Change the government without a revolution

[JPierreD]

Sometimes politic systems change without bloodshed. You can put morale and/or productivity penalties, but is it really needed that people stage a fake revolution if they want to change from Monarchy to Tyranny, or Republic?

Example: A Monarch accepts reforms and gives away power.

[egamma]

Sometimes politic systems change without bloodshed. You can put morale and/or productivity penalties, but is it really needed that people stage a fake revolution if they want to change from Monarchy to Tyranny, or Republic?

Example: A Monarch accepts reforms and gives away power.

Any ruler can change the election system from "elected once" to "elected monthly" and so forth. It will remain a monarchy in name only.

Values can be changed for each of the four positions, as well as how to select lords for imperial regions.

[Shenron]

Any ruler can change the election system from "elected once" to "elected monthly" and so forth. It will remain a monarchy in name only.

Values can be changed for each of the four positions, as well as how to select lords for imperial regions.

This desparately needs to change imho.

[JPierreD]

So you can turn a Monarchy into a Democracy while maintaining the name of a Monarchy? Why not being able to simply change it in name too, without a revolution?

[Indirik]

There are certain underlying characteristics to the government styles that cannot be changed. These thread through the game in many ways that are both public knowledge, and still undiscovered. For example, monarchies and theocracies get a daily stat bonus to the region the ruler is in. Even if you change all positions to monthly elections, switch tot he republican title system, and pretend to be a republic, you will still get the ruler/region stat bonus. And you will not get the bonuses/penalties associated with republics.

[Chenier]

There are certain underlying characteristics to the government styles that cannot be changed. These thread through the game in many ways that are both public knowledge, and still undiscovered. For example, monarchies and theocracies get a daily stat bonus to the region the ruler is in. Even if you change all positions to monthly elections, switch tot he republican title system, and pretend to be a republic, you will still get the ruler/region stat bonus. And you will not get the bonuses/penalties associated with republics.

Yes, we know that, we know what the consequences of not being able to switch are.

But why? I don't particularly dislike the restriction, as I find the government settings too easy to switch and would not want rulers to change fundamental traits on a whim, but I find it inconsistent that this trait be so difficult to change while the rest is so easy.

[Indirik]

Yes, we know that, we know what the consequences of not being able to switch are.

Yes, I figured you did. But I would bet there are others, like JPierreD for one, who did not know that. (I'm going based on what he said in his last post.) Thus, I explain it. Because if I don't, then someone will invariably point to my partial explanation later on, and complain that I didn't give a full explanation. So sometimes you experience people have to listen to a little bit of remedial explanation. Deal.

But why? I don't particularly dislike the restriction, as I find the government settings too easy to switch and would not want rulers to change fundamental traits on a whim, but I find it inconsistent that this trait be so difficult to change while the rest is so easy.

Two reasons:
1) Tom does not want realms to be able to change the underlying government styles too easily. There should be massive upheaval in a realm when such fundamental changes to a government system happen. The rebellion option is supposed to be that upheaval.
2) The government options that you can change are part of a system that was only partially implemented. It was never finished, thus all the logic, restrictions, etc., that should be behind it, aren't. I don't know if it will ever get finished. It's not exactly at the top of the list.

[JPierreD]

Indeed I didn't know, and the information is very appreciated.

[Chenier]

2) The government options that you can change are part of a system that was only partially implemented. It was never finished, thus all the logic, restrictions, etc., that should be behind it, aren't. I don't know if it will ever get finished. It's not exactly at the top of the list.

I wish it was somewhere up there. Governance is what sets realms apart, and what sets realms apart is the spice of life in BM.

[Tom]

I've been dreaming about and making sketches and writing up concepts about better government systems, and setting them apart, etc. for many years.

Unfortunately, that's yet another major project.

[Revan]

I find the government settings too easy to switch and would not want rulers to change fundamental traits on a whim, but I find it inconsistent that this trait be so difficult to change while the rest is so easy.

Easy isn't the word I'd use to describe it. As ruler, you can exile the Duke of your capital, but that doesn't mean you should or can do it on a whim. The same thing goes for changing government settings.

Every time I've changed government settings, I've met fierce opposition and had it become a focal point for loud opposition to my rule. In one case, even mooting the idea of change got such a bad hearing I'd probably have faced rebellion. Any Ruler might be able to push those buttons, but I reckon it's a rare realm were they can get away with it lightly.

I'd probably go the other way and say that it makes it harder to change things. Especially those realms where they've changed to elections when before appointments or elect once used to be the norm. Everyone's a democrat.

[Chenier]

Easy isn't the word I'd use to describe it. As ruler, you can exile the Duke of your capital, but that doesn't mean you should or can do it on a whim. The same thing goes for changing government settings.

Every time I've changed government settings, I've met fierce opposition and had it become a focal point for loud opposition to my rule. In one case, even mooting the idea of change got such a bad hearing I'd probably have faced rebellion. Any Ruler might be able to push those buttons, but I reckon it's a rare realm were they can get away with it lightly.

I'd probably go the other way and say that it makes it harder to change things. Especially those realms where they've changed to elections when before appointments or elect once used to be the norm. Everyone's a democrat.

I've never seen significant resistance to government changes.

[Shenron]

I've never seen significant resistance to government changes.

Especially when moving toward more democratic forms of government.

[Chenier]

Especially when moving toward more democratic forms of government.

Mostly. I'd concur the shifts to more autocratic governments were the consequences of a strong group spearheading the change and imposing themselves on others, though.

[Revan]

A rebellion started in Bara'Khur because of my fiddling and suggestions of further changes to the government system. Turns out a clique thought I was trying to freeze them out ;-) Honestly, I wish it was as easy as you two make it sound. Changing the government system is an open invitation for ambitious/seditious individuals to crawl out of the woodwork. I'm surprised that others have seen government changes get such easy rides.