creating custom "provinciae"/governorships

[Abirami aka Pete]

as of now, territories are grouped in default provinces, and provinces are collected in default regions to which you appoint a governor. this leads to two problems:
1. if you conquer even a single territory in a neighboring region, you must appoint governor -- which is a bit ridiculous at times
2. you loose some of the political and administrative significance that went with the establishment of (roman) provinces

I propose to introduce the creation of governorship implemented like this:

1. after a given threshold of territories (or, even better, pops), the player gets a decision that establishes a governorship ("provincia"), paying a given amount of political influence and/or gold (just like cities and metropolis)
2. the player selects which provinces (or territories, if we want to be more granular) will make up the new governorship -- possibly using the interface of the peace deals
3. to avoid "abuse" one should have a minimum and a maximum size -- I think the size should be in terms of pops (I would accept territories too, but pops make more sense --- see this post by @Chlodio)

mechanics/modifiers
I think the two biggest advantages from establishing a governorship ("provincia") should be in terms of unrest/happiness and tax revenues. so for instance:
1. the isolated province loyalty modifier could be erased if the province is within a governorship (or even be supplanted by a small bonus)
2. unrest could be reduced by 20-30%
3. taxes or population output could be increased by 10-20%

as I imagine it, adding this feature of establishing governorships would replicate the historical process pretty well: the biggest incentives would be to create ones when you conquer a huge chunk of territory inhabited mostly by unintegrated peoples, where unrest and disloyalty may be a problem and/or in rich regions where it is worth to invest in order to extract more revenues

lastly: after you define threshold of pops/territories above which the "establish governor" decision is available, then I would eliminate already existing governorships from the count

 

[IsaacCAT]

I like the idea to make the world more ad hoc to the player game, but how are you going to integrate missions that use historical regions? We are loosing some immersion here.

Can we have both?

 

[Abirami aka Pete]

I guess that:
- as long as a mission requires to conquer a specific area, that it can be expressed using provinces/specific territories (much like when you form a new nation), and then after the conquest part of the mission may require to establish a governorship in the area
- same for "pearl of XYX" type of mission, it can apply to specific provinces/territories or actually becoming available only after you establish a new governorship

 

[Abirami aka Pete]

another thing: much like the governorships I described above, I would give the player the ability to determine what provinces are under direct central rule (like now when consul/king is governor of the "home region"). the relevant modifier would be happiness for nobles/citizens and/or integrated cultures (or the primary culture even)

 

[Bovrick]

Another advantage of hardcoded regions is that it would prevent bordergore Provinces. Even with contiguity requirements I can see the optimal way to play to be creating weird-looking provinces to cheese game mechanics (eg making extremely long Provinces with their Capitals about a core, so enemies cannot capture the food supply without passing through a massive amount of enemy territory).

It's a nice idea, but hard to really implement without opening up a lot of BS tactics I fear.

EDIT: As always, a Control mechanic based on Distances from Capitals would always be helpful though...

 

[IsaacCAT]

another thing: much like the governorships I described above, I would give the player the ability to determine what provinces are under direct central rule (like now when consul/king is governor of the "home region"). the relevant modifier would be happiness for nobles/citizens and/or integrated cultures (or the primary culture even)

Another advantage of hardcoded regions is that it would prevent bordergore Provinces. Even with contiguity requirements I can see the optimal way to play to be creating weird-looking provinces to cheese game mechanics (eg making extremely long Provinces with their Capitals about a core, so enemies cannot capture the food supply. without passing through a massive amount of enemy territory).

It's a nice idea, but hard to really implement without opening up a lot of BS tactics I fear.

This is similar to Stellaris Sectors. It is a long time since I played in Stellaris, but I remember that there were some limitations on sectors "geography". We could have the same on I:R, the sector capital should not have more than X distance to all its territories, max of POPs, etc...

 

[Abirami aka Pete]

Another advantage of hardcoded regions is that it would prevent bordergore Provinces. Even with contiguity requirements I can see the optimal way to play to be creating weird-looking provinces to cheese game mechanics (eg making extremely long Provinces with their Capitals about a core, so enemies cannot capture the food supply without passing through a massive amount of enemy territory).

