Units changing loyalties

[William the Silent]

ERAs Conquest mod does something with morale checks if the troops have been in the field too long fighting battles and far from the capitol, I believe.

I'm trying to create a mechanism (in another mod) for traits with a legion's Centurion commander of that specific unit, to simulate decimation (by reduction in BodyguardSize) but a way that if the unit is selected and an information advisor is selected and the unit is Disobedient, that it can be "whipped" i.e. punished, with a 25% chance of becoming loyal again, but only for the player. So this means micromanaging loyalty for the legions under Roman control, probably getting traits when sacking cities as it means "spoils of war" or booty, and giving the Centurion the ContentGeneral trait. If not, and no sacking, and the Centurion isn't loyal, then he and his men are not getting plunder, and so a chance of getting the DiscontentGeneral trait and possibly rebelling. So more than one way to keep loyalty higher with lower rank officers, with maybe lieutenants and sergeants easier to command. Musing about it while playing RTW1 EB and considering the ramifications of rebellion of units if far away in Egypt (very far from the capitol). It could easily be too crippling for players who fight chivalrously and don't sack as much.

It's great that so many modders like you try to develop new things to make games more realistic.

I'm already so impressed with all the historic information that the EB team puts in the games.
Then there's all the art in mods; the unit details; tactical stuff; etc.

Companies create the games, but modders make you love them.

[RubiconDecision]

I haven't played the m2tw mod Deus lo Vult, but according to their wiki they have some kind of loyalty script going, maybe someone will port it(with permission) to EB2 when the beta is out?


Source: http://www.twcenter.net/wiki/Deus_lo...vil_War_System

I really enjoy mods using BBB 4.0a, but many mods tone down the loyalty system. The problem was that there were few ways of reverting a DiscontentGeneral, mostly bringing them back to the capitol, which means a rethinking of standard expansion and empire building. A large portion of your named character generals will not be loyal, say 1/3 in that system. So if you are routinely playing as most play, and carving out as much as you can bite off, then you're placing a lot of Discontent Generals (from the moment of adoption) into the field. So a LOT can rebel and cause a Civil War based upon low king authority, or a chivalrous general whose outlook is far different than a King whose outlook is high dread, or just an accident of fate. It meant a persistent rotation of generals back to the capitol from far off places (due to the crusades in the Holy Lands), and so every time you move a new governor in, then disorder of some kind. It's a bit hard to handle.

Since you can give loyalty traits to lesser officers by declaring them to be "general_unit" as well, then 95% of them start out ContentGeneral and get some pay benefit when the commander sacks a settlement, and so increase their loyalty through plunder.

What I did was use the brothel/inn/taverns to also create a ContentGeneral (to the commander or any named character general) who is in that settlement and doesn't move (MPP Movement <= 99 ) so as long as he's used up some of his movement rate per turn, then he's growing content from those buildings being around as a distraction (wine, women, and song). If he doesn't move at all, (MPP Movement = 100), then he gets some real negative traits : Girls, Gambling, Drink). Then those buildings also have a minor trade value since those buildings are siphoning off income from the army units (which was an intentional thing by leadership) plus a place for itinerant merchants to stay, so encouraging trade.

In this way, you could create a loyalty system from beneficial buildings to maintain happiness of the units (as well as the populace) and not have to move the named characters so often for loyalty checks. But for the player, not the AI, for otherwise too much civil war. Remember that this is not the medieval period, so far less autonomy, and a expectation to "do what you're told and follow orders".

If you do a trait of levels of command, then at first a lot of generals would be loyal strictly from getting to fight in the field, but as they gain in victories and their command goes up, they gain authority (the people love a winner). So a higher and higher authority for a regular named general (not the heir or the FactionLeader) results in a LOSS of loyalty at a certain point. In medieval terms, if a named character has a lot of authority due to a plum governorship in the main area of the kingdom, has won a lot of victories (but this popularity fades in time), and has a high LocalPopularity, then he starts to think, "Maybe I could be King. Maybe, I should be King, and not that son of the current King, who's not won any battles and not done anything to speak of (low authority of the heir). Maybe I WILL BE KING (and might become increasingly a DiscontentGeneral).

The thing is, putting the named character on trial shouldn't mean going back to capitol as it's a logistical issue and practically impossible within the Roman Empire, with very careful land and sea trade potentially possible by Rome's central location, but the MovementRate restriction precludes it working unless it's not as strong as BBB 4.0a. See my decimation example, using the adviser screen and CharacterSelected to "punish" or bring to trial any unit in the field, and a chance of it working. Doing it more than once, and realizing the general didn't change from DiscontentGeneral to ContentGeneral, means he KNOWS he got away from it, and actually might make him even more of a DiscontentGeneral. Some generals were lost in history this way. Just make sure he's not commanding a lot of units, or in a settlement, or he'll be the worst governor, or take the city.

Since fighting tends to increase the loyalty of named characters, you use that very DiscontentGeneral to fight a lot, but it's a two edged sword, for that means gaining authority and creating a very powerful contender for the FactionLeader which is a very good game dynamic.

It's great that so many modders like you try to develop new things to make games more realistic.

I'm already so impressed with all the historic information that the EB team puts in the games.
Then there's all the art in mods; the unit details; tactical stuff; etc.

Companies create the games, but modders make you love them.

As long as it's toned down with loyalty, based upon difficulty level, with only the most fanatical cerebral EB strategists on VH level having the most micromanagement. Otherwise these kinds of add-ons make it less popular for the weekend warrior who wants to go sack some cities and imagine themselves a Roman commander like Pompey or Julius Caesar.

Real battles were less often and that's why Julius Caesar undoubtedly had his illegal wars. He wanted to fight on his own terms and to gain popularity for his political future.The boring job of being a governor is what adds stability. But Caesar winning battles meant slaves: profit and population gain. The gain is boring unless there's conflict in some proportion to routine growth in the economy, and unless you're a builder-type player (who likes games like Sim City or the Civilization franchise or Europa Universalis), then that grows stale without battles.

For the autoresolving player, that means being irritated that there are routine brigands in the settlements, but for the player who fights every battle, he/she's thinking, "Thank God, finally I can fight."
...
Think about this: the fact of the matter is that Julius Caesar is the Baron's Alliance, and the SPQR are the main Roman faction. He wins and takes Rome and so regardless the SPQR lose their political power and money (cut off from the main Treasury). So the SPQR is no longer in the capitol, the Baron's Alliance is, and must be dealt with in some fashion. If the Baron's Alliance keeps winning, then the SPQR has dwindling money, but if the last settlement is taken, then hording would turn them out of the settlement (like Pompey, Scipio, Brutus, etc) and wandering around but now taking over a settlement elsewhere. Then they could fight back and might do okay.

If the Usurper Baron's Alliance commander dies, then no hording, and the tyrant is dead. A new one can come along like Octavian, and start it back up, just as it happens in the Britannia campaign.

[Luke Evans]

It would be nice to see every faction be able to have a civil war and also conquered factions reemerging during rebellions.