Author Topic: Erstes Imperium: Basic Concept  (Read 3389 times)

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Erstes Imperium: Basic Concept
« on: November 16, 2013, 12:54:17 PM »
This is the large realm of the guided start, with room for 20-30 players.

My concept is that it is fairly refined and civilized, with a rich culture and lots of politics. It would have a complex internal structure and trade networks set up to support major towns and cities. It has poetry and philosophy and politics. Lots of politics.

It would also be technologically advanced with the cities providing troops and equipment unlike that of the barbaric tribes around it.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2014, 10:15:24 AM by Tom »

Alexskr

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2013, 03:19:14 PM »
You could use a mix of late roman empire, Carolingian empire and perhaps Byzantine as inspiration.
Therefore it would have the kind of social structure that works for this game as well as being old, refined, and all of that and have a well developed economy and technology (especially when compared to that of its neighbours).

LGMAlpha

  • Guest
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2013, 03:45:01 PM »
I think it would work best as an old Empire ran by the oldest families. A culture of supreme arrogance toward "primitive" outsiders.



I'd prefer to avoid the overly portrayed Empire in decline due to cataclysm. I like the idea of having a realm that was centralized under a strong King or dynasty, but x number of years before the start of the game the King died/disappeared due to civil war/assassination/terrible accident. While the Empire is still is together, it's held by a new King in a much more tenuous situation with the great Lords claiming more power and authority for themselves. It might even be fun to start the game without a King, leaving it to the Lords of Realm A to choose from themselves.

Aurelius

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
  • Karma: +5/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2013, 09:59:47 PM »
As detailed in my post Nova Republica Imperium, I think that a culture in which there is a lot of separation of powers, there are a large number of sub-realms and in which the very powerful regent is subject to regular elections would be good for the large realm.


I wouldn't want to overlap too much of the primary characteristics of the smaller realms proposed: military might=political power & unified independent realms.     

Penchant

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 382
  • Karma: +6/-1
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #4 on: December 02, 2013, 02:26:30 AM »
Anyone like the idea of a republic? Allows for lots of politics, can cause a complex internal structure, and is much more civilized and refined than deciding a ruler simply because of blood.

Finton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +4/-2
  • Erstes Imperium
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #5 on: December 05, 2013, 02:27:55 AM »
Anyone like the idea of a republic? Allows for lots of politics, can cause a complex internal structure, and is much more civilized and refined than deciding a ruler simply because of blood.

In short, I would.

Typically those who are most active and involved in the realm will find themselves at the top even if (or especially if) their beliefs and perspectives are at direct odds with others at the top. The first time I got elected in BM to a lordship, it was mainly down to the fact that my character had joined and showed an interest in the predominant religion despite the fact that I was up against the leader of the sizable minority religion. No game mechanics needed, no complex hereditary system, just politics in action. If it was up to the King, Torsaan may have beaten my character for the position simply because of longevity. I've played Monarchies where that's been a real problem with the realm or duchy in question turning stagnant. I've also played Monarchies where the King (thinking Arcaea as an example) was such a brilliant leader that it was never a concern. But what happens when that charismatic leader dies in battle or the player's activity dwindles? I suppose Alexander the Great would be the example that pops to mind here.

In the immortal words of George Orwell, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". A Republic does not necessitate a democracy. A republic does, however, allow for far greater class integration so that, for instance, it would not be utterly unusual for a new Knight to be welcomed by the Ruler of the day. Would it be as normal for a King to greet the newest Knight to his realm? Maybe if we're talking a city-state, but we're not. That said, in a republic, the most involved typically find themselves at the top and its these players that usually take the time out to welcome new players and new characters. This, I believe, is more palatable as general custom in practice when the realm is formed as a republic than a monarchy.

All that being said, the real difference is where the power lies. In a republic, its the middle-class. Landholders. In a monarchy, its the monarch and possibly a handful of other notables.  I'd lean towards a Republic over a Monarchy for far more reasons than discussed here. I don't expect Alpha to be a republic though. From my understanding, the concept of a monarchy is all that has been discussed and is, if not set in stone, at least the direction we've been travelling for long enough that turning around would require significant reconsideration. Is that necessary? I wouldn't say so myself. For those who'd be of a similar persuasion, I don't imagine it would be an impossibility to build a realm around these ideals further down the road beyond the guided start. If and when that day comes, I certainly hope to be involved.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #6 on: December 05, 2013, 04:27:27 AM »
In short, I would.