It's a nice idea, but hard to really implement without opening up a lot of BS tactics I fear.

EDIT: As always, a Control mechanic based on Distances from Capitals would always be helpful though...

I might be wrong, but aren't you referring to the provincial food supply (and capitals)? I don't think that governorships and their capitals would affect this aspect of the game

 

[Bovrick]

I might be wrong, but aren't you referring to the provincial food supply (and capitals)? I don't think that governorships and their capitals would affect this aspect of the game

Having control over only Provinces rather than Territories would get rid of that particular problem, yeah. That particular example was about having the ability to reshape which Territories are in a particular Province, which presumably would be a natural side-effect of allowing the selection of particular Territories in a Governorship.

 

[IsaacCAT]

I guess that:
- as long as a mission requires to conquer a specific area, that it can be expressed using provinces/specific territories (much like when you form a new nation), and then after the conquest part of the mission may require to establish a governorship in the area
- same for "pearl of XYX" type of mission, it can apply to specific provinces/territories or actually becoming available only after you establish a new governorship

Agreed.

On this subject, I was thinking for a geographical and administrative organization, i.e., the historical regions names could remain the same but your empire and other nations empires organization could have different administrative units.

For example, one governor will have part of Italia and Magna Grecia while the "governorship" is connected by land, it has a maximum number of POPs, etc...

I think, the main point of limiting governors was the need to have disloyal characters through base power. But, it is more powerful if we make group of characters disloyal pooling their base power. This way, you do not need to limit the number of governors and you are only paying more money in salaries if that is what you want.

 

[Ares Enyalios]

I agree, that's a good and meaningful idea.

I disagree with the Pops though. I read the arguments in the other thread but many great empires through history consisted of relativly little pops compared to the size and were more powerfull than regions that are more populous.

Carthago for example was equal or even more powerful than Rome for a long time but modern Tunesia had around a 1/10 of the population than Italy, not to speak of the military potential.

The most important factor in ancient and medieval times is the ratio of population that could fight and the logistics too field those fighters. Rome with its conscription could field over 10 % of its population, which is the closest thing you can get until the mass conscription of the napoleonic wars. Most of the ancient and medieval societies could field 1-3 % of their population if even that.

If pops are the limit than a Metropolis like Rome would become it's own Province.

 

[Abirami aka Pete]

I agree, that's a good and meaningful idea.

I disagree with the Pops though. I read the arguments in the other thread but many great empires through history consisted of relativly little pops compared to the size and were more powerfull than regions that are more populous.

Carthago for example was equal or even more powerful than Rome for a long time but modern Tunesia had around a 1/10 of the population than Italy, not to speak of the military potential.

The most important factor in ancient and medieval times is the ratio of population that could fight and the logistics too field those fighters. Rome with its conscription could field over 10 % of its population, which is the closest thing you can get until the mass conscription of the napoleonic wars. Most of the ancient and medieval societies could field 1-3 % of their population if even that.

If pops are the limit than a Metropolis like Rome would become it's own Province.

You're right indeed, I see your point!

 

[Quimera]

Most of the ancient and medieval societies could field 1-3 % of their population if even that.

Well, that wasn't because they didn't want but they couldn't because they lack the resources and it was expensive to gear up a big army, of course, that citizen, freemen and plebs had their own equipment, but not until some state get so big like Rome, get so many resources by trade like Carthage or Athens, or to the modern state using more and cheaper weapons to manufacture, that really some state could assemble to her own citizen with the state treasury.

 

[Ares Enyalios]

Well, that wasn't because they didn't want but they couldn't because they lack the resources and it was expensive to gear up a big army, of course, that citizen, freemen and plebs had their own equipment, but not until some state get so big like Rome, get so many resources by trade like Carthage or Athens, or to the modern state using more and cheaper weapons to manufacture, that really some state could assemble to her own citizen with the state treasury.

