Republic military gpt....

[Gogf]

how did you come to such a conclusion? Ceasar was famous for WINNING the publics AFFECTION, AND SUPPORT!- the mand even left forty bucks to every citizen in Roman republic in his will!

there is also the fact that he kept the senate around, and FOLLOWED THE REPUBLICAN CONSTITUION!- if anything the reign of ceasar as dictator for (the position was first apponted by the senate I might add) as well as the previous civil war, and the ensuing civil war between Octavian, and Antony is equivilent of the period of anarchy in between govenments- NOT a despotism

Yes, but he WAS a dictator, he may have been loved, but he was officially a dictator. Also, yes in Civ3 Anarchy is in between, but in reality Rome was not in arachy when Caesar was in control (because that makes no sence). He left the nation to Octavian, who was not his son, so he was not a Monarch. Also, according to the Roman constitution, there must be two rulers (or consuls) and they cannot rule forever. He alway MAY have kept the senate, but the other facts overule this, to make him a dictator (look at Hitler, he was elected, are you now going to say that he was not a dictator?).

Also, I am NOT saying that Rome was a despotism. I AM saying that Caesar was a dictator (like Horatius was a dictator), who was (probably) going to become king.

 

[Gogf]

Also, you said that NO Romans ruled until they died. Caesar did.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Title does not have anything to do with govements in the games.

Civ-like Desportism assumes very poor economy due to highly oppresive rule.

Ceasar rules looks more like Monarchy, if not Republic.

 

[Gogf]

True, but he was a dictator, that is all I am saying. I am NOT saying it was a despotism.

 

[zookman12]

rome was fun wasn't it.... civ3 is a pretty fun game isn't it... i want conquest get a mac

 

[zookman12]

eh you don't ave 'ny good quotes, do ya Gogf?

 

[Gogf]

So, I think there should be a "Caesaran Dictatorship"/"Horatian Dictatorship" in civ3.

And welcome to CFC Zookman12. But please try to keep your posts relative.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Gogf


Yes, but he WAS a dictator, he may have been loved, but he was officialy a dictator. Also, yes in Civ3 Anarchy is in between, but in reality Rome was not in arachy when Caesar was in control (because that makes no sence). He left the nation to Octavian, who was not his son, so he was not a Monarch. Also, according to the Roman constitution, there must be two rulers (or consuls) and they cannot rule forever. He alway MAY have kept the senate, but the other facts overule this, to make him a dictator (look at Hitler, he was elected, are you now going to say that he was not a dictator?).

Also, I am NOT saying that Rome was a despotism. I AM saying that Caesar was a dictator (like Horatius was a dictator), who was (probably) going to become king.

Caesar would NOT have become a "king"- the Romans would not have stood for it.

sorry if I seem argumentative about the topic, but this is how i choose to put my information- please dont tke it persoanlly, as i have noticed other posters do.

A)I said that SULLA had not died while being dictator

B)Caesar keptthe rublican constitution- therefore no matter what, Ceasar was acting as the sole head of the rublic- compleatelly legalally I might might add, according to the Roman constitution.

C)as working in the best interest of the people (as well as himself, but it was because the masses benifited the he was so popular) he was the choosen representitive of the people

D)the fact that tribunes were able to keep thire powers says ALOT in favor of Caesar- the other non elected (althoug caesar was put into his postition by the senate, but lets face, it, if the peoplke had not supported him, it woul dnot have happend)not onle stripped away the tribual powers, but also suppresd the rights of the plebians in general!

 

[Xen]

ther eis also the fact that the people even allowing a dicatateor speaks VOLUMES about the fact that they themsleves veiwed the republic in a time of general wearness, if not an all out emergency- the attempt to stabailze by initiating the two triumverates is the attempt to alievite the problem before civil war, but we see how that worked out.

 

[Gogf]

Okay, Xen, let's just say that we disagree. At least we agree on cataphracts . So, let's try to bring this back to rebulic gpt. We can always start a new thread on Caesar...