Typically those who are most active and involved in the realm will find themselves at the top even if (or especially if) their beliefs and perspectives are at direct odds with others at the top. The first time I got elected in BM to a lordship, it was mainly down to the fact that my character had joined and showed an interest in the predominant religion despite the fact that I was up against the leader of the sizable minority religion. No game mechanics needed, no complex hereditary system, just politics in action. If it was up to the King, Torsaan may have beaten my character for the position simply because of longevity. I've played Monarchies where that's been a real problem with the realm or duchy in question turning stagnant. I've also played Monarchies where the King (thinking Arcaea as an example) was such a brilliant leader that it was never a concern. But what happens when that charismatic leader dies in battle or the player's activity dwindles? I suppose Alexander the Great would be the example that pops to mind here.

In the immortal words of George Orwell, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". A Republic does not necessitate a democracy. A republic does, however, allow for far greater class integration so that, for instance, it would not be utterly unusual for a new Knight to be welcomed by the Ruler of the day. Would it be as normal for a King to greet the newest Knight to his realm? Maybe if we're talking a city-state, but we're not. That said, in a republic, the most involved typically find themselves at the top and its these players that usually take the time out to welcome new players and new characters. This, I believe, is more palatable as general custom in practice when the realm is formed as a republic than a monarchy.

All that being said, the real difference is where the power lies. In a republic, its the middle-class. Landholders. In a monarchy, its the monarch and possibly a handful of other notables.  I'd lean towards a Republic over a Monarchy for far more reasons than discussed here. I don't expect Alpha to be a republic though. From my understanding, the concept of a monarchy is all that has been discussed and is, if not set in stone, at least the direction we've been travelling for long enough that turning around would require significant reconsideration. Is that necessary? I wouldn't say so myself. For those who'd be of a similar persuasion, I don't imagine it would be an impossibility to build a realm around these ideals further down the road beyond the guided start. If and when that day comes, I certainly hope to be involved.


Republic is a fraught definition. The Doges of the Italian republics could wield as much power as a traditional Monarch over their lands, the only real difference for many of them (at least until later when they were forced into Mix Governments, much as the British Monarchy was) was the title was not hereditary. Sometimes a system like that is called Crowned Republic. Republics in medieval times had less to do with giving land holders rights, and were more often to do with providing a level of power for the Merchant Class which was lacking in the feudal system, since while wealthy they didn't necessarily own land.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

Cynic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +16/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #7 on: December 05, 2013, 11:42:35 AM »
All that being said, the real difference is where the power lies. In a republic, its the middle-class. Landholders. In a monarchy, its the monarch and possibly a handful of other notables.  I'd lean towards a Republic over a Monarchy for far more reasons than discussed here. I don't expect Alpha to be a republic though. From my understanding, the concept of a monarchy is all that has been discussed and is, if not set in stone, at least the direction we've been travelling for long enough that turning around would require significant reconsideration. Is that necessary? I wouldn't say so myself. For those who'd be of a similar persuasion, I don't imagine it would be an impossibility to build a realm around these ideals further down the road beyond the guided start. If and when that day comes, I certainly hope to be involved.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your first line here, but I don't agree with your statement about where power lies in a monarchy.  I believe the difference between a monarchy and a republic is only in how 'votes' are counted - in a republic it is official and legislated for - one vote each.  In a monarchy it is intangible and uncertain - broadly speaking you gain more votes by having more soldiers or more influence over others and so more ability to influence power struggles.

Therefore the only difference is in the way power is transferred - if the leader is popular there is no issue, he stays in power regardless.  If the leader is unpopular in a republic there is a vote at some point and he's gone, whereas in a monarchy it's far more difficult and I believe therefore more potential (and requirement) for maneuvering and conflict.

There is no reason that a monarchy has to be the strong centralised sort as in Battlemaster - the reason that Battlemaster is centralised is the culture of the game - it's a wargame between teams, everyone plays for the team, and there is a huge weight of opinion against anyone who tries to rock the boat.

What I want to see (and have been trying to vote for) is a monarchy, but one where the culture is that the King had better keep his nose out of peoples' affairs, and he won't automatically get full support of the realm if he tries to interfere.  As long as the culture is one that will treat the leadership with skepticism and act in accordance with their own interests rather than showing automatic loyalty the central power is hugely weakened.

