Civil war is nonsensical

[T-Duke]

Do nothing, be like the Russians and retreat before them. Destroy the food production in cities in path. I get them Sparta a lot. They get to Pella and Apollonia but then their armies start falling to bits with starvation and desertion. Then you can knock off what remains with minimal forces.

You warfare genius... what about attrition to your armies (which have no any magical bonus as ai) if you also destroy all your food buildings and you lost your main settlements? And what about your previous enemies who will not wait to you solving your "internal issues"... c'on mate 9 full stack armies in one turn it's just game over.

[vietanh797]

no itsn't
Just stay calm and handle them one by one
1 or 2 Heroic victory and the rest is just easy battle

[gakhongten]

no itsn't
Just stay calm and handle them one by one
1 or 2 Heroic victory and the rest is just easy battle

what i'm talking about is 25 full stacks, good combination army of war dogs, cavalries, gladiators, vet legionaries. And in my campaign, they usually go 4 stacks each team. They have like 3 teams like that spreading out to get my settlements north and west. Pretty smart ass BAI. They also organized a team of 10 stacks! trying to get Roma out of me.

The Senate spreads out like a disease with a good plan! And if I destroy the farms, they just gonna build them again.

I'm using Radius mods

[Adreno]

i must be doing everything right, because i havent even had a civil war yet

[wulfgar610]

You warfare genius... what about attrition to your armies (which have no any magical bonus as ai) if you also destroy all your food buildings and you lost your main settlements? And what about your previous enemies who will not wait to you solving your "internal issues"... c'on mate 9 full stack armies in one turn it's just game over.

I'm only playing Romans so I got plenty of surplus food. It doesn't matter that an individual province has a food deficit. I try to keep the rebels around so I don't change to Imperium too quickly, to keep up the research bonus. Had a depleted stack attack Athens which I had captured form them. The units had 5 or 10 men in them. A few units ran the gate and got shot up by the arrow towers, leaving one solitary guy trying to torch the gate. The arrow towers won't target a solitary figure. He scored 1% damage with each torch throw. He kept on looking over his shoulder at his general back in the distance, like WTF?

The Senate rebellion is a placeholder joke, its only redeeming feature is the laughs. Hopefully a modder can come up with a better scenario than this.

CA must have a number of specialist technical staff who unfortunately understand little about war-gaming of this type and have been pressed into tasks they don't understand.

[wudang_clown]

the arab spring is one very large example and this is a new one.

The Arab Spring was not a civil war. Wars in Libya and Syria were civil wars. However, both were not triggered by some 2% of opposition, some tiny political faction in the government, but by complicated demographic and socioeconomic factors and problems which accumulated during decades prior to the conflict and eventually provoked major anti-government opposition, opposition outside of the government. Something like that does not exist in Rome 2. The Syrian or Libyan civil war can reassemble civil war in Rome 2 only when you imagine all those factors which led to the war in Syria or Libya, and which, again, do not exists in Rome 2. Finally, protests in Syria didn't immediately sprang into civil war, like it has place in Rome 2.

Besides, what it has to do with the actual Roman civil wars? Rome 2 is about ancient times, not modern times, so keep in mind that a) you are trying to compare certain events of two completely different eras with their completely different demographic, cultural and economic conditions (social structures are different, access to education is different, ideas spread through different channels and with different intensity; to list only few), and that's anachronism, and b) the Roman civil wars were not caused by dissatisfaction of Roman citizens with dictatorship, but by desire of different political factions to dominate the political scene by eliminating opposition. That's something Gaius Octavian did - he finished off his opponents (physically or politically) and assumed dictatorship, a move that couldn't be contested and opposed anymore, because there was no one anymore who had enough power to do that. Then, as Augustus, he had 100% influence in the Senate and no one could give him cheek.

Is this the case in R2? No, it isn't. Dago Red is allowed to gain 98% of influence and his supposed rivals do nothing to stop him at, say, 60% when they, realistically speaking could and should, but they somehow manage to field quite big army when they are in 2%. 2% is nothing more but a good start for a conspiracy that can possibly lead to civil war.

Remember that his complaint was about justification of that civil war. Well, there can't be a sensible justification, because there are no political ideologies in R2, no political parties, no philosophy whatsoever. It's just statistics. And in RL People don't fight civil wars because of mere statistics.

no you are not obliged, just dont quote me when you say those things

Let me just freely utilise my membership permissions as granted by the ToS, okay?

Actually Caesar was VERY popular when his enemies went for a civil war. He was so popular that the only way to curb his growing power was... civil war.

Caesar's example is not the best one. Caesar was popular among the Populares and the people, but unpopular among the Optimates. He was assassinated because he disheartened the senators in general with his dictatorial ambition, and he was murdered before he managed to become a dictator, not after that.

