Populares and Optimates

[tone]

I was just reading through the traits thread in the dev forum and this sprang out.....

The two traditional Parties - populares and optimates

The client system meant that Rome was never really a democracy. People voted at elections in accordance to their family loyalties. Political ideology didn't play a major role.
Though in the later stages of the republic - roughly from the days of the brothers Gracchus onwards - there were two political parties, the populares ('people's party') and the optimates ('senatorial party').
The populares were for the extension of citizenship to provincials, for the cancellation of debt, and for the distribution of land. The optimates were the opposing conservative force, defending the traditions of Rome and the existing order.
But this contest was far from being one between the poor and the rich. For people voted for their patrons, as they had always done. So a man might be poor but still vote as a client for the patron who was a staunch member of the optimates.
If teh struggle between the optimates was not pitching rich against poor in Rome, then one can perhaps portray it as a contest between the new powers and the old. The old privileged families held sway in Rome and hence sought to prevent any change from reducing their powers. Meanwhile the new powerful families, saw opportunities in winning more clients and supporters by championing the cause of the less privileged or excluded. For example, to speak on behalf of the Cisalpine Gauls or Samnites who did not enjoy citizenship meant, that, if they would ever be granted it, their loyalty - and hence their votes - would be with you. And so the aim of the powerful families in the populares party was clearly one of extending their own power. Any advantage to the poor was therefore merely a welcome side effect.

The great political clashes were hence only on the surface about ideology. In reality they were more about power than the public good. There were, to put it bluntly, no 'socialists' in Rome.
No one acted on behalf of the poor, but rather sought to gain poor votes.
If therefore the likes of the brothers Gracchus (populares) held grand passionate speeches which enthralled their audiences, these must be seen as well crafted speeches of great orators who could make their point brilliantly and persuasively. But one shouldn't therefore necessarily think that they were any less class conscious and aristocratic than any member of the optimates. Some might argue that granting social rights to increasing numbers was a gradual, natural process, as new blood pushed into the positions of power, building and enlarging its own client system. The great politicians might far more have been playing a part in a great theatre play, fighting out their personal struggles for power, but playing their role as champions of a greater cause.

Could be fun to split Romans into two camps - either one or the other. This could be part of the basis of a loyalty trait (if the faction leader is optimate and a character is populares then that would affect loyalty_ - it could even become the basis of the civil war, which at the moment is somewhat random.

Any thoughts?

[Cartledge]

I think that is an excellent idea. I think I remember EB has those as family traits etc.. but I dont think it goes very deep as far as gameplay. (In fact I recall it being more to do with that mods Roman reform system) What you are suggesting about it being incorporated into the later civil war would definitely make for exciting gameplay

[Ybbon]

And have recruited Generals split, so when the rebellion occurs, it could take your legion or city depending on their stance. There would need to be a balancing to ensure you don't have predominantly one or the other - if you had a rebellion and 90% rebelled you would be toast.

[Rex Basiliscus]

And have recruited Generals split, so when the rebellion occurs, it could take your legion or city depending on their stance. There would need to be a balancing to ensure you don't have predominantly one or the other - if you had a rebellion and 90% rebelled you would be toast.

I agree! Who said you HAVE to win every campaign

[dvk901]

I have been trying to find a guide or tutorial for adding loyalty for two days, but I can't find anything. I don't know what my problem is, but when I search this site I just get rubbish!!
Anyone able to point me to a good one?

[Rex Basiliscus]

Oh holy ! If you can implement loyalty in RSII, that gives options for so much civil wars ... or at least rebellions! Especially for Seleucids and Ptolemies

[johnnieangel]

this is awesome!

[tone]

I have been trying to find a guide or tutorial for adding loyalty for two days, but I can't find anything. I don't know what my problem is, but when I search this site I just get rubbish!!
Anyone able to point me to a good one?

