Maybe we need a special design for a Roman empire, like we have for the Roman Republic. But loosing the benefits of the Republic IMHO, is not worth it to go for the empire. For starting monarchies it definetly is, since not much changes and you get an additionaly idea slot. So my question: is this WAD? I mean, a Republic SHOULD be more efficient since it is a democracy?! Looking at todays China one COULD agrue differently concerning governing efficiency?! On the other hand, I have the oppinion that creating the Empire should have more benefits and be more rewarding than it is at the moment, especially if you play Rome. Combined with the general better and more useful offices of the Republic, the better pop ratios and the time investment to become the empire (civil war etc.) you are just more efficient as a Republic in almost everyhing you do if you take account play time of ~270 years. In general, laws of the Empire are just inferior (check the wiki if you want a comparison) except for the assimilation law (which I don't think is that useful anymore or at least needed). Having claim cost reduce by 50% is huge if one wants to play expansionist.
Which can be mainly attributed to the Centuriate Assembly law, or better, the lack of an aquivalent in the Empire. So we come to the downsides, which for me is mostly the laws, and their consequences, especially the more PI-intense expansion of the empire.
6000 Roman pops in 560 are ok, I think.Ģ Province investments make up for your initial cost to become the empire including idea picking costs. But still, theaters all over the place are sufficient in my opinion. The assimilation law is very nice to have. Also, the party boni are in my opinion superior compared to stuff a monarchy brings so you. But again, since most candidates are quite useful in Rome and you only need to spend a bit tyranny to get rid of most unwanted ones, this does not make a big difference. Since Approval is almost always a non-issue, I would not count this in too much.Ĭontrol over your heir instead of the next electee is a plus. So we have one idea more compared to the republic.Īpproval is replaced with legitimacy. Expecially considering that they are more spread out in terms of achieving the bonus for matching ideas. Please keep in mind that the valuation is based on my playstyle, which includes almost constant wars, PI maxing and Romanization with the goal to create borders of maximum historical expansion while making every pop I control Roman.Ĥ idea slots are nice. Slightly higher costs for changing governour policies (10%) of plutocracies include Ancient Rome, the pre-World War II Empire of Japan. Less desired pops compared to republic (citizens) A plutocracy is a system of government where the wealthiest people in a. especially concerning claim generationĪ sink for mostly useless inventions (4 points) Vastly inferior laws (except assimilation). You have more control over the next ruler Senate is gone, so you do not need to deal with approval The Roman Empire seems to me inferior in almost all aspects concerning game mechanics compared to the Republic. However, for me it just feels very shallow.
Following Caesars footstepps feels great, taking down democracy and creating a quasi monarchy in Rome. So we have this nice, historical choice to make the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire.
0 kommentar(er)
