Curus Honorum

[HLandin]

Its me again. Still enjoying the mod but pondering how to make the political system a little more historical. I agree with the 10 years as a military tribune, but I'm a little uneasy about the length of the rest. While the current system works, it may be a little unrealistic. For example: a character must spend 10 years as a legate before he becomes a praetor, 5 years before he can become a praetor urbanus or consul. This forces the players to keep their commanders in the field for a long period of time; this might be appropriate and accurate in the late republic, it seems to be inaccurate for the mid republic (when the game starts). From what I understand, legates (legatus), while they may have existed in the mid republic, they would have been a staff position to the commander; it does not seem until the late republic that they would be given commands (due to the number of conflicts being fought simultaneously which might tie up both the consuls and praetors).

Commands were usually held for just one year; afterwards, the former commander would usually take up a governorship (praetor becoming a pro-praetor, a consul becoming a pro-consul), serve as a military advisor to the current commander (as a legatus), or hold other administrative positions in Rome until the next legal opportunity for command arose. While it might be difficult to impliment or play with commands changing every year, that would probably be more correct for the mid republic. Perhaps instead of requiring a certain number of years of service and the appropriate age, it would be okay to base it on age and only requiring that the character hold the pre-requistite position for a year (one year as a praetor and the appropriate age before becoming elegable for consul, etc.) with the exception of tribunes which is already correct. Or maybe require them to serve a certain amount of time in admistrative duties in Rome or the provinces (as pro-praetors or pro-consuls) before moving on to the next command.

However, by the late republic, depending on the situation or need, commanders might have their commands extended (as pro-magistrates) or "illegally" elected to those positions again. My only objection here would be the length of command for legates. While they might hold command for several years, 10 years seems too long, even for the Principate (where commands really tended to stratify).

A couple more points in regards to the praetor urbanus and consuls. Right now, the character has to serve just as long as is necessary to be able to be consul (25 years) before he can become the praetor urbanus. This seems a little unnecessary; wouldn't it be easier and even more historically accurate if when the character becomes ellegable for the position of praetor that he can become a praetor urbanus by posting them in Rome and as a result, letting the user choose which character they want to become the urban praetor. Just an idea. Conserning the consuls, in the readme, it states that the requirement of controlling a certain number of cities before the second consul position becomes available might be removed. I agree it should be removed, since Rome was always supposed to have two consuls (to prevent the return of the monarchy). For example: if one consul died (battle, disease, etc.) or was removed from office, either an election was held or the senate appointed one to prevent a single military command.

Again, these are just respectful suggestions/ideas based on my study of Rome. I think this is wonderful mod and continue to enjoy playing. Please keep up the good work.

[Carados]

I'm not sure if Quinn fully understands the script at the moment. I certainly don't! I haven't even bothered to look at it. Hmmm. Would love to see something like this happen though, if only to reduce the amount of micromanagement.

Wait:

Commands were usually held for just one year; afterwards, the former commander would usually take up a governorship (praetor becoming a pro-praetor, a consul becoming a pro-consul), serve as a military advisor to the current commander (as a legatus), or hold other administrative positions in Rome until the next legal opportunity for command arose. While it might be difficult to impliment or play with commands changing every year, that would probably be more correct for the mid republic. Perhaps instead of requiring a certain number of years of service and the appropriate age, it would be okay to base it on age and only requiring that the character hold the pre-requistite position for a year (one year as a praetor and the appropriate age before becoming elegable for consul, etc.) with the exception of tribunes which is already correct. Or maybe require them to serve a certain amount of time in admistrative duties in Rome or the provinces (as pro-praetors or pro-consuls) before moving on to the next command.

Base it on age only? That's a fantastic idea! It would reduce the micromanagement by several magnitudes! It would also give the player pause for thought when it comes to adopting older generals, because these will be elligable for superior command. It doesn't matter if they die earlier, because the Romans tended to have a turnover of commanders anyway. We can still retain the early promotion as well.

I wonder if age is a problem though. Quinn or someone from RTR will probably have a better idea of how likely this is to suceed.

[Caesar Augustus]

I agree, age is a fantastic idea. Or even the number of years since they held an office? I think there was a gap of about 2 years or so between preatorship and consulship.

If Quinn or RTR can't figure it out we could try getting in touch with Marcus Camillus (think he made the script?)

I'd also like to see a similar system for the other factions, or at least the student phase.

[JaNuZ99]

that sounds cool

[HLandin]

They're just ideas. Like I said earlier, the current system works, but seems to encourage political stratification which would not have been common or probable until the late republic or the Principate. For the most part the republic functioned as it was supposed to during the mid republic. While on some occasions annual re-elections did occur, these seem to have been the exception rather than the rule (and always with the consent of a cautious Senate). Unless dire circumstance required it, an imperator laid down his command at the end of the year, or if a dictator, at the end of his 6 months. As an example: after Fabius was appointed dictator, he gave up his command after his 6 month term as dictator expired, as was legally required (and the forces re-built by Fabius as dictator were destroyed at Cannae by the two newly appointed consuls). Fabius, Cinncinatus, Scipio (and even his adopted grandson), and Flamininus would never have imagined, let alone attempted, to openly flout and defy Roman political tradition in the manor that Marius, Sulla, Caesar, or Octavian did so repeatedly in the 1st century BC.

