games to appeal to them while leaving the old fan base behind? I think this is just another example of it and I wouldn't be surprised if election mechanics and more immersive, historically accurate, unique and complex as well as challenging things are added to these major states with DLC.

 

[WingedLion14]

Well this obviously isn't a perfect mechanic - far from it - although honestly, I'm unfortunately not surprised; having to do something too all-encompassing was always going to be the problem in a game where the focus isn't on playing as a family jockeying for power in a growing Empire, which is why we have an ahistoric five-year single-consulship with an ahistorical five-party political system, an ahistoric Senate, and ahistoric appointments for life.

But this isn't going to be a purely-complaining post; the game is what it is at the moment. Instead, I'm going to show how the building blocks are there for a later expansion, through patches and DLC, to create a better system.

1. A single consul is, honestly, an abstraction I could live with, especially since we're playing the "spirit" of the country; same with the lengthened terms (and in fact, on this timescale, I oppose the idea that the terms should be only one year). That said, a second consul could be added in such a way that the stats of the two consuls are averaged out (either 50/50 or through some other mechanism like charisma or prominent) to give you your "monarch power."

2. We already have POPs called "Citizens;" while I know that they are technically more akin to the upper classes, that's exactly what the Senate was. If they have a political affiliation similar to Stellaris, they can affect the Senate composition, giving more ways to interact with teh Senate than just simply characters. You can even make it so that you decide which cities/provinces, cultures, or religions have this "voting" right. (If you'd like, this system could be expanded with Freeman voting for a Concilium Plebis, although that might be unnecessary complexity)

3. I actually don't completely hate the concept of the ideology-based parties (although It's not my preferred method, and would love to see family-based parties as well), as ahistorical as they are, because they represent general "interest groups" that you might see - people focused on religious matters, people who make their careers in the army, etc. What I think is that there should be other "parties" - basically, characters who are prominent enough should break out of the traditional parties and start their own, focused on their own personal goals. This mechanic should replace the Populists, as it represents people who are breaking out of the traditional mold in order to further their own career, and using the party system will allow the representation of things such as the patron/client relationship without making it too calculation-intensive.

4. Some sort of Victoria 2-inspired election events, where we can influence the course of hte elections without outright siding with them. Make elections a combination of player input, prominence, party support, and wealth (to represent the ability of bribing votes). Elections for lower positions in the cursus honorum should be required to gain higher positions, including consul, and should be affected at least to some extent by the candidates' relationship with the candidates elected to higher positions (somebody friendly with the guy just elected consul is more likely to gain support in his praetor election, for example.

I could also make suggestions about how generals and governors would fit in, but we haven't seen anything of that yet, so I'm going to wait and see. My main point here, however, is to show that there is a good foundation - to some extent, at least we're staring with where EU:Rome ended up, and can build from there, rather than starting where it began and building up to this.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

2. We already have POPs called "Citizens;" while I know that they are technically more akin to the upper classes, that's exactly what the Senate was. If they have a political affiliation similar to Stellaris, they can affect the Senate composition, giving more ways to interact with teh Senate than just simply characters. You can even make it so that you decide which cities/provinces, cultures, or religions have this "voting" right. (If you'd like, this system could be expanded with Freeman voting for a Concilium Plebis, although that might be unnecessary complexity)

I don't think the assemblies should count anyone far from the city of Rome in any situation, since you needed to be physically present to vote on anything. The main political power of the assembly should always come from the city of Rome (for which freemen and citizens of Roman culture would all be included) with some extra one from the province Rome belongs to. Citizens should also vote for tribune of plebs since the distinction between freeman and citizen is not one of pleb and patrician, but the vote should be less skewed in favour of the wealthy citizens than the one for consul and censor.

 

[AKronblad]

... When time passes in a rate of days (which, for the span of the game, is required), Consuls being elected on a yearly basis simply doesn't allow you to get anything done. I tried it. Effectively acquiring any form of power base would be simply impossible in the allotted time - it essentially becomes a lottery as to whether your ruler can exert enough influence.

