To start off briefly I shall provide some personal commentary regarding the
dev diary released late last August.
---
Like many of you, I was quite disappointed in discovering that only one consul can be elected. It is quite ahistorical, and from my understanding the only time this was the case was during the Roman Republic where Pompeius Magnus was elected as
consul solus (sole consul) in 52 B.C. This obviously however wasn't a normal occurence, and was done during a period of crisis - the reason being as that was seen as the only viable alternative to instead having one of the Triumvirs appointed as dictator. As for 5 year terms of office, I can actually empathise behind this design decision as I've often heard how players complained about the "constant spam" of election messages in Europa Universalis: Rome. I will however get into this in greater detail in the following proposals.
---
Intro
The time period of which the game starts off can be seen as a golden age in the West regarding the development of institutions/systems of government which we know and recognise today. Words such as
oligarchy,
democracy, republic &
dictatorship can trace their origins during the era shortly before and after the start of the game. In my viewpoint, institutional development is one of the least appreciated aspects of the classical period.
Mechanics
Regarding the game as is, Imperator in some respects has shown (albeit to a relatively limited extent) that it is offering players the ability to engage in some level of customisation in determining the direction of (from what we've seen so far) and the development of the Roman Republic (e.g. such as term limits, socio-political reforms as stated in the dev diary mentioned); and from what we can determine - most likely political systems of other nations as well as such as those in Greece.
Personally however, I feel that Paradox may not be sensing what seems to me to be an peculiar opportunity, an opportunity with which to add a signature uniqueness in regard to Imperator's own gameplay - by implementing mechanics that allow players an unprecedented amount of control in determining the development of a nation's institutions and political system. Ideally, players should not be limited to simply determining term limits for offices or enacting social reforms, but also have the ability to determine the more subtle
minutiae of government - such as adding or retracting the number of seats in a legislature (e.g. like in say the Roman Senate or Athenian Areopagus/Boule) as well as determining what representation pops of a certain class or cultural group have in the political affairs of state (e.g. which offices are open to different class/cultural groups and what proportion of seats are made available to a particular class).
Another aspect that could be portrayed in the game is the establishment of newer offices, whether they be political, religious (e.g. Pontifex Maximus), judicial and military (e.g. the the office of "Boeotarch" present in Ancient Thebes). For example, at the start of the game (450 BC I believe / EDIT: Scratch that, the game calendar is actually
ab urbe condita rather than
anno domini, so technically its suppose to be 304 BC according to the gregorian calendar [kudos to
LeveeBreak's keen-eyed observation
], so just ignore any temporal adverbs in the following
) the office of praetor was not yet established in the Early Roman Republic. Rather it was during the time of Camillus, and the period known as the "Conflict of the Orders" (a period of civil strife between the main classes of Roman society - namely the patricians and the plebeians). The office was founded so as to relieve (or delegate/decentralise depending on your point of view) judicial authority away from consuls. This establishment of the praetorship also helped soothe the internecine class conflict of that particular period as the praetorship were open to both patricians as well as plebeians.
As way to throw some obstacles the player's way, it would be prudent to somehow simulate "class conflict" (or "class warfare" if you are of a Marxist persuasion
) which was endemic in classical societies such as Athens and Rome. If say a certain class or culture group of pops have a disproportionate amount of representation in terms of offices or legislative seats, this could fuel some degree of unrest among other groups. Another way it could fuel discontent would be if a particular group has a large degree of "clout" but feels that the amount of political representation they have isn't conducive to their actual influence and/or numbers. Unfortunately I am not well versed on this subject in this particular time period, so I encourage any readers if they can spare to time to share what greater insight the may have on the matter.
---
Lastly, although this may not be a particular peeve with most other players, I am of the opinion that "political factions" as shown in the 13th dev diary don't exactly translate the political stances individuals had during the time of the Republic or even classical Athens - I find it to be somewhat crude. Personally, I think the bonuses (and/or maluses) exemplified by "factions" would be better represented by something along the lines of an education trait like the one present in Crusader Kings II. However unlike CKII, such "traits" would occur not by tutelage or upbringing but based to some degree on a character's class and position in society, which for the purposes of this thread I will call "orientation" - whilst also being subject to change depending on political circumstance and opportunity (with the added con of such a person losing whatever progress gained towards a particular level when switching to a different orientation). Figures such as Scipio Africanus and Julius Caesar for example made names for themselves whilst serving in the military whilst the latter also aligned himself with the interests of the plebeians (as well as his own interests but who's to judge :p), whereas Marcus Tullius Cicero made his name as an advocate, defending clients from accusations in the courts, whilst also spending his time dealing with many notable magisterial and
civic cases during political career.