Hard to pin this transformation as a change in aristocratic upbringing or just the culmination of other causes coming to bear fruit (example: while games and races had always been popular and useful to political advancement, the number and scale of them seems to explode during the 2nd and 1st century BC). Shows like Rome and Spartacus show how opulent and wealthy the aristocracy had become by the 1st century. Earlier men such as Fabius and Cinncinatus, and to a lesser extent, Scipio and Flamininus would have prided themselves at living a much simpler lifestyle. Probably as a result of a new generation of Roman aristocrats having not experienced the Punic Wars, the loss of all the accumulated experience in legions acquired during the Punic and Helenistic Wars, overconfidence created by Rome's seeming to be the soul master of the known world, and influx of wealth and slaves from Rome's previous victories, Rome's military performance in the second half of the 2nd century BC seemed for the most part dissmal. This, with the threats or apparent threats by Numidians, Gauls, Spanards, and pirates created a need constant commands for men like Marius, Sulla, and Caesar. While these men were capable commanders, they seem to lack the restraint or check on political ambition that their predecessors had.

Just my two cents.

[JaNuZ99]

They're just ideas. Like I said earlier, the current system works, but seems to encourage political stratification which would not have been common or probable until the late republic or the Principate. For the most part the republic functioned as it was supposed to during the mid republic. While on some occasions annual re-elections did occur, these seem to have been the exception rather than the rule (and always with the consent of a cautious Senate). Unless dire circumstance required it, an imperator laid down his command at the end of the year, or if a dictator, at the end of his 6 months. As an example: after Fabius was appointed dictator, he gave up his command after his 6 month term as dictator expired, as was legally required (and the forces re-built by Fabius as dictator were destroyed at Cannae by the two newly appointed consuls). Fabius, Cinncinatus, Scipio (and even his adopted grandson), and Flamininus would never have imagined, let alone attempted, to openly flout and defy Roman political tradition in the manor that Marius, Sulla, Caesar, or Octavian did so repeatedly in the 1st century BC.

Hard to pin this transformation as a change in aristocratic upbringing or just the culmination of other causes coming to bear fruit (example: while games and races had always been popular and useful to political advancement, the number and scale of them seems to explode during the 2nd and 1st century BC). Shows like Rome and Spartacus show how opulent and wealthy the aristocracy had become by the 1st century. Earlier men such as Fabius and Cinncinatus, and to a lesser extent, Scipio and Flamininus would have prided themselves at living a much simpler lifestyle. Probably as a result of a new generation of Roman aristocrats having not experienced the Punic Wars, the loss of all the accumulated experience in legions acquired during the Punic and Helenistic Wars, overconfidence created by Rome's seeming to be the soul master of the known world, and influx of wealth and slaves from Rome's previous victories, Rome's military performance in the second half of the 2nd century BC seemed for the most part dissmal. This, with the threats or apparent threats by Numidians, Gauls, Spanards, and pirates created a need constant commands for men like Marius, Sulla, and Caesar. While these men were capable commanders, they seem to lack the restraint or check on political ambition that their predecessors had.

Just my two cents.

That was an excellent summary! and i wholeheartldy agree, that Rome's military succes and exp from the Punic wars did give her a sense that she could do anything and that gave ambitious people like Marius,Sulla,Ceasar, and Octavian a platform that they would use to achieve their goals, the need for constant and able commanders began what would later become the standard for roman imperialism, emperors would need to secure the loyalty of a few legions, disband disloyal ones and (taking the praetorian cohorts in Rome into account) would have to make a "donation"

now i believe there is in the early republic an example of exemplary use of the dictator position by a man named Cinnicus, or somethign like that,anyone remember more? he was also later on in life part of a tribune of sorts, tribune of six, or something like that,my memory is fuzzy that late back.

[HLandin]

Maybe I got the spelling wrong (Cinncinatus or Cinnicus??), but I believe we are both talking about the same person.

[JaNuZ99]

Maybe I got the spelling wrong (Cinncinatus or Cinnicus??), but I believe we are both talking about the same person.

yeah we are, and same here, i can't remember how you spell his name it one of the two way you wrote it but yeah we're on the same page

[Quinn Inuit]

That's an interesting suggestion. I'll be honest, I really don't know how that script works. I'm much better at scripting than I used to be, though, and HoH would probably be willing to at least tell me what to do to fix something.

What, precisely, is being suggested here? Once we have that nailed down we can figure out how to make it happen. I agree that the leader/heir dynamic of the game doesn't really work for a republic, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

[Caesar Augustus]

I think what's being suggested is to lower the term of military service for each rung of the Roman political ladder (Tribune, Praetor etc), and instead link it to the age of the family member. One of the problems with the current system is that the Romans can suffer from a derth of governors as you'll have loads of family members in the field racking up their military service so they can advance their career.

So if it's being tied to the character's age I guess the game would have to be counting the number of turns following the birth of the character, rather that the number of turns that character is in the field with an army. I don't know if that would mean you could end up with multiple consuls when they if you have several characters that are the same age though?