 

[patronr383]

back on topic: the issue of republic military support has pretty much been answered. early on in the post we all wanted to know how it would be balanced. at least i did thats why i started this thread. we know now that the republic gets a new support per city whiuch i feel is a great addittion to the already mighty republic governemnt. im pretty sure, whether we like it or not, that the republic is the best. by far.

that being said and out of the way, i seriously still think that if you look at all the republocs in history, they had a ilitary machine. the republic is not a peacetime government. we all know this. thats why it should have support per city and maybe a 1 gpt for any additional units, up to 20 units. after 20 every unit could be 2 gpt. and after 40 it should be 3 gpt per unit, so on and so forth. this would be the best way to do it.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Gogf
Okay, Xen, let's just say that we disagree. At least we agree on cataphracts . So, let's try to bring this back to rebulic gpt. We can always start a new thread on Caesar...

it would be neat if the mods could just seperate the posts pretainign to every ones favorite conqouror of france () and ship em' on down to the history forum...

 

[StabbingNirvana]

well, back to the game and getting out of history. fascism would be an awesome government if you wanted to cleanse your nation of enemy skum population that will drag down the happiness of your citizens. switching to it for a little while, building up your infrastructure and turning back to another gov is what fascism is all about. all your empire would be unified and everyone will be happy. it aint so bad if your sadistic in the video game is it?

 

[Daarkseid]

Originally posted by StabbingNirvana
well, back to the game and getting out of history. fascism would be an awesome government if you wanted to cleanse your nation of enemy skum population that will drag down the happiness of your citizens. switching to it for a little while, building up your infrastructure and turning back to another gov is what fascism is all about. all your empire would be unified and everyone will be happy. it aint so bad if your sadistic in the video game is it?

The single greatest reason to get conquests, in my opinion, is for a Fascist government that makes sense. To hell with foreign nationalist scum!

I'll be using Fascism to bring the greatness that is my people's rule and my people's culture unto the uncivilised or decadent masses. Hail Victory!

 

[StabbingNirvana]

seriously though, the fascist gov WILL rule over all. its the smartest thing to do while in a war, or even after the war. but on the republics 2 gpu (gold per unit), they might as well just take out the extra gold brought in and lower the 2gpu to 1gpu. that or higher the commerce bonus to 2 extra gold or 3 extra gold.

 

[ChrTh]

On the one hand, more SGs will be in Monarchy until the Industrial Age. On the other hand, have you seen the gpt you can pull in during the Industrial and Modern Ages, especially as a Republic? I guarantee you that the change will only delay the arrival of Republic, not eliminate it.

[Digression, as I do have a degree in Classical Civilization: The Roman constitution permitted 'dictators', in which sole state authority was invested in one individual for six months, in order to deal with crises. Mr. Julius decided that 6 months wasn't enough, so he made it a year...and then perpetua (until death)...which came shortly thereafter; however, one must not confuse Caesar (or other Roman Republic or Classical Greek dictators) with what we commonly refer to as dictators, as the term has evolved to include nefarious evil people, which while present beforehand, didn't excel at it as later people did. As for Augustus, the first 'Emperor', one must be careful; he wasn't an emperor, the correct term is princeps, which means 'First Citizen'. To couch it in modern terms, assume one individual was, simultaneously, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, President of the United States (encompassing Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief), and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That's Augustus; he (and his followers until the 3rd century) all operated within the Roman constitution to be the Top Dog. The real Emperors didn't emerge until the late 3rd century (after a period of anarchy when I'm sure they were welcomed). More importantly, though, Augustus could've ended the Empire by not naming a successor (although at his death I'm sure someone would've made a go at it). He did, however; this leading to the evolution of an Emperor figure. The various clowns that followed him didn't help matters.
And for fun today, look in the U.S. Constitution and see if you can find a prohibition against what I analogized above.]