Roman Empire vs. Roman Republic

[Linusz]

So we have this nice, historical choice to make the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. Following Caesars footstepps feels great, taking down democracy and creating a quasi monarchy in Rome. However, for me it just feels very shallow. The Roman Empire seems to me inferior in almost all aspects concerning game mechanics compared to the Republic.

On the upside we have:
4 idea slots
senate is gone, so you do not need to deal with approval
you have more control over the next ruler
assimilation law
2 free province investments

On the downside we have:
vastly inferior laws (except assimilation). especially concerning claim generation
a sink for mostly useless inventions (4 points)
time consuming
less desired pops compared to republic (citizens)
slightly higher costs for changing governour policies (10%)
worse offfices

So let's sum up pros and cons. Please keep in mind that the valuation is based on my playstyle, which includes almost constant wars, PI maxing and Romanization with the goal to create borders of maximum historical expansion while making every pop I control Roman.

4 idea slots are nice. Expecially considering that they are more spread out in terms of achieving the bonus for matching ideas. So we have one idea more compared to the republic.
Approval is replaced with legitimacy. Since Approval is almost always a non-issue, I would not count this in too much.
Control over your heir instead of the next electee is a plus. But again, since most candidates are quite useful in Rome and you only need to spend a bit tyranny to get rid of most unwanted ones, this does not make a big difference. Also, the party boni are in my opinion superior compared to stuff a monarchy brings so you.
The assimilation law is very nice to have. But still, theaters all over the place are sufficient in my opinion. Romanization works pretty well that way. 6000 Roman pops in 560 are ok, I think.
2 Province investments make up for your initial cost to become the empire including idea picking costs. So nothing fancy here.

So we come to the downsides, which for me is mostly the laws, and their consequences, especially the more PI-intense expansion of the empire. Which can be mainly attributed to the Centuriate Assembly law, or better, the lack of an aquivalent in the Empire. Having claim cost reduce by 50% is huge if one wants to play expansionist. Fabricating claims is your main PI sink. In general, laws of the Empire are just inferior (check the wiki if you want a comparison) except for the assimilation law (which I don't think is that useful anymore or at least needed). Combined with the general better and more useful offices of the Republic, the better pop ratios and the time investment to become the empire (civil war etc.) you are just more efficient as a Republic in almost everyhing you do if you take account play time of ~270 years.

So my question: is this WAD? I mean, a Republic SHOULD be more efficient since it is a democracy?! Looking at todays China one COULD agrue differently concerning governing efficiency?! On the other hand, I have the oppinion that creating the Empire should have more benefits and be more rewarding than it is at the moment, especially if you play Rome. For starting monarchies it definetly is, since not much changes and you get an additionaly idea slot. But loosing the benefits of the Republic IMHO, is not worth it to go for the empire. Maybe we need a special design for a Roman empire, like we have for the Roman Republic.

What do you guys think? Have I missed something important in my assessment?

 

[EricMN93]

In my current game I decided to turn Rome into an empire for two reasons.

1-Greater control of who governs.
2-Increase of civilization with the empire rank, I am trying to achieve the achievement "What have the Romans done for us?"

Here is a debate that I find interesting. The player should have less control over the republics, this would have to make the player have to make a decision, understand the political machinery of the Republic or want to centralize power. Currently this does not happen and I understand that many people prefer to stay with the Republic rather than the empire.

Here is a very basic summary of my idea about a republican cursus honorum:

Here was an interesting discussion:

Republics should not be able to "appoint" people to political positions - I:R needs the Cursus Honorum

It's absurd how I as one of the consuls of Rome can appoint every single political position like they it's my personal cabinet. Instead, it should be be determined by elections. Which you as the player should be able to influence, of course...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Empires should also have mechanisms that attract people, something unique, I don't know, maybe being able to distribute territories in another way, make reforms or something that makes people want to have that type of government.

 

[Nostalgium]

What do you guys think? Have I missed something important in my assessment?

Your map name becomes ten times more glorious.

In all seriousness though, I do think Imperial mechanics should be looked at, and not just for Rome. I would like adapting an Imperial administration to feel like I'm adapting an Imperial administration, even as a Kingdom. Ruling over say Armenia, as I am wont to do, is one thing. Ruling over the Armeno-Persian Empire that stretches from the Indus to the Hellespont, from Taurica to Kush is surely another! You could have this reflected in particular in the offices, reflecting perhaps how most Empires had something like a developed post office, establish a tribune of minorities, IDK, just spitballing. But something should be done to make the Imperial administration feel like taking steps towards being better able to rule a very large territory.