[GraaEminense]

I wholeheartedly support this -the micromanagement reduction would be a good thing (and, imho, a necessity), and it seems closer to Roman practice (though I'm hardly an expert).

So if it's being tied to the character's age I guess the game would have to be counting the number of turns following the birth of the character, rather that the number of turns that character is in the field with an army. I don't know if that would mean you could end up with multiple consuls when they if you have several characters that are the same age though?

Couldn't influence be used as a tiebreaker among the eligible family members, making the third stat more important than it currently is?

[Caesar Augustus]

It could, but then I don't know anything at all about scripting or coding.

I agree though, I like the Roman political system being in game, but in can be a bit of a put off knowing just how much micro-management is necessary to play it properly.

[HLandin]

I think Caesar Augustus hit the nail right on the head. I believe the current term of service for tribunes to be correct (10 years). I'm suggesting either shorten the length of service as a legate (currently 10 years) or remove it (would it be possible to link its apparence with the Marian reforms?). I'm suggesting linking the activation of the positions of praetor and consul to age only verses current system that links it to age and length of military service (currently character must serve 20 years to be eligable for praetor and 25 for consul). I suggest making the character eligable for praetor at age 38+ and consul at age 42+. I don't know if it would be also possible to link eligability to holding the requesit position in the cursus honorum by using some kind of counter (10 years as a tribune and age 38-39 before eligable for promotion to praetor, and 1 year as a praetor and age 42+ to be eligable for consul).

As far as having too many consuls, the way I understand it from the manual is that there are only 2 consul positions available now in game (2nd becomes available after 20 provinces). Unless there is some kind of bug that allows the player to have 3 consuls with enough provinces, the current system of using the banner of a consular army to "create" the consul position should work well enough. My only request is to remove the restriction requiring the player to possess 20 provinces before the second consular army becomes available. This should adequately represent the practice that both consuls took to the field each year, either individually or jointly. In addition, the player could follow the practice of allowing a consul to serve 1 year in the field before returning to Rome or a provice as a governor/praetor urbanus unless the situation is severe, simulating praetors become pro-praetors and consuls becoming pro-consuls; however, this could be implemented by the player and not require any code changes.

The last item is the praetor urbanus. Currently a character must have 25 years of military service to be eligable for the praetor urbanus, but only 21 for provincial governor. Preferably, could it be linked instead to age (38+ same as a praetor)? If that's not possible, maybe make the requirements the same as a provincial governor.

[Quinn Inuit]

Nope, definitely couldn't link that to the Marian Reforms, sorry.

I'll see what I can do as to linking to a character's age. That should be possible, though I'm not sure how. I'll also pay attention to what RTR does...they're updating the system, too.

Alternatively, can we just change the name and status requirements of the Legate position and make it something else, but still let them become a "Legate" in the field if they lead an army?

[HLandin]

I could live with the legate position remaining. The player could use them for leading reinforcements into the field or forces smaller than a whole legion to deal with small scale problems (small rebel uprisings, minor enemy incursions, etc.) but that is just my idea. I think reducing the amount of time required for characters to serve in each of the previous positions before promotions became available (while still requiring a minimum age limit, which would be historically correct) would sufficiently solve all the other issues. There were exceptions, but Romans were very much on political tradition. I definitely like the fact that, as characters hold these positions, they receive additional influence (prestige) after completing them, regardless of their performance, which also seems to be historically correct (while a MAJOR screwup might be difficult or impossible to recover from, generally one was able to utilize the support of political friends to reduce or null the impact of unsuccessful acts in office once he stepped down from that position).

[Quinn Inuit]

You know, we could always make the Legate position an active-duty one only, and change the name of the Former Legate position to something else, maybe even give it a management bonus.

Also, here's something I've always wondered about: why does everyone start at zero? It sounds like the first few levels of management and general skills are for real idiots, so why start everyone there? Wouldn't it make sense to start everyone at 3-4 in each and then let them adjust up or down as traits go?

[HLandin]

Good ideas. As far as starting out with such low ratings (command, management, influence), I think the intent of the original game was for the player to groom characters for their intended use (i.e. station characters with some management traits in cities, characters with some command traits with armies, etc. so those characters would only develop traits and ancelliaries for those tasks). However, while that system might work for the original game, it was not historically accurate. As I'm sure we all know, the roman political system involved on performing both military and administrative tasks, often regardless of personal ability.

[Caesar Augustus]

I agree Quinn, all characters definitely should have some kind of base stats if only because of how unlikely it is to be completely incompetent. Maybe about 3 points or so each?

[Carados]

I prefer it at 0 for each. If you've never been in a battle before and you haven't studied anything remotely to do with battlefield tactics and strategy etc then you are going to be a dithering idiot when it comes to commanding an army!! This is what "experience" and the academies are for.

[Quinn Inuit]

Good point. You don't want people to start out particularly competent.

One other reason I'd like to change it is that generals often start with negative traits, as well as positive. Giving them room to go down when they join the game will increase the variation. What about starting them at 2 each? That's not a huge boost, but will still allow for more individual variation.