Random Republican Election

[Markusmiless]

When playing as a Republic there are little flavor and when it comes to election it's always the same three options for potential candidates:
4/1/1
1/4/1
1/1/4

Which I suppose is fair in a sense as that makes republic able to pick what type of Monarch Points is needed, except the AI don't priorities mil power when behind in mil tech or in need of a specific MP.
It also doesn't help that during the course of 377 years not a single candidate (ignoring starting rulers or specific date) is more competent or less than the next and always have 6 points in total in their stats.
While this was introduced a while back it never came to use except for monarchies:
max_random_adm, max_random_dip & max_random_mil which put a maximum on a stat of the respective stat.

It wouldn't be hard to change the election event to something give a choice of a ruler with 3 min in strongest category & 2 max in the weakest.
This could give about any ruler but the leader would still have at most 6/2/2, 2/6/2 or 2/2/6 and at worst 3/0/0, 0/3/0 or 0/0/3
This would give some varied choice on who to pick as if you want a skilled militarist you could get one quickly or maybe only a decent one and as maybe it's better to pick a more decent 3/2/2 than a 1/0/6?

This would in short make it so that the following happens:

1. If the player needs a certain stat they need to pick the corresponding ruler (like before)
2. Make the republic rulers weaker and stronger at different times (more random but controlled randomness)
3. Give more variations to the rulers
4. Still keeping the republic to its strength (an administrative ruler is never bad in ADM)

Some other ideas improve the Republics would be welcome as this is just my idea on how to improve it (the Republic has arguably become worse with patches thus it may need a bit of a boost)

 

[cub298]

When playing as a Republic there are little flavor and when it comes to election it's always the same three options for potential candidates:
4/1/1
1/4/1
1/1/4

Which I suppose is fair in a sense as that makes republic able to pick what type of Monarch Points is needed, except the AI don't priorities mil power when behind in mil tech or in need of a specific MP.
It also doesn't help that during the course of 377 years not a single candidate (ignoring starting rulers or specific date) is more competent or less than the next and always have 6 points in total in their stats.
While this was introduced a while back it never came to use except for monarchies:
max_random_adm, max_random_dip & max_random_mil which put a maximum on a stat of the respective stat.

It wouldn't be hard to change the election event to something give a choice of a ruler with 3 min in strongest category & 2 max in the weakest.
This could give about any ruler but the leader would still have at most 6/2/2, 2/6/2 or 2/2/6 and at worst 3/0/0, 0/3/0 or 0/0/3
This would give some varied choice on who to pick as if you want a skilled militarist you could get one quickly or maybe only a decent one and as maybe it's better to pick a more decent 3/2/2 than a 1/0/6?

This would in short make it so that the following happens:

1. If the player needs a certain stat they need to pick the corresponding ruler (like before)
2. Make the republic rulers weaker and stronger at different times (more random but controlled randomness)
3. Give more variations to the rulers
4. Still keeping the republic to its strength (an administrative ruler is never bad in ADM)

Some other ideas improve the Republics would be welcome as this is just my idea on how to improve it (the Republic has arguably become worse with patches thus it may need a bit of a boost)

I really would love republics to end up with more randomized rulers. Having the same or similar stats is just not at fun. It should be a choice to chose a ruler with a high stat with one of the three categories, with the others being lower but also random. Other then that, it should be it. You could also not be able to see the ruler stats until you bring them into power, just all you would know is where they are focused in. I would say that would be a bit better too if that was added as well.

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

Wondering if there would be a way to make elections in republics more player involved, rather than just one event and done. Perhaps election events with a popularity slider and the events increase/decrease your and your rival's popularity. Foreign nations could get involved by funding a faction and if that faction wins then increase relations?

 

[grommile]

I humbly submit that the extreme predictability is the point of republics.

 

[Markusmiless]

I humbly submit that the extreme predictability is the point of republics.

That's true in a sense but by having this system it's basically saying "Every republic ever had either a military genius who was worthless in administrative and diplomatic tasks, a diplomatic genius who was worthless in administrative and military tasks or an administrative genius who was worthless in diplomatic and military tasks" which is obviously untrue.

With my idea it would still be predictable which stat is the highest but the stats wouldn't be well the same all the time.

 

[DDRJake]

Gameplay wise, Republics are supposed to be the "overall weaker but more controllable/stable" choice. This isn't likely to change in the near future.

 

[cub298]

Gameplay wise, Republics are supposed to be the "overall weaker but more controllable/stable" choice. This isn't likely to change in the near future.

no offence, but the Republic leaders should have a bit of randomness. I am fine with most of the time them being at the stats what they currently have, but I would like to at least see some variation of some leaders being stronger, overall in some categories, and weaker in others.