 

[Vernichtere]

So my question: is this WAD? I mean, a Republic SHOULD be more efficient since it is a democracy?! Looking at todays China one COULD agrue differently concerning governing efficiency?! On the other hand, I have the oppinion that creating the Empire should have more benefits and be more rewarding than it is at the moment, especially if you play Rome. For starting monarchies it definetly is, since not much changes and you get an additionaly idea slot. But loosing the benefits of the Republic IMHO, is not worth it to go for the empire. Maybe we need a special design for a Roman empire, like we have for the Roman Republic.

What do you guys think? Have I missed something important in my assessment?

Its not a modern Republic. In History the Republic switched to the Empire because the Republic was not able to manage the expansion in the first place. In short form you can say: they tried to manage the empire like a town and only for the one town. Later on the first argument against Republics was excatly this. Its the best form for manage small towns.

We can also say for the modern time that having a Empire works not so well with having a democracy. Military and Security and "Nobles" start to play a biger role. I don't want to start a political discussion, but the USA are often blamed to go the way of the roman republic.

Its a game and i wantr deeper and more interesting mechanics for the governments. But so far the advtantages of a Monarchy are are not bad done. I switch to the Empire so soon i can.

 

[Pro]

Republic:
Pros:
Upholds roman traditions
Represents the roman people
Doesn't bow to despots and tyrants
Cons:
None

Empire:
Pros:
None
Cons:
Betrays roman traditions
Doesn't represent the roman people
Kowtows to tyrants and despots

 

[Daft]

I haven't actually made it to the Empire in any of my games.

I need to get on that.

 

[Linusz]

Your map name becomes ten times more glorious.

I'll give u that!

Republic:
Pros:
Upholds roman traditions
Represents the roman people
Doesn't bow to despots and tyrants
Cons:
None

Empire:
Pros:
None
Cons:
Betrays roman traditions
Doesn't represent the roman people
Kowtows to tyrants and despots

True, but if you want to recreate history, that is another role play goal and you would just say:
Republic: frickin plebs hindering my almighty power fantasies!
Empire: All the power to one! me!

Its not a modern Republic. In History the Republic switched to the Empire because the Republic was not able to manage the expansion in the first place. In short form you can say: they tried to manage the empire like a town and only for the one town. Later on the first argument against Republics was excatly this. Its the best form for manage small towns.

We can also say for the modern time that having a Empire works not so well with having a democracy. Military and Security and "Nobles" start to play a biger role. I don't want to start a political discussion, but the USA are often blamed to go the way of the roman republic.

Its a game and i wantr deeper and more interesting mechanics for the governments. But so far the advtantages of a Monarchy are are not bad done. I switch to the Empire so soon i can.

Which advantages do you see and value most? As I said, I do not see so many or value certain potential advantages quite less. Would be nice to get another POV on that.

 

[Rubidium]

I'll give u that!


True, but if you want to recreate history, that is another role play goal and you would just say:
Republic: frickin plebs hindering my almighty power fantasies!
Empire: All the power to one! me!

In the Republic, it was more the patricians hindering your almighty power fantasies. The Roman Republic wasn't a democracy, it was a pretty nasty oligarchy where a handful of rich folks ruled, their clients got some crumbs, and most of the people got squat. There's a reason that Caesar's supporters were Populares, whereas the Optimates were the opposition. The folks going on about their "virtue" and "traditional values" were also doing everything possible to seize as much of the public wealth and land for their own and leave the plebes to starve.

The reformers eventually supported abolishing the republic because it was the only way to bypass the obstructionism of the conservatives in the Senate.

Which advantages do you see and value most? As I said, I do not see so many or value certain potential advantages quite less. Would be nice to get another POV on that.

My inner CK fan enjoys monarchies and dynastic politics more. I find it easier to roleplay as "you are the ruler, and have to keep your rule stable for life" rather than "congrats, you are random dude who was elected consul, and will be replaced by another random dude when your term is up."

 

[Lord Lambert]

a sink for mostly useless inventions (4 points)

Did you just call inventions mostly useless? Getting 4 innovations is HUGE. Like... what are you smoking lol

time consuming

One can become a dictatorship as Rome within 5 years

 

[Ixtli613]

Did you just call inventions mostly useless? Getting 4 innovations is HUGE. Like... what are you smoking lol

I thought they meant you have to sink 4 innovations on (relatively) weak imventions to get dictatorship? Or did I misunderstand and going Empire as Rome give you innovations?

