The forbidden Monarchy. - Page 2

Jaybe · May 2, 2003, 13:18

Quote:

Originally posted by jshelr
...
Idonno. Maybe the game developers were impressed by Rome as a republic that did pretty well economically and on the trade front for quite some time. What do you think?

I think that most of the time they were a republic IN NAME ONLY. During the time of the caesars they were definitely not a republic.

Kramsib · May 2, 2003, 17:37

But the senate and the patricians were too powerful, in such an aspect it could be considered an Oligarchy.

Jon Shafer · May 2, 2003, 18:23

I actually like monarchy.

It's useful in a world full of people who ain't happy with ya, and if you have smaller cities that extra unit support can be a lifesaver. By the Industrial Age with a moderately-sized empire on a standard map, I was making ~700 GPT under Monarchy, and it only went up to ~800 under Republic, and I had a very big army (80+ units) to boot.

P.S. Post # 6000.

I'm a double-emperor at last!

bobbo008 · May 4, 2003, 11:30

anyone know exactly how much corruption was in ancient Rome by chance (no, that wasn't sarcasm)?

i have a problem with government changes in general. how come to switch from what democratic form of government (republic) to another (democracy), needs a revolt that lasts several years? this may sound extreme, but couldnt they just, oh, i dont know... vote on it?

Jaybe · May 4, 2003, 14:08

bobbo, who even knows how much corruption there is in Wisconsin or Las Vegas??

The only guides we have are rumor, innuendo and the occasional trial.

Regarding government changes, I consider it to be a game balance thing. Besides, it also affects the AI civs.

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 5, 2003, 10:37

I would say that various histories suggest that there was a LOT of corruption in ancient Rome, most likely a good deal more during the "imperial" and Byzantine periods than there ever was in, say, Tang China... just giving away the lie to the traits chosen in Civ for those two cultures (although, corruption aside, there are certainly good reasons for Rome to be commercial)

Arrian · May 5, 2003, 11:15

[Threadjack]
The traits for China are screwy because they weren't originally going to put the Mongols in the game, and thus added militaristic & the Rider to China to represent them. I'd have China as either Ind/Sci or Comm/Sci. No idea what the UU should have been.

Rome should have been left as Industrious/Militaristic. Give the legionary the ability to build roads & make forts too... and now we're talkin' It's ROME, for goodnesssake! They're supposed to be hardcore.
[/Threadjack]

-Arrian

Yahweh Sabaoth · May 5, 2003, 11:25

[Deepening of the threadjack]

Gotta disagree with you on both points... true, the Mongol mounted warriors were stunning, but China's were pretty damn incredible too... of course, not at the time when the pre-Golden Horde swept over the middle kingdom, of course

but in general, top-notch. And such cool armor!

As for Rome... well, Rome was an empire to be reckoned with. But far less so than it's often given credit for. The fact that Rome is often treated as the empire to be pre-industrial era is due to the richness of writing its historians and military tacticians left behind, IMO. Plus, the numerous wonderful dramas that have come to us through the ages, largely through Christianity and the works of Shakespeare, Gibbon, etc...

...but overall, an often incohesive empire, especially in the post-Julian era! Wonderfully decadent, though...

Jaybe · May 5, 2003, 13:36

Quote:

... Give the legionary the ability to build roads & make forts too...

But according to what we have read, the AI will not assign a unit any worker jobs unless it is capable of performing ALL worker jobs!

I suppose we'll just have to play the Romans ourselves.