Have a look at Lt1956's EDCT file from the SPQR mod that I posted on this subforum (which he's given us permission to get working). I think that explains most......but if you like I can play a little bit with getting loyalty working.

I had one guy PM me about helping out with some Roman / Greek research BTW. Any thoughts other than doing some research work on this?

[tone]

Some interesting sorts of traits that we could think about here:

Novus homo (first in family to enter the senate) - father not senator, not of senatorial class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum:
including:
Fides
Pietas
Religion and Cultus
Disciplina
Gravitas and Constantia
Virtus
Dignitas and Auctoritas

.....just a thought

[dvk901]

I was just reading through the traits thread in the dev forum and this sprang out.....

Quote:The two traditional Parties - populares and optimates

The client system meant that Rome was never really a democracy. People voted at elections in accordance to their family loyalties. Political ideology didn't play a major role.
Though in the later stages of the republic - roughly from the days of the brothers Gracchus onwards - there were two political parties, the populares ('people's party') and the optimates ('senatorial party').
The populares were for the extension of citizenship to provincials, for the cancellation of debt, and for the distribution of land. The optimates were the opposing conservative force, defending the traditions of Rome and the existing order.
But this contest was far from being one between the poor and the rich. For people voted for their patrons, as they had always done. So a man might be poor but still vote as a client for the patron who was a staunch member of the optimates.
If teh struggle between the optimates was not pitching rich against poor in Rome, then one can perhaps portray it as a contest between the new powers and the old. The old privileged families held sway in Rome and hence sought to prevent any change from reducing their powers. Meanwhile the new powerful families, saw opportunities in winning more clients and supporters by championing the cause of the less privileged or excluded. For example, to speak on behalf of the Cisalpine Gauls or Samnites who did not enjoy citizenship meant, that, if they would ever be granted it, their loyalty - and hence their votes - would be with you. And so the aim of the powerful families in the populares party was clearly one of extending their own power. Any advantage to the poor was therefore merely a welcome side effect.

The great political clashes were hence only on the surface about ideology. In reality they were more about power than the public good. There were, to put it bluntly, no 'socialists' in Rome.
No one acted on behalf of the poor, but rather sought to gain poor votes.
If therefore the likes of the brothers Gracchus (populares) held grand passionate speeches which enthralled their audiences, these must be seen as well crafted speeches of great orators who could make their point brilliantly and persuasively. But one shouldn't therefore necessarily think that they were any less class conscious and aristocratic than any member of the optimates. Some might argue that granting social rights to increasing numbers was a gradual, natural process, as new blood pushed into the positions of power, building and enlarging its own client system. The great politicians might far more have been playing a part in a great theatre play, fighting out their personal struggles for power, but playing their role as champions of a greater cause.

Could be fun to split Romans into two camps - either one or the other. This could be part of the basis of a loyalty trait (if the faction leader is optimate and a character is populares then that would affect loyalty_ - it could even become the basis of the civil war, which at the moment is somewhat random.

Any thoughts?

I did look at this a while ago while working on the last patch, but as my intention was to rework the traits anyway, I never did anything.
Easy enough to put in.

As for this, I'll have a look at it and see what's involved and how it would fit...or not.

Novus homo (first in family to enter the senate) - father not senator, not of senatorial class

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mos_maiorum:
including:
Fides
Pietas
Religion and Cultus
Disciplina
Gravitas and Constantia
Virtus
Dignitas and Auctoritas

[tone]

I've asked our new researcher to have a think about this too.