Then most likely you've put too much emphasis on the "ruler" in the game design of a (Roman) republic. As has been mentioned, constraining individual power was one reason for having two consuls and only one year in office.

And probably need to be more stuff to do during a year that are not based on the ruler. How about more activity in and around the senate?

Good though that term can be changed through laws. Maybe as a I mentioned Tyranny to be increased with longer term (neutral at 1 year)?

 

[khardinal]

Then most likely you've put too much emphasis on the "ruler" in the game design of a Roman republic. As has been mentioned, constraining individual power was one reason for having two consuls and only one year in office.

The equivalent of the monarch of a monarchy in roman republic is THE senate, not the consules.
It's the senate that is leading the political direction of the republic, until some characters (as military leaders) will gain more and more proeminence/wealth.
The point of 2 consules/per year is exactly to keep all the power in the senate.
When a foreign power is negotiating with Rome, it is negotiating with the SENATE, not the consules.
This is why the system is fucked up right now : the head of the state should have been the senate. YOu don't need to give a fuck about who is the consul this year etc... unless when doing some hard wars when it becomes extremely important. The only problem in first part of the republic was : do we allow plebeian to have 1 consul ? That's it.

 

[AKronblad]

The equivalent of the monarch of a monarchy in roman republic is THE senate, not the consules.
It's the senate that is leading the political direction of the republic, until some characters (as military leaders) will gain more and more proeminence/wealth.
The point of 2 consules/per year is exactly to keep all the power in the senate.
When a foreign power is negotiating with Rome, it is negotiating with the SENATE, not the consules.
This is why the system is fucked up right now.

Agree. See my post immediately above yours.

 

[wingren013]

Can characters force themselves into offices if they are influential enough?

 

[khardinal]

Agree. See my post immediately above yours.

Yes, we have the same point.
Consuls did not have the "auctoritas", which is the core of the power of the state. As in Athens, the Ecclesia had it.
The point of this institutional system is that the assembly/senate is the head of the state, and that some characters (Pericles and others) will always try to gain more power to become de facto the head of the state.
Consuls should merely be your generals for the current year, and maybe with some others goals. But leaders of "party" in the senate should have more proeminence in leading the politic of the city in the long term. So you don't need to be perfectly aware of who is the consul. But then you will need to expand the consuls power when leading wars outside/away from Rome, or to create a dictator when you really want to have a strong general to face a difficult war... which can lead some characters to become extremely powerfull.

In other terms, considering that the SENATE is the head of the state, it's not by staying as a Consul that a character will be able to lead the roman politic, but by controlling the SENATE with its party. It's because of that that he will be able to stay consul/lead armies and maybe even take power himself.

EDIT : And I'm sorry but THIS seems more interesting that having a "monarch-consul" for 5 years.

 

[Me_]

There is an Electoral Reform law category, including adjustments to term duration.

When time passes in a rate of days (which, for the span of the game, is required), Consuls being elected on a yearly basis simply doesn't allow you to get anything done. I tried it. Effectively acquiring any form of power base would be simply impossible in the allotted time - it essentially becomes a lottery as to whether your ruler can exert enough influence.

I guess it's already been said, but what you are saying is:

Playing the game the way the Romans designed their government felt too much like experiencing the way the Romans designed their government, so we made it so that the player would not experience any problems that the Roman Republic and its rulers did because of how the Romans designed their government.

Or: the immersion was too immersive, so we decided to make it bland and generic instead.

And even if we accept the blandness argument, that does not explain the lack of the second consul or the fact that all offices except the Dictator (called Consul in-game) are appointed and not elected.

