It actually tries to represent the cursus honorum. It's far from accurate, but Imperator isn't even trying.
Imperator - Development Diary #14 - 27th 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.
It actually tries to represent the cursus honorum. It's far from accurate, but Imperator isn't even trying.
The intent is to provide players with a sense of fun and engagement...
In a reddit interview they devs talked about that they have a cursus honorum. Maybe something we haven't seen yet.
How can there be a cursus honorum if you appoint random people to be censors and minor magistratures aren't represented as offices? Am I missing something?
EU: Rome you could not make anyone into a legate for example because only people who had been censors and similar could become legate. From what I understand the prominence of each character will determine who should hold each post and if you ignore that you will get penalized in some way (probably loss of loyality).
The building system in EU: Rome was terrible because it is basically spam and forget, it did not really add anything to the game.
Allowing the Roman republic to be led by rainbow unicorns with golden glitter would probably be fun and engaging.
Does that mean it should be in the game ? Definitely no. Because Imperator is a historical game and there were no such thing as rainbow unicorns or golden glitter.
Now that you are convinced by that point, just read my post again by replacing the words "rainbow unicorn" with "a single consul" and "golden glitter" with "5-year terms".
it was a joke. Ever heard "The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment"?
Damn near most of the controversy here's been caused entirely by Johan saying that it was to make the game "fun and engaging" tbh
The problem I would assume is that most people here don't know much about game design and how paradox games work. For many it may look simple to have two leaders and whatever else people ask for but in reality it is much more complicated and time consuming to implement than it may look like.
It is not about laziness as some people think.
Honestly I don't even see in what way a single consul is more fun and engaging than two. It seems a non sequitur to me.
Comparing one consul and 5-year term with fantasy stuff is absolutelly bullsh*
Rome II is not even trying to have a senate, you can declare war on your closest allies for no reason whatsoever as well as declaring war on everyone without any limitations.
In Imperator: Rome you have to aleast manage the senate a bit Before you can do diplomacy as you want.
Imperator: Rome may not be correct historically but atleast it is still keeping to the theme instead of going all out complete fantasy. EUIV have even less detalied political system so I can only imagine what it would be like if we took it all way to fantasyland.
Hello,
I think that historically, the reason for appointing 2 top leaders (consuls in this case) was to split the power and to avoid corruption and prevent a coup d'etat. As this is a game and the characters aren't real people there isn't the need and you can model it in the game mechanics so, I think the decision is sensible.
Thinking about the old EU:Rome I don't remember to have had so many offices available and, I remember that besides the effect of the main attribute, the other attributes of the character also had some effects. It worked fine, imo.
EU: Rome republic have a total of 8 major government positions, 5 researchs, 2 censors and 1 consul.
Its actually very easy. Having a leader is not an essential part of the game. All they really ammount to is a modifier for your country, that happens to have a name.
Take EU4: Fundamentally, what is the difference between your ruler and your advisors? They all just give you a set number of monarch points per month, as well as another modifier. Advisors just give you one type of point and their modifier is guaranteed to be positive. They also have a money cost and serve entirely at your pleasure. Other than that, they are just a way to get MP that has a name.
If you wanted, you could even script up an election system for your advisors, or maybe use the Consort position to represent a second ruler. It would be clunky, but it would be possible for a mod to do, let alone the devs.
Vicky2 doesn’t even have rulers, HOI4’s are even less important than EU4’s, as are Stellaris’. CK2’s are the only game in which they’re essential, but that is because you play the ruler, not the country. And even then, a modder could kludge together a collegial consulship. Hell, AGOT has kludged together a triarchy. And yes, in that mod, it is not fun. Because you are the character, and when your character is out of power, you are, too.
But IR is not a character-driven game. Its a country-driven game that had extensive character information.
It seems pretty clear to me from this post that Paradox likely started with the idea of yearly consuls and found that it didn't work within the game. Now, some might argue that this means they needed to change the rest of the game to make it work, but I'd lean more toward the 1 is not so different from 5 camp, particularly if you are going to break other parts of the game just to accommodate it.
Doesn't touch at all the issue of 2 vs. 1, no evidence yet that they tried to make the game with 2 consuls and found it didn't work as well as 1.
If they have a good reason why it doesnt work, they could have just explained it properly. but as of yet "more fun'' just leaves us in confusion.
Yeah, I mean, as we were talking about TW, when Warhammer 2 was announced they said "we won't have naval battles because the game is about field battles and we want to focus our resources on those". That's somewhat disappointing, but a perfectly reasonable explanation. If they said "the game will be more fun and engaging without naval battles!" it would have sounded ridiculous.
So now, I would like to know: is PDX simplifying the Roman political system because they don't have the resources/time/design ideas to make it work fine, or they truly think it's better this way? Because if it's the second one, well folks, it's not better.
So now, I would like to know: is PDX simplifying the Roman political system because they don't have the resources/time/design ideas to make it work fine, or they truly think it's better this way? Because if it's the second one, well folks, it's not better.
there is not one but 3 major nations at the start of the game which would have 2 leaders so one would expect there at least be a mechanic to represent that