Money is not the main factor, society is. Women, Elderly, Children, slaves usually don't fight. That way you have theoretically roughly 15 % manpower per population. After that your society matters. In terms of Money Athens or Carthage would have been able to field similar large armies than the romans, but they didn't since only certain population groups were allowed or willing to fight. If only citizens are allowed in the real army than it matters if your citizenships is more limited or more flexibil. Another point is the pressure to enlist. Rome with it's conscription was certainly very effective since they could act like lemmings and loose vast number of armies when the loss of one or two armies usually meant losing a war for the most ancient states.

Another good example are nomad societies. In contrast to the most warrior societies which had a very low percentage of population that would usually fight, in most nomad societies most of the male population would be able to fight as they practice hunting and most of the women would have basic skills in that regard to at least defend their home. Despite having one of the highest rates of mobilization, money is not an essential factor for their success.

Edit: By the way: Mass manufacturing wasn't a thing until late antiquity according to the sources Diocletian startet it. In the Late Republic citizens received money to buy armour, they most of the time didn't receive armour. Huge fabricae to make armour don't happen in that time. Armour is made by a lot but still individual smiths. Especially in the early and middle republic when Rome was in wars with Greeks and Carthaginians, the people had to buy their own stuff or receive spoils of war.

 

[Quimera]

Bro, again, you don't explain me or show me anything I hadn't already know, when about resources we are speaking it is not about money, but the bronze, iron, woods and animals needed to assemble an army. and for that, you needed a lot and vast dominions and like routes, overall not to mention a merchant marine to transport the foods and gears to the soldiers, or the treasuries and captured slaves, etc...

Carthage could have at her peak a population of 750.000 people, only fit for war 20-25% per cent, for all of that you need to be a prosperous city in an advantageous location and a lot of urbanization.

Look at minute 4:54

And now let compare this to a medieval army:

Let use a "gamey" term, the levies that give you a city centralized it is not the same that would give you villages of lands with poor and plebs, it was hard because technology had gone backwards there.

 

[Ares Enyalios]

Bro, again, you don't explain me or show me anything I hadn't already know, when about resources we are speaking it is not about money, but the bronze, iron, woods and animals needed to assemble an army. and for that, you needed a lot and vast dominions and like routes, overall not to mention a merchant marine to transport the foods and gears to the soldiers, or the treasuries and captured slaves, etc...

I mainly critizised your point that basically put Athens, Carthage on Rome on one level and you related that to money, ressources etc. which is certainly not the key factor as i wrote, since those things don't explain why Rome could muster so much more man per population. For all it's worth Athens and Carthage were richer than Rome at their peaks and still didn't manage to afford losing an army. All your assumptions are technically based on the High Imperial Army which needed that much logistics.

In the time those nations fought their conflicts in the 5-3th century BC you had no standarts in equipment etc. The soldiers went to their army with whatever they could buy or loot. Essentially a tiny piece of metal on the chest and any kind of helmet was enough. The Legionary, the italic or northafrican soldier was really low tech. Look at the numidians for once.
Of course you could look at the Sacred Band, a comparably small unit that was probably well equiped despite the fact that we don't really know much about it, but that doesn't represent the Carthaginian Army. In fact we don't know much about their equipment. The full mail-armour we see in your videos are an assumption for Hannibals army that included Gauls that were famous for it. Further it was an army of veterans that looted entire battlefields. They didn't get equipment from organized routes etc. It was an ad-hoc army at that point and most armies fought like that.

And again, you don't need that much ressources. Nomads were comparably poor and needed only a few horses and what they needed for hunting anyway to field a huge size of their population while a celtic tribe that had a lot more wealth could only field tiny amounts of warriors.

At last your 20-25 % of theoretical population to field of the carthaginians is of course missleading because it reality much of them were socially excluded from serving resulting in probably less than 3 % of population fit for serving, as other comparable societies could.

You spread a lot of missconceptions that is why i responded.

To finalize: In the timeframe of Imperator you don't need that much of organization, ressources and supplies. You basically need the manpower and enough supplies to keep you on the move for 2 weeks, after that it's bascially plundering and gaining local support. How else could the Armies of Alexander, the Diadochy Armies of Demetrios, Pyrrhos, Hannibal etc. survive when they were most of the time totally cut from their homebase. There was no steady stream of supplies. That's High Imperial Organization.