The Consul's of Rome

[Paddy]

Please nominate those who you feel should be Consuls of our mighty land

It is the position of the Consul to assist the Emperor in keeping the show on the road

ok, this is sort on detail.... but that can be collected and added to as we move along

[conmcb25]

How are we going to do this?

Are we going to pick a number of consuls and then they pick the emporer?

Or are we going to pick a number of consuls and then all the senators and consuls shall pick an emporer from the consuls?

Or is being a consul going to be separate from being an emporer?

So many questions

So little time

[McMeadows]

the emperor goes by succession following the list in the "the great roll" thread.
The consul thingie isn't all clear to me either. Aren't we all (the senate) advisors to the emperor?

[Modo44]

Well, the original Consul was something like the Prime Minister nowadays. Except there were two of them to add some confusion. Later on, when there was the Empire, the Consuls didn't have much power left.

Since we start in the year 350BC, we could have the Emperor (Consul I) and the Consul (Consul II). So they would actually run the country together, except the Emperor would be the player who gets to move the pieces in-game. Perhaps the two people could have different roles? One would be doing domestic work and the other - military (relying orders through one player). What do you think?

[snoopy369]

I'd suggest having the Consuls have a longer term than the emperor, but still be term-limited. They would have a rolling 40 turn, say, term, with that being offset - ie, the first consul to go would actually go after 20 turns, and then every 40 turns thereafter.

That would allow the consuls to keep the game on a somewhat constant track, allowing for consistency across many Emperors, but still give many people the chance to be consuls.

They could be elected, I suggest, since they're not as vital to the turn-by-turn play, and also since there's more time in-between...

[McMeadows]

I would suggest to flatten the organisation and have a senate advising the emperor and that's it.

[snoopy369]

I think the point of the consuls is to have more coherent discussion directly advising the emperor; the Consuls would represent the Senate's voice to the Emperor. And give a couple more people some degree of control.

[Modo44]

Yeah. And if it should become too tendious, we can say that the Emperor did the Republic -> Empire transition and Consuls suddenly lost all power. Just what happened in Rome at some point.

[McMeadows]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I think the point of the consuls is to have more coherent discussion directly advising the emperor; the Consuls would represent the Senate's voice to the Emperor. And give a couple more people some degree of control.

That's the bull**** that politicians use to support bureacracy, slow decission making and their own position. (no personal offense intended Snoop)

Whoever had something to say (advise) writes it down and the emperor choses which voices to listen to. We'll get a discussion on the long term strategies going in the appropriate thread.

[Paddy]

well actually with the turns down to 5, we actually have no need for Consuls....

just a very strong senate

[snoopy369]

I actually think it would increase the speed of the game. The senate discussions would be mostly on longer term decisions, while the consuls would discuss short-term decisions with the emperor.

I mostly think we would have more people involved this way, and some degree of democratic whatever. With a whole senate, the emperor can basically do whatever he/she wants; somebody on the senate is bound to agree, and the emperor can use that as justification. With only 2 consuls to discuss with, it ... bounds ... the emperor more.

And, Mcmeadows, I have to say that Bureaucracy is something that defines a well-run empire. The best and most long-lasting empires of human history counted it as a strength -- Rome, China as the two biggest examples -- and no remotely long lasting empire didn't have a strong bureaucracy. (Well, I just named the only 2 real long lasting empires, but you get the picture
Without some focus of the senate discussion into a small number of voices, the emperor as i said can just pick whatever voice he already was going to follow ... Making this essentially a succession game, not a democracy-succession game...

[joncnunn]

With 5 turns per Emperor and a Senate, I fail to see the deserability for an offical consul.

Now if an Emperor wants to ask a specific senator(s) advice on his term, he free to do so.

[snoopy369]

How is it a democracy game, then? A 5 turn emperor isn't going to be at the mercy of the senate at all, as far as I'm concerned.

[Modo44]

You have a point. A 5-turn ruling period doesn't give much time to see how the Emperor is doing, because it's over before it even starts. If the Consul doesn't keep him in check, that is.

How about this:
The Emperor would be obligued to consult the Consul on the second and fourth turn of his reign (or only the third turn, to make this faster and put it in the middle of his time frame). The Consul, being the voice of the Senate, would then have the right to veto the Emperors decisions, should they deviate too much from the directions given by the Senate (i.e. chosen in a poll or through an agreement in discussion). On the specified turns the save would have to be posted together with the turn reports the Emperor has to write and he would have to say what his plans for the next turns are. If a Consul says "Veto" to a decision and the Emperor doesn't agree to change it, the save is taken up by the next Emperor, because the current one just lost the trust of the Senate. This would of course require the Consul to be somebody responsible - somebody who won't veto things just for the fun of it.

[snoopy369]

I'd think more that the consul(s, i was thinking 2 based on other people's posts) would discuss the turn before the emperor plays, and the emperor would be expected to take the consuls' advice into account. Perhaps the Consuls would be able to put it to the Senate that the Emperor didn't follow their advice adequately, and the Senate could vote on removing the Emperor from power (ie from the list) based on that? Or vote to replay the five turns with someone else in charge?