 

[Golladan]

The randomness would have the player pick the best leader, though. Unless the stats were hidden like the Theocracy heirs.

 

[PurpulaPhoenixum53]

The randomness nation would have the player pick the best leader, though. Unless the stats were hidden like the Theocracy heirs.

Good point.

 

[Grand Historian]

Gameplay wise, Republics are supposed to be the "overall weaker but more controllable/stable" choice. This isn't likely to change in the near future.

Ironic that the government type that historically didn't get to have much control over it's ruler's upbringing and rise to power is the one that has the most control over their capabilities, no?

 

[Timewalker102]

Gameplay wise, Republics are supposed to be the "overall weaker but more controllable/stable" choice. This isn't likely to change in the near future.

If you look at the maths of what @Markusmiless suggests, republics are still slightly weaker but way more controllable.

 

[Markusmiless]

With this a few things is important to take in note.

The most obvious ones are that before the strengths of the republic was that you could avoid regencies, which Theocracies can as well.
You could pick a ruler and thus not have too bad stats as opposed to a Monarchy who can now disinherit their heir or get rid of the ruler if it's a lackluster 0/0/1 or something similar.
You get the queen regent with the same dlc which removes the regency weakness of a monarchy, making it similar to a republic but without election.
Ruler personalities benefit full rule more as you get the first instantly, the second after 10 years of ruling (3 re-elections) (2 re-elections as Peasant and Aministrative Republics) and the third after 25 years of ruling (9 re-elections which is a lot of lost Republican Tradition) (it's only 5 re-elections as a Peasant Republic or a Administrative Republic but still a lot lost Republican Tradition)

Stability cost of a republic increase tremendously as each point of lost Republican Tradition is 2% extra stability cost modifier (which stacks up fast when re-electing which is the best way to mana-farm)

The republic can still re-elect to get 50 random monarch points for the ruler and can be done a lot which is still a strength (while also improving the ruler).
Now with strengthen government you could re-elect two times and hopefully get 100 mil power and strengthen government (indirect boost).

Now without RoM it's a bit better compared to the Monarchy but if you have Common Sense it's still a Theocracy to worry about.

The theocracy have no regencies either, get's a 25% tax boost, 12,5% Church Power, 1 Yearly Papal Influence and 1 yearly prestige which all combined is very strong.
It's also relatively easy to increase devotion as you only need boost stability once and if you have any power projection it'll increase (plus there are events with good bonuses and that can give devotion).
The only drawback comes once you reach 50 devotion in which you get the reverse bonuses.
You can also, possibly not WAD, make your heir into a general (even if you can't make your ruler into one except if you're a Monastic Order) which upon death gives you a new heir. Giving you more or less free generals without the Cossacks dlc and with no drawback except that you could get a worse heir.
There also been fewer and fewer republics as the patches go, both losing the Noble Republic (being a monarchy and disaster exclusive) and due to estates Merchant Republic is overall less useful as other nation can get a reliable 20% Trade Efficiency with better Trade power in provinces thanks to the Burgher estate.
Now without any dlc the Republic isn't bad but most dlcs boost monarchies gets boosts (heck in Common Sense the Theocracy is a very good choice).

Now as it stands with fever choices than the Monarchy and most giving slightly worse options than their counterpart (like Dictatorships Morale vs Absolute Monarchy's discipline or extra accepted cultures with Enlightened Despotism vs Lower stab cost and monthly autonomy reduction with Bureaucratic)

Now Res Publica gives full access to the Dutch Republic (apparently considered the strongest republic due to the random rulers I would presume), Merchant Republic (which has sorta lost it's strength), Republican Dictatorship (through re-election but it's arguably at it's strongest early game and not late game) & Elective Monarchy which is immune to regencies, always have an heir and can give free Unions on other nations while being basically immune to PUs itself. So in other words you get the strongest republic with that dlc, even though it doesn't follow the same rules as others, one decent government, one of the worst republics & a good monarchy.

It doesn't help that the Merchant Republic can max have 20 state provinces without losing republican tradition, making it worse than other's even without DLC and without dlc you become a monarchy if you have to low republican tradition.

While little have been done to increase the power of republics before it wasn't needed, before thanks to re-election improving rulers and giving free monarch points it was strong (strongest possibly) but now that you can do the same as any nation (with the Cossacks dlc) it's lost a bit of it's strength even if it's technically slightly better as you could use estate+re-election to gain a lot of MP quickly.