Just to show that Loyalty is frighteningly easy to add...so far this is done just through adding these steps:

1) descr_strat.txt

; City: Roma -158, 134
; Region: Latium
; --------------------
character Quintus Fabius, named character, leader, command 0, influence 0, management 0, subterfuge 0, age 52, , x

158, y 134
traits Battle_Counter 5, Patrician 1 , GoodCommander1 1 , Personality_Procrastinator 1, Personality_Shy 1,

NightBattleCapable 1 , TurnsAlive 3 , CharacterAges 3, Family_Member 1, Estates 3, Civil_Career_Restriction 5, Senatorial

1 , Senator 1 , Proconsul 1, LoyaltyStarter 1

2) EDCT:

;===============================================================
;== Section 16c - LOYALTY TRAITS HERE ==
;===============================================================


Trait LoyaltyStarter
Characters family
;Hidden

Level Loyalty_Starting_Value
Description Loyalty_Starting_Value_desc
EffectsDescription Loyalty_Starting_Value_effects_desc
Threshold 1

Effect Loyalty 5

3) Export VnVs

¬===============================================================
¬== Section 16c - Loyalty VnV Entries ==
¬===============================================================

{Loyalty_Starting_Value} Loyalty Starting Value

{Loyalty_Starting_Value_desc}
Sets loyalty starting value

{Loyalty_Starting_Value_effects_desc}
+5 Loyalty

Basically the idea is that everyone starts with 5 loyalty and this can go up and down according to loyalty values attached to other traits....e.g. we might add something like this

;------------------------------------------
Trait Social_Contacts
Characters family
ExcludeCultures barbarian, nomad
NoGoingBackLevel 4
AntiTraits Personality_Shy

Level Social_Contacts
Description Social_Contacts_desc
EffectsDescription Social_Contacts_effects_desc
Threshold 1

Effect Management 1
Effect Influence 1

Level Social_Network
Description Social_Network_desc
EffectsDescription Social_Network_effects_desc
Threshold 2

Effect Management 1
Effect Influence 2
Effect Trading 5
Effect PersonalSecurity -1
Effect Loyalty -1

Level Power_Hungry
Description Power_Hungry_desc
EffectsDescription Power_Hungry_effects_desc
Threshold 8

Effect Management 2
Effect Influence 3
Effect Trading 10
Effect PersonalSecurity -4
Effect Loyalty -2

[tone]

So I managed to get two settlements including Rome to rebel through using this trait (I knew that a couple of characters would become Proconsul within the first couple of turns so it seemed an easy way to trigger this just as a test)

;------------------------------------------
Trait Proconsul
Characters family
ExcludeCultures barbarian, greek, eastern, egyptian, carthaginian, nomad
NoGoingBackLevel 2
AntiTraits Consul, Censor, Imperator, Restore_Proconsul

Level Proconsul
Description Proconsul_desc
EffectsDescription Proconsul_effects_desc
GainMessage Proconsul_gain_desc
Threshold 1

Effect Influence 2
Effect Loyalty -100
Effect Unrest 100
Effect Law -100
Effect Squalor -100

The settlements rebelled and a new Rebel faction character was created there - great - much better that way than through the rebellion script....our Rome characters , however, we chucked out and remained Roman. Is anyone familiar with SPQR and how the loyalty thing works - do characters actually change sides there?

In SPQR, looking at the traits, what happens then is that the AI rebel characters get a hidden trait to restore law, unrest and squalor.


Moonmonkey, who is going to be helping with this, is doing some really nice research on things....I'll ask him to post his work here.

Here are some of his thoughts...

5 files so far, please take look

1. Optimates descriptions from the internet
2. Populares descriptions from the internet
3. Building which favor Optimates or Populares
4. Traits for Optimates or Populares
5. Loyalty traits from Barbarian Invasion

Here are some of my initial thoughts about the idea of Optimates and Populares;

1. It makes sense to have those two ‘parties’ as the basis of the civil war, and that makes the split logical. In this case, how do we make the player choose which party they want to play the game as? Would the player automatically be the Populares or the Optimates when the split happens?

The best outcome would be that the player can choose to play as either party, maybe the player could choose a faction leader (either Populares/Optimates) and then when the civil war happens the player takes control of the party based on the faction leader they choose.

2. The Optimates were generally the ‘old order’ of older senators and generals, and so the Roman “homelands” of the Italian peninsula would have been more supportive of the Optimates. While the provinces were experiencing new populations and were struggling for their rights so the Populares could have more support from the Provinces.

3. The first civil war could start a bit later in the game, after the settlements and generals have started to become more entrenched in their Optimates/Populares beliefs.

4. The belief in Optimates/Populares could be passed on from father to son, except in the case of ‘not like his father’ where there would be a split between generations.

5. The Populares generally disliked slavery, so your options when you have taken a settlement would help contribute to a general’s disposition towards the parties.

6. For Loyalty, the Ruler of Rome could be either Optimates or Populares in belief, and the status of generals (Optimates/Populares) would decide their loyalty in relation to the ruler.

7. For Loyalty, if the general receives no action for a number of turns (say 4/5 turns), not building anything if in a settlement, or not moving on the map. They could feel ‘neglected’ and start to show less loyalty.

I like all of the above, but we start with an optimate faction leader.....?or random at the start?

I agree very much with 6) - loyalty determined by relationship to faction leader in terms of optimate/populares

We can make things more and more polarised as the game goes on - determined by number of settlements held?? so gradually the level of loyalty becomes increasingly either really pro or really against by the faction leader because of the level of the populares or optimate trait i.e. give these traits maybe 10 levels (1-10) although maybe not obvious to the player that they have these different levels.

Then traits and triggers something like this:

Traits:
Populares (antitrait Optimate)
Optimate (antitrait Populares)

Trait Optimate_Rebellion
Characters family
ExcludeCultures barbarian, nomad
Hidden
NoGoingBackLevel 5

Level Optimate_Rebellion_1
Description Optimate_Rebellion_desc
EffectsOptimate_Rebellion_effects_desc
Threshold 10

Effect Loyalty -1

Level Optimate_Rebellion_2
Description Optimate_Rebellion_desc
EffectsOptimate_Rebellion_effects_desc
Threshold 20

Effect Loyalty -2

Level Optimate_Rebellion_3
Description Optimate_Rebellion_desc
EffectsOptimate_Rebellion_effects_desc
Threshold 30

Effect Loyalty -8

Level Optimate_Rebellion_4
Description Optimate_Rebellion_desc
EffectsOptimate_Rebellion_effects_desc
Threshold 40

Effect Loyalty -16

....etc, etc

Condition IsGeneral
and FactionLeaderTrait Populares > 0
and I_NumberOfSettlements romans_brutii >= 80
and Trait Optimate > 0

Affects Optimate_Rebellion 1

Condition IsGeneral
and FactionLeaderTrait Populares > 0
and I_NumberOfSettlements romans_brutii >= 80
and Trait Optimate > 1

Affects Optimate_Rebellion 2

Condition IsGeneral
and FactionLeaderTrait Populares > 0
and I_NumberOfSettlements romans_brutii >= 80
and Trait Optimate > 2

Affects Optimate_Rebellion 2


etc, etc

[Paedric]

3. The first civil war could start a bit later in the game, after the settlements and generals have started to become more entrenched in their Optimates/Populares beliefs.

I'm not sure about this one. I believe the point of the 1rst rebellion is to happen when Hannibal is in Italy.
If we wait, Hannibal will generally be dead/gone.


Also, if I get it, in the second rebellion, the rebellion of a settlement would depend on whether the governor is an Optimates or a Populares.
But what if the player made sure there are no rebels FM in settlements, or they are all stacked together somewhere?

[Cartledge]

Thats exactly what I was thinking. I'd say that almost universally players would certainly exploit that wholesale.

[tone]

I'm not sure about this one. I believe the point of the 1rst rebellion is to happen when Hannibal is in Italy.
If we wait, Hannibal will generally be dead/gone.

I don't think this is what's meant here - what's meant is the civil war rather than the little rebellion that happens in Hannibal's time.