This objective would be helped by avoiding giving too much direct power (land, cities, soldiers) to the monarch and his family (and making them similar to a Duke, requiring support to hold his position), but the player culture is key.

I'm certainly not telling you to go away, but if you are set on a republic and, despite any effort you put in, Alpha turns out to be not to your liking, I suggest taking a look at Beta for a realm that seems to be formalising a system of votes for each noble.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2013, 11:49:01 AM by gmk23 »

LGMAlpha

  • Guest
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2013, 02:41:14 PM »
I'm totally against making Realm A a republic.


If BM is any example, A Republic isn't any less likely to stagnate than a Monarchy. Internal stagnation will occur when characters are no longer challenging, both militarily and politically, each other for power, regardless of government type.


Above anything else, I'd like to see a strongly decentralized Monarchy with 4 or 5 very powerful Dukes.


What I want to see (and have been trying to vote for) is a monarchy, but one where the culture is that the King had better keep his nose out of peoples' affairs, and he won't automatically get full support of the realm if he tries to interfere.  As long as the culture is one that will treat the leadership with skepticism and act in accordance with their own interests rather than showing automatic loyalty the central power is hugely weakened.


This is ideal for me as well.

Finton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +4/-2
  • Erstes Imperium
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2013, 04:35:55 AM »
Too much to respond to and not enough time right now.

So, please note that I was not the person to raise the subject of monarch v republic. For the record, I don't believe I have advocated Realm A to be a Republic. I have no objection to Realm A being a Monarchy. Beyond my single previous post on the subject, I have been quite happy to work on the premise that it would be a Monarchy.

GMK, you could tell me to go away, but how much weight would I put behind such a demand anyway?

Cynic

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +16/-8
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2013, 11:32:30 AM »
No, seriously I'm not telling you to go away, stick around.  There was no sarcasm at all in my previous post.  It was a genuine suggestion, trying to be helpful.


If you do find Alpha to be not to your liking, I'd be disappointed to see you go, but if you would be happier elsewhere then I'm going to make a suggestion to try to make you happier.

If Alpha is to your liking, and even though you would like a republic you are happier with a monarchy, then the conditionals in my final paragraph don't apply so there is no need to go and investigate, and I'd be delighted to see you stay.

GoldPanda

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #11 on: December 09, 2013, 03:20:24 AM »
I'd like to offer my services in giving the realm some Roman flavor. I also have much experience in playing in large realms.

Finton

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +4/-2
  • Erstes Imperium
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #12 on: December 09, 2013, 08:00:25 AM »
Don't worry, GMK, I'm not going anywhere. I signed up for Alpha and I fully intend to stick with it. How its ran, or in fact who runs it, isn't a huge concern for me. I decided by the initial description of the realm provided by Tom. This one interested me the most. I would indeed like a Republic but I can accept Alpha being a monarchy. I certainly wouldn't describe myself as any "happier" that it is though. If I wanted, I could dedicate some time every day making arguments and counter-arguments to the effect of my personal vision of the realm, republic style if not definition. Thats not why I'm here, at least not yet, and I assume thats not what you want to spend your time doing either. I'd like to be part of a realm that puts Beta and Gamma to shame (no offense lads and lasses of B and G) and what title our leader has won't bother me too much in comparison.

Tom

  • Head Developer
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6320
  • Karma: +102/-15
    • View Profile
    • Might & Fealty
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #13 on: December 09, 2013, 11:34:15 AM »
Don't forget that Rome was a republic during most of its time, but always had a system in place to temporarily transition to a monarchy during times of crisis.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3129
  • Karma: +105/-55
    • View Profile
Re: Basic Concept - for discussion
« Reply #14 on: December 09, 2013, 12:27:47 PM »
Don't forget that Rome was a republic during most of its time, but always had a system in place to temporarily transition to a monarchy during times of crisis.


At least until Augustus/Octavian. After that it had the pretence of republic, but never really restored to power and is generally referred to as the Roman Empire to separate it from the earlier Republic. Early in the Republics history the Consuls and other powerful positions could only be elected from the aristocratic familes. That diminished in time as the plebeian gained more and more political power. Though by 100 BC it had slipped back into being dominated by a handful of leaders from powerful families.


That is the sort of thing any republic in the game should try and replicate in my opinion.
He who was once known as Blackfyre