I'm not aware myself of the Metagaming or what's strong in multiplayer but the bonuses from the Republican Governments are quite a bit weaker than Monarchies late game while being either just slightly better or slightly worse early game.

 

[gronak]

Not every election would have the same skilled leaders, sometimes they'd all be bad and sometimes one would be completely incompetent and maybe even the exceptional leader with something on 6.

 

[cub298]

With this a few things is important to take in note.

The most obvious ones are that before the strengths of the republic was that you could avoid regencies, which Theocracies can as well.
You could pick a ruler and thus not have too bad stats as opposed to a Monarchy who can now disinherit their heir or get rid of the ruler if it's a lackluster 0/0/1 or something similar.
You get the queen regent with the same dlc which removes the regency weakness of a monarchy, making it similar to a republic but without election.
Ruler personalities benefit full rule more as you get the first instantly, the second after 10 years of ruling (3 re-elections) and the third after 25 years of ruling (9 re-election which is a lot of lost Republican Tradition)

Stability cost of a republic increase tremendously as each point of lost Republican Tradition is 2% extra stability cost modifier (which stacks up fast when re-electing which is the best way to mana-farm)

The republic can still re-elect to get 50 random monarch points for the ruler and can be done a lot which is still a strength (while also improving the ruler).
Now with strengthen government you could re-elect two times and hopefully get 100 mil power and strengthen government (indirect boost).

Now without RoM it's a bit better compared to the Monarchy but if you have Common Sense it's still a Theocracy to worry about.

The theocracy have no regencies either, get's a 25% tax boost, 12,5% Church Power, 1 Yearly Papal Influence and 1 yearly prestige which all combined is very strong.
It's also relatively easy to increase devotion as you only need boost stability once and if you have any power projection it'll increase (plus there are events with good bonuses and that can give devotion).
The only drawback comes once you reach 50 devotion in which you get the reverse bonuses.
You can also, possibly not WAD, make your heir into a general (even if you can't make your ruler into one except if you're a Monastic Order) which upon death gives you a new heir. Giving you more or less free generals without the Cossacks dlc and with no drawback except that you could get a worse heir.
There also been fewer and fewer republics as the patches go, both losing the Noble Republic (being a monarchy and disaster exclusive) and due to estates Merchant Republic is overall less useful as other nation can get a reliable 20% Trade Efficiency with better Trade power in provinces thanks to the Burgher estate.
Now without any dlc the Republic isn't bad but most dlcs boost monarchies gets boosts (heck in Common Sense the Theocracy is a very good choice).

Now as it stands with fever choices than the Monarchy and most giving slightly worse options than their counterpart (like Dictatorships Morale vs Absolute Monarchy's discipline or extra accepted cultures with Enlightened Despotism vs Lower stab cost and monthly autonomy reduction with Bureaucratic)

Now Res Publica gives full access to the Dutch Republic (apparently considered the strongest republic due to the random rulers I would presume), Merchant Republic (which has sorta lost it's strength), Republican Dictatorship (through re-election but it's arguably at it's strongest early game and not late game) & Elective Monarchy which is immune to regencies, always have an heir and can give free Unions on other nations while being basically immune to PUs itself. So in other words you get the strongest republic with that dlc, even though it doesn't follow the same rules as others, one decent government, one of the worst republics & a good monarchy.

It doesn't help that the Merchant Republic can max have 20 state provinces without losing republican tradition, making it worse than other's even without DLC and without dlc you become a monarchy if you have to low republican tradition.

While little have been done to increase the power of republics before it wasn't needed, before thanks to re-election improving rulers and giving free monarch points it was strong (strongest possibly) but now that you can do the same as any nation (with the Cossacks dlc) it's lost a bit of it's strength even if it's technically slightly better as you could use estate+re-election to gain a lot of MP quickly.

I'm not aware myself of the Metagaming or what's strong in multiplayer but the bonuses from the Republican Governments are quite a bit weaker than Monarchies late game while being either just slightly better or slightly worse early game.

Man! All those points there are good and helps us all with understanding. Maybe the 20 provinces could end up being changed to 30. It would also help, with each election, your republic leader could gain a trait, than waiting years and have them basically become a dictator.

The estate argument could just be knocked down because you are limited by provinces anyways, so what would points from them really help you with. You could always just lose RT so that you could gain those points monthly, instead, along with you gaining some benefits from what faction is in charge, to replace the estate. The 100 military points does help with RT though, so some points lost, others gained.

Both some good and bad in those arguments, but I had said some solutions, or added thoughts to it. Would those solutions along with random republican leaders make republics better? Other EU4 players, what do you say?