 

[Lord Lambert]

I thought they meant you have to sink 4 innovations on (relatively) weak imventions to get dictatorship? Or did I misunderstand and going Empire as Rome give you innovations?

Ah if thats what he meant, its less insane. Id argue that espionage is strong enough to warrant it though

 

[Linusz]

Ah if thats what he meant, its less insane. Id argue that espionage is strong enough to warrant it though

I meant choosing 4 innovations I find quite useless. If adopting the Empire would give 4 Innovations, it would almost become a no-brainer

 

[Linusz]

One can become a dictatorship as Rome within 5 years

Only if you do it right after game start. If you do it later you will spend a lot of time in that nasty civil war.

 

[John MacWhat]

One very subtle bonus I have noticed with Republics versus Monarchies, is that that changing diplomatic stance increases with cost each time stance is changed, but the cost increase resets on ruler change. So, you get a lot cheaper/more flexible use out of switching stance with Consuls than with Kings because the cost resets for Republics as often as your elections occur, where monarchies only reset cost when the ruler dies. This can be helpful when it comes to swapping between bellicose and appeasing depending on whether you are at war or at peace

As for the Roman Empire, I think I come down on the side that it is inferior to the Republic. The extra idea slot does not make up losing out on better laws, offices, national bonus, and needing to sink 80 influence into replacing all four ideas. On top of that, it costs 4 inventions, several of which have persistent negative effects.

 

[Vernichtere]

Republic:
Pros:
Upholds roman traditions
Represents the roman people
Doesn't bow to despots and tyrants
Cons:
None

Empire:
Pros:
None
Cons:
Betrays roman traditions
Doesn't represent the roman people
Kowtows to tyrants and despots

its only true when we consider that the "roman people" are more or less a bunch of aristocrats not willing to adopt. The people in the provinces did better with the Empire. Faster spread of the citizenship for example.

Fun Fact: Augustus never said he is removing the republic. He just restored the "true republic". Best way to do a revolution is to proclaim the restoration of the tradition.

 

[Pro]

Your mistake is assuming that there was even a hint of seriousness in that post.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

its only true when we consider that the "roman people" are more or less a bunch of aristocrats not willing to adopt. The people in the provinces did better with the Empire. Faster spread of the citizenship for example.

Fun Fact: Augustus never said he is removing the republic. He just restored the "true republic". Best way to do a revolution is to proclaim the restoration of the tradition.

To be fair they did lose the assemblies with the Empire, and those were the at least quasi democratic parts of the Roman constitution. While the aristocrat still held at least nominal powers.

 

[Llort_7991]

If you look at it in a extremely basic way:

Empires are hit or mis. "Good" emperors like Marcus Aurelius or Augustus can achieve much in a relatively short time.
But it only takes a few disastrous ones to run an empire into the ground. Republics are slow burners which mostly tend to be more stable.
However quick and large policy direction changes are harder to achieve. Just as taking decisive action (in turbulent situations) can be.

Again... this is really very basic as compared to IRL. But I think I would be a nice starting point of what the benefits and the drawbacks of both could be.

Republics by the way, were not democratic in this time period
They organized a form of (institution) representation. Tribes and kingdoms often had there own organized forms of representation.
But this would usually be, not as institutionally anchored as in republics of the time.

 

[Grallak]

TFW you are told Assimilation laws as monarchy aren't fabulous. You get +3 everywhere. To be honest I haven't tried figuring out how to game families to ensure heads are all of the same political faction, but from the little time I have played as Monarchy, I haven't really felt any noticable differences in laws and such. If you are playing as selecuids or as messalia then that +3 assimilation and the ability to do stuff without having to worry about approval is a relief. That said, long live the republic. Also the largest PI sink is governor policies, not claims (get a respective second place though).

 

[Spike05]

Well I will argue that FOUR province investments are nothing bad at all!
80 P.I. x 4 = 320 P.I.

P.I. is farmed at an avarage of 2 points per month (if skilled player) thus you get THIRTEEN YEARS of P.I. in one go. Plus you'll save a lot of money (depending of how many province investment you already done in the province)

I'd argue that the P.I. is very much worth.