Rather, I would instead classify the political makeup of the Senate (and other legislative bodies) along these lines:
- Conservatives - basically elites, aristocrats and the wealthy who's interests lie in both maintaining as well as expanding their influence and clout; actively seeking to both prevent laws or reforms detrimental to their interests whilst at the same time proactively attempting to diminish the rights of the lower classes whilst accruing further privileges for themselves.
- Moderates - people who place a particular emphasis in preserving the status quo and most importantly, maintaining stability. This group would be attractive to those of a civic and (to a large degree) mercantile orientation and would become unhappy if unrest is high - the level of which would determine how willing they would be to vote on legislation and/or reforms that may alter the status quo.
- Populists - those seeking to enfranchise the lower stratas of society (the ones that aren't slaves at least), actively seeking to procure power for themselves by enabling reforms with which to both benefit and/or empower the urban poor at the expense of the landed elite, and whose clout, influence and ability to pursue/procure office is dependant on the support of the lower classes.
Naturally people from the same political "parties" and/or orientation would have a relationship bonus with those who associate along similar lines. However, whereas populists and conservatives would be diametrically opposed to each-other relationship-wise, moderates would (which I find appropriate to their beliefs) have neither a malus or bonus in their relationships with either conservatives or populists (which could act as a unique boon to characters who identify themselves as moderates). Naturally, depending on whether a character voted "yes" or "no" on a particular legislation, characters either supportive or opposed to that legislation would have a temporary malus to their relationship, or permanent if a were to have traits similar to that of Cato the Younger o_O. I am naturally unsure as to everyone's opinions regarding this subject. Therefore, feel free to voice your opinion on this particular point - so to determine whether or not I should put it into the summary and to hear some better input on the matter.
Implementation
Naturally such systems and mechanics would be very difficult for players to manage without the proper supports in place. Therefore it would be wise to implement an extra "UI box" to provide some shortcut for players to help when paying attention to political and internal affairs. Basically something to represent the length and duration of various political terms of office (like a progressing bar and/or percentage number) as well as unrest or "satisfaction" among different classes/culture groups, specifically in regard to political representation and needs.
From my estimation, such systems and features would take months to actually put into the game and even more months just simply developing and refining said ideas into something that can be considered "practical". Considering these obstacles, I'd be content if such ideas were implemented at a later date. As to whether such design ideas should be implemented as a DLC I am not so sure. Of course it would make sense financially in the short-term for Paradox to do so, so as to earn an extra buck. At the same-time if it were to be implemented freely at a later date, it could act as a systemic basis as well as opportunity with which to release other DLC's that more specifically caters to institutions found in particular regions, nations, cultural groups and so-on (like in releasing a future DLC that adds further mechanics and flavour to Classical India or one catered towards representing the unique institutions of Ancient Sparta) - in greater depth.
Summary & Conclusion
To summarise:
- Greater customisability of political systems and government.
- Formable offices (political, military, religious and judicial).
- Adding or retracting the number of seats in legislatures.
- Determining how many seats, the type and number of offices and which if any offices are open to different pop types (which can be deferentially be based upon a pop's class, culture group and/or geographical delineation)
- Class conflict.
- A level of unrest and/or satisfaction among pops dependent on their political (and maybe even economic) representation and laws/reforms that have been passed.
Personally I think there is an opportunity for Imperator to become not only just a new game, but a title unique not only in the setting and time-span it covers, but also in terms of providing unique types of gameplay - gameplay that can take on a far greater variance and style with every playthrough - like whether a player wishes to focus on becoming a conquering expansionist, form an ever wealth-accumulating thalassocracy or seek to establish institutions and forms of government that will stand the test of time (and not come to an abrupt end due to some ambitious dude with a comb-over :D).
Whereas other Paradox titles focused on sophisticated character development and story-lines (CKII), or geopolitical/galactopolitical expansion and colonisation (EUIV and Stellaris), I am of the opinion that Imperator provides some truly fertile ground with which to place its focus on institutions, government and politics - to give players an understanding of how the development of such ideas and systems in the classical era have shaped our modern understanding and relationship with society and politics in general. What are your thoughts?
