Printable View
How do you think the game will handle the weakened position of the royal family, their transnational marriages, and such? In the age of emerging democracies, the royalty's influence was much lesser than in medieval times.
Will the system from other total war-games be ruled out this time?
:study:
One of the CA interviews mentioned that you'll be able to choose between being an absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy or a republic. It seems the choice you make effects how you raise funds and your peoples loyalty to you.
I think it will be (or could be) pretty interesting. An interesting choice to decide between a happier populace, wealthy cities and all your developed royal family members (chop! chop!). I hope they expand the breeding options rather than get rid of it altogether.
In some cases the royalty was less influential. However, this is still the time of absolutist monarchies determining statewide policies in a number of states with a transition to more revolutionary ideals later on in the game; the whole period predates actual democracy except for possibly the Revolution of France. But certainly, the role of (royal) family in actual military command was far less significant, so it'd be interesting to see what happens there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous II
"The whole period pre-dates actual democracy except for possibly the Revolution of France."
Although your statement is largely true for many countries in this period, and completely true in the modern western notion of "liberal democracy". It isn't entirely true and does not apply to ALL. :book:
It all depends if by your statement you mean "liberal democracy" with "suffrage for all", or whether we are talking about more people than just the landed nobility having a vote?
Britain, for example, was a Constitutional Monarchy (A Monarchy with a Parliament that has final say on all matters of policy) after 1688 and any *man* with sufficient land or income could vote. No noble title was necessary.
The Monarchy had a strong say in Government and Parliament, and could dismiss and call Parliament within bounds set in law. But Parliament was able to dictate its own terms and the King or Queen had to listen or possibly suffer the consequences. (James II found this out when he was deposed by Parliament and replaced by William and Mary - Known to this day as The Glorious Revolution)
The English "Bill of rights of 1689" enshrined parliamentary rights in English law and the Act of Settlement in 1701 ensured it could not be repealed.
Under "The Triennial Acts of 1694" the rights of Parliament were strengthened and it had to meet every year, for at least 50 days, and an election had to be held every 3 years. This was modified to the Septennial Act of 1716 which extended the term of Parliament to a maximum of 7 years in order to allow for more stable policy making.
From Walpole (1721 - Britain's first real Prime Minister) onwards Britain was effectively run by members of a popularly elected body and the monarch was thereafter only consulted for an opinion but was not always listened to. (Even if that was often taken as official policy)
To this day a Prime Minister has to ask the Queens permission to form and dissolve Parliament. But because of the Bill of Rights she effectively has no choice but to agree to the Prime Minister's requests.
Britain didn't have universal suffrage until 1918.
Pennsylvania had its own elected legislature from 1682, even if it was subject to the will of the government of Great Britain
I could go on about other democratic legislatures like the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, and so on, but I think people might have the picture now.:beam:
.
Nice post, Intrepid Sidekick, and valid points! :yes:
.
Actually, in many countries the royal family was MORE important than in the medieval periods. Developed roads and such meant that communication was faster, and monarchs tended to live longer and, in some cases, have more control.
In Russia, for example, having the Tsar die would be a big freakin' deal. Even the English, with their constitutional monarchy, would've had a crisis on their hands if their king was captured/killed, since the monarch was an important nationalist symbol, much more so than in Medieval times when they were 'just' a leader.
However, they certainly had much less of a role on the battlefield, although MTW overexaggerated it as well. I'm pretty sure that no European monarch after 1750 or so took to the field. Peter the Great was probably the last one to do actual fighting himself.
Actually, by 1776, all colonies had their own Representative body, and by 1782, their was a democratic government in each colony.
If you look at it like that, America should be considered one too. :beam:
However, regardless of government, the monarch of any country is a vital national symbol, even if they dont rule.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vuk Brankovic
If I were to kidnap the Queen of England, despite her being virtually powerless, dont you think there would be a strong reaction amoung the various British peoples?
And, again, I point to the Ruskies. The Tsar was not only head of state, but head of the Church as well (Much disputed by the various Patriarchs of the ROC, but whatever).
I'm not sure about how the Indians felt about their monarchs, but I'll bet their state would experience some trouble if one was killed suddenly and unexpectedly.
Shall we speculate on the effects of Democracy on Generals/Governors?
The Democracy may be an abstract, like it was in RTW with the Senate. Generals/Governors (family members) would then act be politicians in a minor way and receive trait titles with no other real bearing on game mechanics other than trait bonuses.
Or the Democracy may be imposing, with generals/governors being added and removed with a "term of office". Thus, a faction leader would be "elected" from either the existing slate of family members or spawn randomly. Or perhaps many characters may spawn randomly, such as with major provinces requiring a governorship and given a "no movement"trait restriction.
Of these two options, I think that only the first is possible. This was done with RTW and I expect it to continue. Furthermore, it makes more sense with a "mission" system which CA favors for the series. Democracies would have the demands of the elected imposing restrictions upon their actions, whilst monarchies would have free will to wage war without an elected body to interfere. I would hope, however, the CA would add more to a governance system than a simple abstract body with missions and assigned traits for characters. The possibilities for more direct involvement of the government into the player's command and control are nearly endless and would be a welcome and refreshing change.
Intrepid Sidekick, yes, I was using the definition of liberal democracy. The way you describe the constitutional monarchy in England I agree with, but not that it can be considered a democracy: crucially, parliament is heavily dominated by wealthy landowners, in practise keeping traditional nobility entrenched in positions of power. I admit that my previous post was rather one-sided.
So, I agree that in cases of constitutional monarchy the power of monarchs was greatly reduced (though indeed, not negated), but by and large the actual power lay with an elite clique in a form far more akin to oligarchy than democracy. For the larger part of Europe (France, Prussia, Austria, Russia, the Ottoman Empire) absolutism was the dominant stateform. I'll be extrememly interested in seeing how these stateforms will be represented in ETW.
Will the game include puppet governments then to separate levels of autonomy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Sidekick
Something I'd like to see is a way of tracking your royal marriages to other factions.
When a faction leader dies if you have links to the royal family, it would be groovy if you had the option to actually contest the throne, it's happened a helluva alot over the years.
It could be pretty easily implemented too I rekon, simply a mission from the council of nobles for example, see the beginning of Henry the V. Depending upon the vaildity of your claim, the population could even rebel in your favour, or adversly increase unrest in any settlements that you capture.
Just my :2cents: