Principate or Republic?

[Remco]

Will it be possible in future EB versions to choose if the Roman empire is going to be a republic or principate? If so, what are the consequences?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

When you get to the point of the Augustan Reforms and have an appropriate guy, you can choose whether or not you want him to overthrow the Republic...

[Bootsiuv]

The game doesn't really offer governments on a faction wide scale as far as I know.

They could probably make a building which gave faction wide boni, but I don't really see the point.

Maybe for some shits and giggles, but at least we have some form of government representation in EB, which RTW sorely lacked.

[Bootsiuv]

Well I guess I stand corrected.

Quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can even make it to the augustan reform without first losing interest in the campaign...I can't bring myself to play much after I know I've won....it get's a little boring.

[Remco]

When you get to the point of the Augustan Reforms and have an appropriate guy, you can choose whether or not you want him to overthrow the Republic...

But then I never get the imperial legions who can be recruited in all provinces.

Wouldn't it be possible, if a republic is chosen, to place a building in Rome which represents the senate. Ofcourse this building would have to cost a lot of money (eacht turn) to represent the inefficiency of a republic.

The advantage is that one then can have the good things of the principate without it's moral burden. You know, dictatorship.

[Horst Nordfink]

I would prefer to keep it a Republic. The Republic is far more interesting, especially between Marius/Sulla and Octavian (who ruined it all), than the Principate.

Although Bootsiuv is correct, I have never even got near the Augustan Reforms. It's far too boring after a while, it just gets too easy.

[Bootsiuv]

Which isn't EB's fault...The Augustan reforms happen at a historically accurate time....It's just the nature of the game, to win or lose, well before turn 800 or whenever those Augustan reforms are....

[Horst Nordfink]

Indeed! I wasn't inferring it was EBs fault. Maybe I'm just too good?!

[Zaknafien]

if you played historically, roleplayed, and didnt blitz, thered still be plenty of map left to conquer after you get the Augustan reforms, exciting parthian wars, spanish insurrections, britannic expeditions, germanic conquests, etc.

[J.Alco]

Wouldn't it be better if, when you choose to create a principate instead of a Republic, a message appears informing you that the Senate has declared you a traitor and a civil war is breaking out? I mean, I'm not talking about something like the stunt pulled in RTW Vanilla, but maybe big Eleuthoroi armies made up of Roman units spring up in Italy (or other provinces of the empire) and be a general pain in the ass (pillaging, besieging cities, blockading ports, etc), ofrcing you to take them on? It could be ONE way to show the pre and post-ceasarian civil wars ocurring.

That said, I don't really expect anything like that to happen. EB is still young and something like that would probably be just another headache.

And no, I haven't reached Augustan. I just got to the Polybian era.

[Centurion Crastinus]

that sounds like a good idea

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But then I never get the imperial legions who can be recruited in all provinces.

Wouldn't it be possible, if a republic is chosen, to place a building in Rome which represents the senate. Ofcourse this building would have to cost a lot of money (eacht turn) to represent the inefficiency of a republic.

The advantage is that one then can have the good things of the principate without it's moral burden. You know, dictatorship.

The Imperial army was only possible under the political structures of the Principate. It's existence then perpetuated the autocracy.

The two are symbiotic.

[Megas Methuselah]

The Imperial army was only possible under the political structures of the Principate. It's existence then perpetuated the autocracy.

The two are symbiotic.

I don't know what he just said, but it's on!

[Maeran]

I would prefer to keep it a Republic. The Republic is far more interesting, especially between Marius/Sulla and Octavian (who ruined it all), than the Principate.

Although Bootsiuv is correct, I have never even got near the Augustan Reforms. It's far too boring after a while, it just gets too easy.

The period between Marius/Sulla (well, more the Gracchi brothers a decade earlier) and Octavian was when rich ambitious men controlled private armies, creating the instability that destroyed the Republic. I take it that by interesting you mean bloody.

[Remco]

I agree the republic had no future as it was. But what if Augustus would have reformed the state. The soldiers should recieve their payment from the senate. The pension and land they get when they retire should also be payed and guaranteed by the senate, not their general. Laws to limit corruption and the effects should also be introduced.

Augustus could have been a second Sulla and hopefully the last. With a republic the roman spirit would have remained intact. It would have a price but might prove to be more stable in the end.

[Horst Nordfink]

I meant interesting! It was bloody, it was unstable, but there are so many interesting people in that last century(ish)! Marius, Sulla, Cinna, Pompey, Crassus, Cicero, Caesar, Anthony plus many many more I can't remember off the top of my head.

In the Principate, there just aren't as many interesting characters, there's the emperor and a few others.

This is just my opinion of course, but I find the Republic to immeasurably more interesting.

[Sand]

This is just my opinion of course, but I find the Republic to immeasurably more interesting.

It was, but interesting people were threats to the Emperors power in the principate hence they tended to have short, but eventful lives. That was probably the main reason the expansion of the empire slowed so drastically after the early Principate - a successful general with an army winning glory on the frontier was incredibly dangerous.

On the other hand, the Roman people were so exhausted by the interesting times of Sulla to Octavian that they gladly ignored their own enslavement in exchange for some measure of peace and stability.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It was, but interesting people were threats to the Emperors power in the principate hence they tended to have short, but eventful lives. That was probably the main reason the expansion of the empire slowed so drastically after the early Principate - a successful general with an army winning glory on the frontier was incredibly dangerous.

On the other hand, the Roman people were so exhausted by the interesting times of Sulla to Octavian that they gladly ignored their own enslavement in exchange for some measure of peace and stability.

You can have cookie for being so sucinct.

That's basically it, Autocracy tends to stifle creativity, particually when the only way to get on to the kiss the Emperor's rear end.