Hey all, i'm new here and love the rome idea. I have Crusader Kings + expansion and HoI2: Doomsday.
I have some ideas which i'd like to run past the Paradox team regarding politics. I hope i'm not wasting my time but i thought i'd throw a few ideas around for the devs.
My first concern is that this game will go down the path of Rome total war and make nations a single entity controlled by the player. Now i accept that this concept is perfect for an autocratic regime like a monarchy(Parthia/Macedon/Ptolemaic Egypt) it won't seem realistic in the case of 'democratic regimes' like city states (Athens/Rome) and merchant empires(Carthage/Rhodes). I guess the many celtic tribes that inhabit the north would be considered a hybrid of the two since some elected their cheifs based on strength and others preferred hereditary succession. Take Rome for example. That city state was ruled by at least 300 noble families who acted on a daily basis and worked (at least in history) co-operatively with each other to do what was best for Rome and for themselves.
Being an avid crusader kings fan and recognising that fuedalism is a medieval idea not an ancient world idea, it would make sense to focus the game around a state (ie. Rome, and then a sub faction within that state). So basically the main game is to get your family dynasty into the highest position in the state (so if playing as Rome using the Julii Caesares family your goal is to build up enough power, money and popularity to get elected dictator for life) Now here comes the HoI2 influence. In HoI as i'm sure you're allaware, democratic nations faced elections every few years while authoritarian regimes did not. Each system had their own advantages and disadvantages. So here's what i'm proposing.
===
Autocratic regimes:
===
Advantages
1. Increased manpower
2. Less provincial dissent/rebellions
3. No need to worry about loosing office (unless your dynasty dies out like in CK)
Disadvantages:
1. Weaker economy/less tax
2. Armies are more conscripted/drafted and less professional (ie. Eastern armies of mass conscript to simulate the eastern obession that superior numbers will win the day)
3. Diplomatic penalty when interacting with a non autocratic regime
(to simulate the arbitary nature of Kings)
===
Democratic regimes:
===
Advantages:
1. Stronger economy/more tax income
2. Armies are more professional and disciplined (ie. Athenian phalanx, Roman legion)
3. Bonus when proposing diplomatic treaties with other likeminded states
Disadvantages:
1. Less manpower
2. Increased provincial dissent/rebellions
3. Family dynasties will loose office irregulary making any long term strategy difficult unless you play it right and you make alliances with other families to ensure a family member is always in an office somewhere in the republic
Balance issues in RTW:
RTW was unbalanced cause factions like the Seleucid Empire started in a very strong position (in keeping with historical accuracy).The problem is that they blitzkrieged the map sometimes and conquered all the way to sweden in 15 years.
I noticed this also happens in CK and HoI2 where hostorically strong factions end up getting ridiculously strong.
The strong must show they are strong and that is their weakness. Let's take the Seleucid empire as an exaample cause i noticed a few people going on about how cool it would be to play as them)
You start the game, choose a scenario (ie. grand campaign). Select Selecucid Empire which is a monarchy (autocratic) As a result there is no need to choose a family dynasty within that state as the current one has a hereditary monopoly on power. Your empire stretches from the edge of north eastern india across the desert to syria.Because your empire is so vast and covering so many provinces and you are awash in wealth you can't just march west and further empire build.You could get provincial level events which decide on matters of state such as "The merchants in Apameia are struggling under your oppressive taxes and ask that you relieve them of their burden"
You have two options: 1. I shall consider it - Prestige -500. 10% of rebellion in Apameia. 30% chance Apameia set to struggling.
or the second option 2. Let them suffer! - Prestige +100. Gold changes -3000. 60% chance of rebellion in Apameia. 15% chance Governor of Apameia severely wounded. 3% chance governor of Apameia dies!
You select the second option. Your nephew, Andonrikos Seleucos is severely wounded by a rampaging mob and later dies. A rebellion occurs in that province and the garrison you have there defects to the rebel side. You are forced to mobilise your uncle who is governing Cyrpus who promtply crushes the rebellion. You assign a court member who has traits that favor revolt supression as the new governor of Apameia.
Because you are constantly playing internal politics you have little time to focus on getting a casus belli on say...Pergamon.
