REJECTED: Feature Request: Allow rulers to change government type at will

[Dante Silverfire]

Title: Allow Rulers to change Government Type at Will

Summary: Give rulers the option to change the government type of their realm between Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, and Tyranny at the click of a button.

Details: Currently rulers can customize all aspects of their governments. They can change between elections for all 4 council positions and appointments for them. They can decide whether they as ruler have to run in elections and how often. They can determine the titles of all 4 council members of their realm including themselves. They can even choose whether a position is "strong or weak" in power. Rulers can create a Monarchy in everything but name and still have the government type of their realm state "Democracy." This not only doesn't make any sense, it is prohibitively counter-productive towards ease of understanding of game mechanics.

Benefits: Improve simplicity of game mechanics. It allows the visual response given to players to reflect in-game truth and maintain a proper situation. In addition, this prevents situations where new players create a character in a "Republic" but it turns out to actually be a Monarchy. This will prevent these new players from simply leaving the game and being frustrated because they wanted to play in a Republic but ended up in a Monarchy where the ruler names himself "King" and doesn't hold elections. Everything is appointed and nothing of the realm reflects an actual republic. This change also prevents the need to abuse game mechanics in order to change government systems as they currently are. Right now, if I want to change my government system while ruler I have to commit at least 3-step set to abuse game mechanics. 1. Step down as rightful sovereign (objection to realm mergers). 2. Put a "placeholder" ruler into power. 3. Lead a rebellion against this newly appointed ruler and then get rid of their ban after they are kicked out of the realm. Only then can I change the government system.

Possible Exploits: You can trick players in the opposite manner. You could make your realm a Monarchy to attract monarchy players but then run the realm as a Republic. Or any other combination of mismatches. But this is less of a fault of my proposal and more the current system.

[Tom]

No.

This was discussed before.


The closes I will EVER even consider is an idea from a different game where the ruler has the power to shift government type by one "step" ONCE. But that would require a different setup of government systems (among other things, ours aren't on a linear scale).

[Dante Silverfire]

No.

This was discussed before.


The closes I will EVER even consider is an idea from a different game where the ruler has the power to shift government type by one "step" ONCE. But that would require a different setup of government systems (among other things, ours aren't on a linear scale).

So, would I be punished if I were to make a placeholder ruler in order to use a rebellion to change the system?

[Indirik]

If you abuse game mechanics to circumvent game mechanics restrictions, then you may be reported, and possibly punished.

[Chenier]

I like the "new" customability, but if anything, I feel it should be harder to change things, not easier. Though I'd personally think that rebellions should allow for government changes, regardless of whether the ruler abdicates or is overthrown.

[Bedwyr]

What about a reverse rebellion?  Basically scavenge the rebellion code, except the Ruler starts it and is treated as the "rebelling" faction.  If the Ruler's faction succeeds in holding control of the capital, then he gets to pick a new government, and if not, he gets booted and banned just like any other rebel leader.

You'll either have to slaughter all the militia in the capital, or convince the Margrave of the capital to get rid of all the militia even leaving aside any elements that might oppose you (whom the game would make clear would be the legally correct people).  And either way, if you can pull that off I think you deserve a new form of government.

[Draco Tanos]

Now that's an interesting idea.  Hope Tom would consider it.

[Psyche]

It seems kind of.... stupid.  Unrealistic?

The only way I see a ruler rebellion making ANY sense is for more liberal forms of government becoming more centralized; a republic turning into a monarchy.
Even then, with the governments being so customized, who's to say the monarch isn't less strict than the republic?  Should it only be ruler rebels to institute a tyranny?

Lastly,
Definition of REBELLION

1
: opposition to one in authority or dominance
2
a : open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government
b : an instance of such defiance or resistance


The ruler IS the authority.  Virtually anything they want to customize about the government can be done, except for a few usually seemingly unnoticeable mechanics attributed to certain governments.  It would be easier to just give the ruler a toggle for such features.  Instead of changing from being a monarchy to a republic, just let the ruler click "Allow judge to impeach," or whatever feature you're looking to switch.  With the level of customization that we have now it doesn't really make much sense to differentiate the mechanics of more or less obsolete government systems anyways.

[Dishman]

Wouldn't it make more sense for a ruler who wanted to change things to step down in disgust with how the realm is going...find some patsy to put on the throne, then institute a rebellion on said patsy and change things how he sees fit?

[LilWolf]

I would rather support the ruler having an option to start a special referendum that would give them the power to change the government if it succeeds. If two thirds of the nobles in the realm vote for it then they'd be able to do it.

Because the "only rebellion allows you to change government type" is stupid at best in a society ruled by nobles. If they agree "Hey, we need to be a tyranny" then that's what will happen.

[Chenier]

Most rulers don't have absolute rule... I agree with Bedwyr's suggestion. The ruler's not rebelling against himself, but against the Institution that he represents (and all of the restrictions that are associated with it). He wants to transform the office he holds into something else. 'Cause heck, even if he wants a "free-er" form of government, there is likely a large number of people with comfortable positions thanks to the autocracy that would rather not see this change happen.

[Penchant]

No.

This was discussed before.


The closes I will EVER even consider is an idea from a different game where the ruler has the power to shift government type by one "step" ONCE. But that would require a different setup of government systems (among other things, ours aren't on a linear scale).

Why? The elections are what matters. For instance, D'hara acts a republic but its government system is a monarchy. We have roleplay to go with that, but I am pretty sure they would have changed it to a republic if they could have when its transitioned its elections.

[Chenier]

Why? The elections are what matters. For instance, D'hara acts a republic but its government system is a monarchy. We have roleplay to go with that, but I am pretty sure they would have changed it to a republic if they could have when its transitioned its elections.

At the time, perhaps, but I wouldn't change it today.

[Penchant]

At the time, perhaps, but I wouldn't change it today.

Yeah, that's why I said when it transitioned though I probably could have worded that bit a little better.

[Chenier]

Yeah, that's why I said when it transitioned though I probably could have worded that bit a little better.

Yea, I know. I'm just saying.