 

[WingedLion14]

I don't think the assemblies should count anyone far from the city of Rome in any situation, since you needed to be physically present to vote on anything. The main political power of the assembly should always come from the city of Rome (for which freemen and citizens of Roman culture would all be included) with some extra one from the province Rome belongs to. Citizens should also vote for tribune of plebs since the distinction between freeman and citizen is not one of pleb and patrician, but the vote should be less skewed in favour of the wealthy citizens than the one for consul and censor.

oh I'm completely aware that you had to be in Rome to vote; I study ancient history. Whole reason for saying that the player should decide is to increase player agency, handwaved by the fact that laws could change or (considering that this is the upper class we're talking about) that they traveled to Rome in time for the election. Primarily, however, this is an instance where gameplay concerns (ie, player agency) must trump strict realism.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Consuls did not have the "auctoritas", which is the core of the power of the state. As in Athens, the Ecclesia had it.
The point of this institutional system is that the assembly/senate is the head of the state, and that some characters (Pericles and others) will always try to gain more power to become de facto the head of the state.

I would absolutely not equate ecclesia and senate. The equivalent of the ecclesia are the assemblies, even if they were not as empowered and egalitarian as the ecclesia (which is why Athens was a democracy and Rome was only in part). Not to mention Athens relied heavily on literal lottery to elect officials: voting, as per classical idea of democracy, was corruptable and oligarchic.

This turn of discussion makes me wonder what exactly should be seen as the protagonist for Sparta which was seen by Polybius as another mix of oligarchy and democracy (and could be seen as "republic" in-game). If consuls are not for Rome, then certainly not the hereditary kings who seem to have been even less empowered than Roman consuls, but kinda mixed between the Ephorate (elected officials) and Gerousia (council of elders).

 

[alvaro]

Well this obviously isn't a perfect mechanic - far from it - although honestly, I'm unfortunately not surprised; having to do something too all-encompassing was always going to be the problem in a game where the focus isn't on playing as a family jockeying for power in a growing Empire, which is why we have an ahistoric five-year single-consulship with an ahistorical five-party political system, an ahistoric Senate, and ahistoric appointments for life.

But this isn't going to be a purely-complaining post; the game is what it is at the moment. Instead, I'm going to show how the building blocks are there for a later expansion, through patches and DLC, to create a better system.

1. A single consul is, honestly, an abstraction I could live with, especially since we're playing the "spirit" of the country; same with the lengthened terms (and in fact, on this timescale, I oppose the idea that the terms should be only one year). That said, a second consul could be added in such a way that the stats of the two consuls are averaged out (either 50/50 or through some other mechanism like charisma or prominent) to give you your "monarch power."

2. We already have POPs called "Citizens;" while I know that they are technically more akin to the upper classes, that's exactly what the Senate was. If they have a political affiliation similar to Stellaris, they can affect the Senate composition, giving more ways to interact with teh Senate than just simply characters. You can even make it so that you decide which cities/provinces, cultures, or religions have this "voting" right. (If you'd like, this system could be expanded with Freeman voting for a Concilium Plebis, although that might be unnecessary complexity)

3. I actually don't completely hate the concept of the ideology-based parties (although It's not my preferred method, and would love to see family-based parties as well), as ahistorical as they are, because they represent general "interest groups" that you might see - people focused on religious matters, people who make their careers in the army, etc. What I think is that there should be other "parties" - basically, characters who are prominent enough should break out of the traditional parties and start their own, focused on their own personal goals. This mechanic should replace the Populists, as it represents people who are breaking out of the traditional mold in order to further their own career, and using the party system will allow the representation of things such as the patron/client relationship without making it too calculation-intensive.

4. Some sort of Victoria 2-inspired election events, where we can influence the course of hte elections without outright siding with them. Make elections a combination of player input, prominence, party support, and wealth (to represent the ability of bribing votes). Elections for lower positions in the cursus honorum should be required to gain higher positions, including consul, and should be affected at least to some extent by the candidates' relationship with the candidates elected to higher positions (somebody friendly with the guy just elected consul is more likely to gain support in his praetor election, for example.

I could also make suggestions about how generals and governors would fit in, but we haven't seen anything of that yet, so I'm going to wait and see. My main point here, however, is to show that there is a good foundation - to some extent, at least we're staring with where EU:Rome ended up, and can build from there, rather than starting where it began and building up to this.

this post is long but deserves attention

 

[Jpbackman]

One single consul=hype down. I dreamed that one day Rome II would fix that aberration from first game.

 

[khardinal]

I would absolutely not equate ecclesia and senate. The equivalent of the ecclesia are the assemblies, even if they were not as empowered and egalitarian as the ecclesia (which is why Athens was a democracy and Rome was only in part). Not to mention Athens relied heavily on literal lottery to elect officials: voting, as per classical idea of democracy, was corruptable and oligarchic.

This turn of discussion makes me wonder what exactly should be seen as the protagonist for Sparta which was seen by Polybius as another mix of oligarchy and democracy (and could be seen as "republic" in-game). If consuls are not for Rome, then certainly not the hereditary kings who seem to have been even less empowered than Roman consuls, but kinda mixed between the Ephorate (elected officials) and Gerousia (council of elders).

I am not saying Ecclesia = senate, but what is having the auctoritas.
For Sparta, kings did not have it as you said. Kings are close to be consuls, so yeah, gerousia is head of the state, while kings are military leaders. But because of being king, their ability to influence politic if they are good is 100x more than consuls. Plus, they can easily lead their own party and gain clientele.
But foreign powers were not treating with kings but Gerousia, yes. So Spartan kings would be potential very powerfull roman consuls, which is why ephores were here. Much easy for them to gain a lot of power and even try to turn sparta into a single monarchy like lysander was accused to scheme for King Agis. And how it ended with « spartan tyrans ».

 

[Amallric]

I would absolutely not equate ecclesia and senate. The equivalent of the ecclesia are the assemblies, even if they were not as empowered and egalitarian as the ecclesia (which is why Athens was a democracy and Rome was only in part). Not to mention Athens relied heavily on literal lottery to elect officials: voting, as per classical idea of democracy, was corruptable and oligarchic.

This turn of discussion makes me wonder what exactly should be seen as the protagonist for Sparta which was seen by Polybius as another mix of oligarchy and democracy (and could be seen as "republic" in-game). If consuls are not for Rome, then certainly not the hereditary kings who seem to have been even less empowered than Roman consuls, but kinda mixed between the Ephorate (elected officials) and Gerousia (council of elders).

Sparta unfortunately happened to have kings so in this game I bet it's gonna be an absolute monarchy with a court of loyal appointees...of course under one single king

 

[classicist]

I am not saying Ecclesia = senate, but what is having the auctoritas.

It's very difficult to compare Greek and Roman power structures under a Latin rubric that would not have applied to the Classical Athenian concepts in any case.

 

[khardinal]

It's very difficult to compare Greek and Roman power structures under a Latin rubric that would not have applied to the Classical Athenian concepts in any case.

My point was to apply a system for the game. If you do not understand this, can’t do anything.
The fact is that assembly of the people had the auctoritas, more or less. Which is why athens democracy «head of state » should be Ecclesia more than strategos, as the Senate for Rome instead of consuls. Period.
I was not debating about history of institution but how to have a somehat historical depiction of these institutions in the game.

We can say : who had the final word ?
As aristotle said, king in monarchy, senate or so in aristocracy and people/demos in democracy.

 

[Link777]

I fear for India if Rome is this bland.

 

[Thure]

I fear for India if Rome is this bland.

What would be special about India during this era? Or: What did you expect/hope for?

 

[classicist]

We can say : who had the final word ?
As aristotle said, king in monarchy, senate or so in aristocracy and people/demos in democracy.

And my point was that by using false analogies you cannot get very far in debating a one-system-fits all solutions, even in this game.

But also, regarding your last point about Aristotle, a correction is needed: Romans were pretty explicit that the way they understood their Republican system it corresponded with Aristotle's mixed constitution, and was thus neither monarchy, aristocracy or democracy. This was the case from at least Polybius onwards.