Now although there are dynasties like in CK, there is no fuedal system so your uncle governing Cyrpus is doing so in your name because you cannot be there physically. He can be removed from that position anytime although doing so might decrease his personal loyalty to his nephew the King. In republican systems however deciding who governs what is matter of internal senate politics based on alliances and personal relationships. In autocratic regimes like the Selecuid Empire, everything would be arbitary and go through the King.
Another aspect of internal politics could be a feature used in CK: Deus Vult regarding internal court politics. In autocratic regimes this is a problem but in democratic states there are no kingly courts so the only loyalty issues faced are of a personal nature within your own dynasty or in someone elses. Let's say you recalled your uncle as governor of Cyrpus (a rich province in which he has been rather corrupt and arbitary) and send him to govern a crappy desert province somewhere in the east. He wont be happy and may try to start a rebellion. So you recall him again this time to your court so you can directly influence him with events (ie. like the hunting events in CK: Deus Vult)
However you get a number of negative random events which seriously deteriate his loyalty to you. He makes friends with another court member who also doesn't like you very much and after a year of behind the scenes scheming and bad luck you are poisoned and die. The throne passes onto your 13 year old son. That uncle is now very loyal to the new king but is excuted anyway.
Kings could arbitarily execute any character in their realm at will. It's would be different from assasination in the follow way:
1. The loyalty of the character has to be below a certain level depending on the harshness of particular laws or else you suffer some sort of penalty for being arbitarily cruel.
2. Executing someone doesn't cost money
3. Assassinating a character is best if their loyalty is high or if they are outside of your realm but costs gold depending on their rank.
If anyone needs elaboration i'm happy to provide. I've tried to introduce ideas which Paradox has used before in previous titles all of which rocked and ideas that fit within Paradox's stated aim of being as historically accurate as possible.
EDIT: There could be a penalty for executing too many of your subjects as this would destablise the realm and cause loyalties to drop. It may even put the King under some sort of ancient 'realm duress'
Here's a question for the public: How would barbarian cultures be portrayed politically?
Tribal decision might be made by the chief, high priest or high king in an arbitary manner much like the autocratic eastern empires, but everything was done with a general consensus almost like republican systems (ie. u have a chief and his council of elders and then the local population).
So perhaps a hybrid of the two systems something like a primitive constitutional monarchy? where the power is monopolised by a celtic dynasty, but decisions are made collectively through events much like a roman senate...
I have some ideas which i'd like to run past the Paradox team regarding politics. I hope i'm not wasting my time but i thought i'd throw a few ideas around for the devs.
My first concern is that this game will go down the path of Rome total war and make nations a single entity controlled by the player. Now i accept that this concept is perfect for an autocratic regime like a monarchy(Parthia/Macedon/Ptolemaic Egypt) it won't seem realistic in the case of 'democratic regimes' like city states (Athens/Rome) and merchant empires(Carthage/Rhodes). I guess the many celtic tribes that inhabit the north would be considered a hybrid of the two since some elected their cheifs based on strength and others preferred hereditary succession. Take Rome for example. That city state was ruled by at least 300 noble families who acted on a daily basis and worked (at least in history) co-operatively with each other to do what was best for Rome and for themselves.
Being an avid crusader kings fan and recognising that fuedalism is a medieval idea not an ancient world idea, it would make sense to focus the game around a state (ie. Rome, and then a sub faction within that state). So basically the main game is to get your family dynasty into the highest position in the state (so if playing as Rome using the Julii Caesares family your goal is to build up enough power, money and popularity to get elected dictator for life) Now here comes the HoI2 influence. In HoI as i'm sure you're allaware, democratic nations faced elections every few years while authoritarian regimes did not. Each system had their own advantages and disadvantages. So here's what i'm proposing.
===
Autocratic regimes:
===
Advantages
1. Increased manpower
2. Less provincial dissent/rebellions
3. No need to worry about loosing office (unless your dynasty dies out like in CK)
Disadvantages:
1. Weaker economy/less tax
2. Armies are more conscripted/drafted and less professional (ie. Eastern armies of mass conscript to simulate the eastern obession that superior numbers will win the day)
3. Diplomatic penalty when interacting with a non autocratic regime
(to simulate the arbitary nature of Kings)
===
Democratic regimes:
===
Advantages:
1. Stronger economy/more tax income
2. Armies are more professional and disciplined (ie. Athenian phalanx, Roman legion)
3. Bonus when proposing diplomatic treaties with other likeminded states
Disadvantages:
1. Less manpower
2. Increased provincial dissent/rebellions
3. Family dynasties will loose office irregulary making any long term strategy difficult unless you play it right and you make alliances with other families to ensure a family member is always in an office somewhere in the republic
Balance issues in RTW:
RTW was unbalanced cause factions like the Seleucid Empire started in a very strong position (in keeping with historical accuracy).The problem is that they blitzkrieged the map sometimes and conquered all the way to sweden in 15 years.