98% of influence in the Senate means that there is only one faction in power. By the way, 98% is so made up number, like in those governmental polls of national support in banana republics. Normally, no one in a healthy state would allow a single political party to come to such a power, so it would be more natural to see some form of resistance and conflict before you gain a majority (as was the case of Caesar), and not after you basically own the Senate and when you are a good leader, who Dago Red is in his campaign, I suppose.

The Senate is just part of the political system. Throughout history there have been many autocracies with a Parliament and the autocrat's party would rule it. Having 98% support is NOT a normal political situation.

Yes, and the Roman Empire was such autocracy, not the Roman Republic. What "political system", what form of government is simulated in R2? It's autocracy from the beginning to the end. You are so almighty that you can even recruit your own political opponents. The devs just granted the player an absolute power to manage the state, and that excuse of the Senate is just there to pretend there is any system at all. This is basically the same generic feature for each and every faction. The only difference is in naming of that allegedly superior political institution: senate, court or an assembly of tribal chiefs, or whatever, it's all the same.

[vietanh797]

what i'm talking about is 25 full stacks, good combination army of war dogs, cavalries, gladiators, vet legionaries. And in my campaign, they usually go 4 stacks each team. They have like 3 teams like that spreading out to get my settlements north and west. Pretty smart ass BAI. They also organized a team of 10 stacks! trying to get Roma out of me.

The Senate spreads out like a disease with a good plan! And if I destroy the farms, they just gonna build them again.

I'm using Radius mods

Try to do something like this.
A few times and you are good to go

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[karamazovmm]

stop complaining about the consequence of radious mod, dont want to have those 20+ stacks against you? mod the army limiter.

and not that they are actually hard and its actually more fun than vanilla civil war.

this is exactly the reason why CW isnt as what it couldve been, people complain about a little difficulty.

[Pinkie Pie]

I have just experienced my first civil war in Rome 2 playing as Parthia (this is the first time I have not stopped playing after I get powerful enough to wipe out any ai faction that is in the game) and it was extremely dissapointing. Without a competent ai I was able to remove three of my five cavalry armies from the border without being in danger of losing cities to bordering factions and return them to the east where the Parthian Nobles were starting to expand. The six armies that had spawned next to Nisa managed to take two cities in the three turns it took for my armies to arrive and in three battles all of them were destroyed despite outnumbering and outmatching me. From the outset of civil war it took only five turns to end it at the cost of perhaps a few thousand coins in repairs in cities.

In the end the Parthian Civil War was about as effective as any other rebellion in one of my cities and failed to even come close to threatening my empire.

When I first heard of the civil war placed in the game I was hoping, for some reason, that my empire would be split in half with territories and armies both rebelling against me. A civil war that would have one half of my empire fighting the other in a bitter struggle even as my enemies moved in on defenceless border cities. Instead I get some silly little rebellion in my capital that was put down just as easily as any other rebel army.

[vietanh797]

Well if you suddenly lost 1/2 empire, your Economic is right away.
The game just try to help you to able to coped with the civil war forces but if you try to get the achievement "This is Total War" then you may want to say goodbye to you campaign since with 12-16 stacks in your capital and about the double that number press you from all fronts it start look like an impossible mission.

[Pinkie Pie]

As I said, mine was too weak to be a threeat at any point. I could have been at war on every front and still put down the Parthian Nobles without difficulty.

Coupled with the horrible ai the civil war is no more than a distraction under any but the most exceptional circumstances. I never knew before now what the civil war was going to be like and therefore could not make any plan for it yet I still dealt with it with ease. Next time I play as Partia I can not imagine it lasting past a single turn when I can, once I have the resources to maintain a spare one, plant an army next to the city and wait for my capital to rebel.

[Maelbox]

When I first heard of the civil war placed in the game I was hoping, for some reason, that my empire would be split in half with territories and armies both rebelling against me. A civil war that would have one half of my empire fighting the other in a bitter struggle even as my enemies moved in on defenceless border cities. Instead I get some silly little rebellion in my capital that was put down just as easily as any other rebel army.

A proper war system in a game about war? Wishful thinking, unfortunately.

If you want to see a game handling war properly have a look at any Paradox title. Manpower limits, a war score system, difference between annexation and occupation, being able to choose the wage of your troops with impact on their performance, the AI able to form coalitions against your aggressive expansion, actual reasons to make client states, logical peace treaties with far more varied options available, etc., etc...

Its embarrassingly ironic that a game that focuses on the warfare side of history has such a completely 2D war system.

[karamazovmm]

Well if you suddenly lost 1/2 empire, your Economic is right away.

GIVE ME THAT! and I want generals to suffer a loyalty check as well, pass they are still yours, much like going republic in fots