Request VS Demand a Line of Succession

[John from Texas Oblast]

These two Oratory Technologies are not fun to plan a game around yet they are the only paths to becoming a Dictatorship from a Republic.

Demand Line of Succession puts you in a Civil War based on your Stability and requires you to have 40 territories (easy).

Request a Line of Succession requires you to use the Senate mechanics to acquire an 80% Populares / Oligarchs majority, 50 Tyranny and 150 Political Influence, then it will remove 25 stability on selection.

Both require 6 Innovation points to acquire.

If you go the Request route, you need to mess around with 5-10+ characters to adjust their Senatorial Influence and Power Bases to rig the Senate for the right party.
This could take EONS, EPOCHS, or ETERNITIES before it ever happens. On the road to gaining an 80% Senate majority (which you will spend a lot of time and valuable resources to get), you will be forced to perform actions that will destabilize your Republic and force you closer to a Civil War unless you want it to take FOREVER. And I mean forever. Changing Senate Conviction of characters is an extremely slow process in this game.

With a voluntary civil war from Demand Line, you can simply buy Mercs - win one or two battles with your combined Levies / Cohorts and Mercs and re-siege all your territory by splitting stacks in about a year's time. It goes even faster if you delete all forts besides your capital forts.
No messing around with nation-ruining modifiers, no massive resource investment, no 25 Stability hit, no Ruler gains Corrupt attribute.

Tell me again why I would ever pick Request Line of Succession instead of Demand Line of Succession?
Request has all the downsides, whereas a quick intentional civil war with Demand can overcome all of the requirements of Request.

The only reason I would ever pick Request is if I was roleplaying. Even then, you would change the entire trajectory of your campaign just to spend resources needlessly and wait on modifiers that can take 1/2 the game to change and can also be lost to bad events in an instant.

Why is the road to becoming a dictatorship so costly even when you do it the "legitimate way" by not forcing a Civil War?

Further, there is only one way into Dictatorship and no way out. Why?

None of this is close to how the title of Emperor came to exist anyway.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

You could just give seats to one faction and please it to get above 80% quickly and without costs. My way to deal with republics often goes that route. The most influencial or populated faction gets all government positions, all the governor positions, admiral or general ones. This faction is now easy to please and you have just other faction leaders as troublemaker but they won't have much support.

[jomigaru]

Originally posted by John from Texas Oblast:

Further, there is only one way into Dictatorship and no way out. Why?

None of this is close to how the title of Emperor came to exist anyway.

Wait a miinute. You can appoint dictators *temporary* when fighting a war.
That might relate to temporary dictatorships in the way it was conceived: in times of great peril, power must be concetrated in one person for swift action. Then, the dictator must be a good Cincinnatus and go back to plow his fields.

But when you stablish dictatorship as a form of government... the path is one way, dictators are not known for abandoning power (Sulla was rara avis). And that is kind of what Caesar did when he was declared as Dictator for life.
You know what came after, his murder, a pathetic and false talk of restoring republic and more CIVIL WAR for Octavianus to be ultimately declared Emperor.

Anyway, in game, republic is much better than most players think at first. Sure, you have factions and a senate but in terms of creating casus belli and fast expansion it works much better. When I painted red the world map as Rome it was as a republic until the latest stages of the game.

[Turncloak]

The issue with the civil war route is by the time you want to request or demand succession your country is pretty big or should be at least, unless you bee line straight to demand succession which I don't think is a good use of early game innovations, it's much easier I found to focus militarily on expanding and just play the politics of getting 80% populares.

I also think the benefits of becoming a dictatorship far outweigh the republic, 4 different idea slots, no longer will the ruling party demand you do their agenda, succession is made far more simple and easier to control, it's just far better to expand than playing as a republic.

[John from Texas Oblast]

Originally posted by Turncloak:

it's just far better to expand than playing as a republic.

I have an issue with Republics while playing tall as well. Agendas are a bothersome mechanic in my opinion. It's also quite ridiculous how easy it is to change term limits. Term limits can be a nuisance as well because of Loyalty and character interactions not carrying over between rulers in a short period of time. Otherwise approval is easy to abuse and there aren't many downsides or upsides to being a republic.
Basically Republic is just Dictatorship with extra steps because you will 99% of the time do what you want to do anyway regardless of the Senate.

[jomigaru]

Originally posted by John from Texas Oblast:

Originally posted by Turncloak:

it's just far better to expand than playing as a republic.

I have an issue with Republics while playing tall as well. Agendas are a bothersome mechanic in my opinion. It's also quite ridiculous how easy it is to change term limits. Term limits can be a nuisance as well because of Loyalty and character interactions not carrying over between rulers in a short period of time. Otherwise approval is easy to abuse and there aren't many downsides or upsides to being a republic.
Basically Republic is just Dictatorship with extra steps because you will 99% of the time do what you want to do anyway regardless of the Senate.

Upsides for a republic: centuriate assembly for cheap casus belli. You can fight wars almost constantly with low AE if you annex lands with casus belli on them.
Under Republics Tyranny is not a problem, since it is reduced at better pace. I know tyranny brings some benefits like reducing AE, but *at the early stages of the game*, in my opinion tyranny penalties do not make up for its benefits.

In your own words you have your answer: if Agendas are bothersome but term limits are easy to change, stick to princeps civitatis and agendas will be one thing per party during all those years your consul rules.

If senate approval is low (under 51%) you cant do whatever you want regardless of the senate.

[Jean-Maurice Nya]

Republics have the strongest laws and the best rulers if you manage their popularity well. You can literally favor the lads with the highest set of stats all the time.
It's a bit harder to manage at first.