I noticed this also happens in CK and HoI2 where hostorically strong factions end up getting ridiculously strong.
The strong must show they are strong and that is their weakness. Let's take the Seleucid empire as an exaample cause i noticed a few people going on about how cool it would be to play as them)
You start the game, choose a scenario (ie. grand campaign). Select Selecucid Empire which is a monarchy (autocratic) As a result there is no need to choose a family dynasty within that state as the current one has a hereditary monopoly on power. Your empire stretches from the edge of north eastern india across the desert to syria.Because your empire is so vast and covering so many provinces and you are awash in wealth you can't just march west and further empire build.You could get provincial level events which decide on matters of state such as "The merchants in Apameia are struggling under your oppressive taxes and ask that you relieve them of their burden"
You have two options: 1. I shall consider it - Prestige -500. 10% of rebellion in Apameia. 30% chance Apameia set to struggling.
or the second option 2. Let them suffer! - Prestige +100. Gold changes -3000. 60% chance of rebellion in Apameia. 15% chance Governor of Apameia severely wounded. 3% chance governor of Apameia dies!
You select the second option. Your nephew, Andonrikos Seleucos is severely wounded by a rampaging mob and later dies. A rebellion occurs in that province and the garrison you have there defects to the rebel side. You are forced to mobilise your uncle who is governing Cyrpus who promtply crushes the rebellion. You assign a court member who has traits that favor revolt supression as the new governor of Apameia.
Because you are constantly playing internal politics you have little time to focus on getting a casus belli on say...Pergamon.
Now although there are dynasties like in CK, there is no fuedal system so your uncle governing Cyrpus is doing so in your name because you cannot be there physically. He can be removed from that position anytime although doing so might decrease his personal loyalty to his nephew the King. In republican systems however deciding who governs what is matter of internal senate politics based on alliances and personal relationships. In autocratic regimes like the Selecuid Empire, everything would be arbitary and go through the King.
Another aspect of internal politics could be a feature used in CK: Deus Vult regarding internal court politics. In autocratic regimes this is a problem but in democratic states there are no kingly courts so the only loyalty issues faced are of a personal nature within your own dynasty or in someone elses. Let's say you recalled your uncle as governor of Cyrpus (a rich province in which he has been rather corrupt and arbitary) and send him to govern a crappy desert province somewhere in the east. He wont be happy and may try to start a rebellion. So you recall him again this time to your court so you can directly influence him with events (ie. like the hunting events in CK: Deus Vult)
However you get a number of negative random events which seriously deteriate his loyalty to you. He makes friends with another court member who also doesn't like you very much and after a year of behind the scenes scheming and bad luck you are poisoned and die. The throne passes onto your 13 year old son. That uncle is now very loyal to the new king but is excuted anyway.
Kings could arbitarily execute any character in their realm at will. It's would be different from assasination in the follow way:
1. The loyalty of the character has to be below a certain level depending on the harshness of particular laws or else you suffer some sort of penalty for being arbitarily cruel.
2. Executing someone doesn't cost money
3. Assassinating a character is best if their loyalty is high or if they are outside of your realm but costs gold depending on their rank.
If anyone needs elaboration i'm happy to provide. I've tried to introduce ideas which Paradox has used before in previous titles all of which rocked and ideas that fit within Paradox's stated aim of being as historically accurate as possible.
EDIT: There could be a penalty for executing too many of your subjects as this would destablise the realm and cause loyalties to drop. It may even put the King under some sort of ancient 'realm duress'
Here's a question for the public: How would barbarian cultures be portrayed politically?
Tribal decision might be made by the chief, high priest or high king in an arbitary manner much like the autocratic eastern empires, but everything was done with a general consensus almost like republican systems (ie. u have a chief and his council of elders and then the local population).
So perhaps a hybrid of the two systems something like a primitive constitutional monarchy? where the power is monopolised by a celtic dynasty, but decisions are made collectively through events much like a roman senate...
Last edited:
