Dictator Trait

Hi all

I had an idea after doing a college test that is named ROMAN LAW HISTORY.
The idea is focused on a trait that it's exclusive only for roman family members.

This is the DICTATOR TRAIT, but before explaning my idea I have to do a little history precisation.

In history the senate gave the title of dictator with full power over the republic, to a particular man of valour to afford some critical situations, such as invasions in territories really close to ROME. This title had a limitated period of
effect linked with the resolution of the crisis. After this period the magistrate had to refuse the title and give it back to the senate, but not always those man's leave the title so easly, cause the idea of keeping power all over the republic was liked by some man of power in Rome.

In terms of game it could be work so.
When some critical situation happens for the Roman faction, (such as the invasion of starting territories), this trait must be assigned to the family member with much influence, giving him a bonus to influence and command and a malus to loyalty, pushing him to rebellion. After the reoslution of the crisis (e.g. by reconquering cities captured by invaders) if there was no rebellion by the dictator, the trait must be lost, otherwise if the family member revolts agianst the senate (in this case if the loyalty system as seen in Bi is used, the hisorical realism is much more imroved) the trait must be reverted in te TYRANNUS trait.

What you think about thi IDEA?

I don't think we'll be using this. In reality only two men abused this position, Sulla and Caesar. The title was constitutional and rarely used, it also generally didn't cause problems when it was used. We also don't use loyalty so all this would meen would be that one family member would be easier to bribe.

As to the boni you suggest: In order to be appointed dictator the general normally needed to be extremely loyal and competant, influence would already be high and in general we do not hand out command boni.

You said only two man's has abused of this title, but those two man's has changed the history of Rome.
I mean that the tratit dosen't assure rebellion, but increases chances.
And about the fact that the use of rebel faction is not planned in the next versions of EB I think it's wrong cause it could reproduce some situations really near to History, cause Rome has seen many rebellions of his Generals during his History.

It would be awkward to have a dictator abuse his power to become king in the Middle Republic, where most of the game is likely to take place, the circumstances which gave Caesar and Sulla the oppurtunity to do so were just not there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marseu

You said only two man's has abused of this title, but those two man's has changed the history of Rome.
I mean that the tratit dosen't assure rebellion, but increases chances.
And about the fact that the use of rebel faction is not planned in the next versions of EB I think it's wrong cause it could reproduce some situations really near to History, cause Rome has seen many rebellions of his Generals during his History.

---

"Many" Rebellions? She had two Civil Wars and the Social War.

As to using the rebel faction, there are issues with CTDs, if we can assure those don't happen then perhaps we will consider it.

If you want me to seriously consider this I suggest you go away, do some more research and present a real case. To be honest I don't think you'll be able to build one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

"Many" Rebellions? She had two Civil Wars and the Social War.

---

Well, there were plenty of civil wars in the imperial era, but those are outside of the time-frame.

The main problem with adding civil wars is that the game's loyalty mechanism does not simulate this properly: you will see the occasional general defecting to another faction, but no coordinated, massive uprisings like in M:TW. Perhaps it is possible to generate these with scripting, though, but I am not sure. Still, even if this were possible, it would also require that the Romans get a counterfaction (Romani rebels) and since EB is already at the hardcoded faction limit, a faction has to be sacrificed for that. This seems somewhat costly, especially for a feature that affects only one faction and probably wouldn't have occured if Rome had not grown into a world power. Also, the Romans were hardly the only ones who were suffering from rebellion; so why should they be the only ones to get a civil war feature?

Exactly, also, the office of dictator was abolished after the tyranicides did for Caesar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

"Many" Rebellions? She had two Civil Wars and the Social War.

As to using the rebel faction, there are issues with CTDs, if we can assure those don't happen then perhaps we will consider it.

If you want me to seriously consider this I suggest you go away, do some more research and present a real case. To be honest I don't think you'll be able to build one.

---

Hmm what you say about the rebellion of General Lepido who attackaed Rome?

Anyway I think that is much historical accurate and gameplay improving to give the chance of rebellion to Roman, Egyptian and Seleukid factions, instead of not having.

I know that isn't possible to recreate the real rebellions that occured in real history with the same names for generals and same dates, but it could be funny to see some kind of rebellion as seen in BI.

uh, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus was one of the triumvir during the Civil Wars, which Wigferth already mentioned. Aside from the Civil Wars and the Social War, there are no instances of rebellion in our time frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

uh, Marcus Aemilius Lepidus was one of the triumvir during the Civil Wars, which Wigferth already mentioned. Aside from the Civil Wars and the Social War, there are no instances of rebellion in our time frame.

---

nah i'm talking of Marcus Lepido who revolted against senate in 77b.c..
But I can also make notice that there was another rebellion in the same period , it was the rebellion of Quintus Sertorio who rebelled against senate and keeped in his hands all the Spain for a relativly long period, before the caming of Pompeus.

And I can say that the risk of tiranny was always feeld by the senate yet many years before the coming of Cesar.

oooh that one. well that was not really a civil war, he simply illegaly tried to prorongue his consulship and was declared a public enemy by the senate.

if you consider that you might as well consider the gracchi to be rebels too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

oooh that one. well that was not really a civil war, he simply illegaly tried to prorongue his consulship and was declared a public enemy by the senate.

if you consider that you might as well consider the gracchi to be rebels too.

---

No no, it was a real civil war, cause real battles was fought and the city of Rome was put under siege if you remember right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marseu

Anyway I think that is much historical accurate and gameplay improving to give the chance of rebellion to Roman, Egyptian and Seleukid factions, instead of not having.

---

1) That would require three of the current factions to be sacrificed. 2) It is not possible to properly simulate civil wars with the current rebellion system. All you get is the occasional general rebelling, not a real civil war, and I'd rather have no civil wars than unrealistic ones.

Incidentally, Sertorius' fight in Spain was an extension of the civil war started by Marius and Sulla.

Is there anyway to do a script that turns the generals rebel and then script them to conquer Rome by using lots of mercenaries?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marseu

No no, it was a real civil war, cause real battles was fought and the city of Rome was put under siege if you remember right.

---

It wasn't a Civil War, it was one general rising and he was Consul, not Dictator.

Sertorius did Rebel but only in Spain. None of this bears any relation to Dictators.

Also, are you Italian, I ask because you are using the Italian endings on the names, the Latin is "us" not "o."

Yes I'm italian and I live in Liternum really close to the Tomb of Scipione the African.

Ah, it shows in your spelling of Latin, most other people either go for strait Latin or anglasise the spelling.