Good question Paedric......we'd need to think how this might be achieved somehow. Maybe make levels of unrest too high without a general in place? Or else we make the level of populares or optimate leaning hidden so you don't know quite how rebellious the character might be (although I guess you'd get some idea from their level of loyalty).....unless they gradually increase their rebelliousness with a hidden trait and then suddenly rebel?

[Rex Basiliscus]

So ... we'd basically have 3 rebellions in the Roman campaign? 1st the Socii rebellion, then the Populares/Optimates civil war and finally the civil war that would trigger the Imperial era?
I kinda like that ... if that is the case, I suggest we don't say a word about it when it is released ... you know - just because

As far as the 'when' ... I'd suggest when the player has about 30-40 regions. That would suggest that he already conquered (presumably) Spain, Africa and another region - Greece or Gaul ... or maybe both.
As far as I recall, the division to Optimates and Populares began with the Gracchi brothers, or am I wrong? If that was around the fall of Carthage and Corinth, than that would be the historical background to this ingame.
So, what I'm proposing here is, that the Populares and Optimates would appear ingame with this event (~40 regions), and it would all go down from there with the upcoming civil war ...
And then with the appearance of Imperator, these traits would cease to exist.

When you become Imperial though, it may be good (game-wise) to enhance the general's conqueror traits and triumphs. So that we'd have rebellions of generals against the emperors, and subsequently, generals being named emperors by the army ... just thinking out loud here

[Cartledge]

Maybe have an element of the town having an acquired (perhaps randomly assigned at campaign start) loyalty to one or the other, giving loyalty bonuses to the general in the right party. Or maybe the loyalty could be organically determined by what buildings are constructed there? Im not sure if or how that could be applied, I'm just throwing ideas out there

Maybe each parties 'preferred' buildings would be essential for the balanced running of the empire, so that one couldnt just neglect one sort of building. Im not even suggesting making new buildings, maybe assign to existing.

[Paedric]

Maybe make levels of unrest too high without a general in place?

The problem is that if the player simply put all his Optimates in a few settlements, and make sure all the other ones are manned by Populares then he only needs a few well placed legions, and the rebellion is crushed.

What makes the rebellion hard is its randomness, you don't know where it will happen.
If we try to keep this approach, the most important thing would be to have who is rebelling random.
If the player does not know who will rebel, he can't prepare for it, and any imbalance in the number of Optimates/Populares could be his demise.

Also, what about some randomness for when it will happen?
Right now, it seems many player are waiting at the 84 threshold to prepare for the rebellion.
What if we made it somewhat random between 80 and 90?

[tone]

Good thinking going on here......

Here are the thoughts Moonmonkey had about buildings that might make a character lean more one way or the other:

Client state
Economic Region (more based on increased revenue)
Forum / Great forum
Some temple for Optimates
Taxation buildings
Academies
Theaters
Advanced stables (horse riding was a preserve of the rich)

Allied state
Fortified Region (Based on popular support for the army)
Market / Trading center
Some temple for Populares
Farms
Amphitheaters
Health care buildings
Wine, olive oil and fish trade (representing poor people’s occupations)

I like this as all these are pretty much necessary....as I mentioned the tendency to lean one way or the other could become increasingly unstable as the nation expands.

@Rex - I think we could potentially have 3 rebellions and leave the current big rebellion until around 95-100 settlements, or else replace what we have now with this one. This new thing would probably be best to be triggered around 70 settlements or more if it didn't trigger our current rebellion (altohugh I was thinking that it would trigger what we have now....just provide a more rational explanation for what's going on gameplay-wise)

[Ybbon]

You could have a hidden Optimate/Populares trait. It does not affect loyalty at all except when you trigger a rebellion. At that point it's something like

if rebellion and character is Optimate then
rebel

So you'd need 2 triggers. One to say there is a rebellion and one character trait that is hidden which determines their party. You could then have a very random rebellion which would affect different settlements and armies. The only sticky point would be if you happened to have 2 in the same city/army when they rebelled.