Why politics and power is terrible

[eXistenZ]

and I ***ing hate how they keep trying to assassinate my king, yet I can't really retaliate against it. Im pretty sure that trying to assasinate a king is qomething that would get you and your family banished, if not worse. Yet I have to suck it up

[Daruwind]

and I ***ing hate how they keep trying to assassinate my king, yet I can't really retaliate against it. Im pretty sure that trying to assasinate a king is qomething that would get you and your family banished, if not worse. Yet I have to suck it up

So stop playing if nothing is good...too many agents, too many non working mods, too many assassination attempts, ....why you keep playing?

Anyway. How many emperors were killed/removed/poisons in crisis of third century? How many kings lost in internat power struggle? ...

[eXistenZ]

Strong argument. Dont respond to the points, just attack the person who said it. I could say "why do you keep posting here?"


Also im not in the 3rd century, and I'm definitly not in an internal power struggle with 78% nobles. And maybe the most crucial punt, my king isnt dead. And for every king murdered (or attempted murdered), a lot more nobles were banished and their possessions confiscated. If you red properly you would know I dont have anything against assassination attempts. I have something against the fact i cant do anything against it, which is both stupid from a gameplay and historical perspective


But apparently my king does have to say "oh dont do that again you little scamp"

[Daruwind]

It is not supposed to be attack on you ;-) Everybody may have different opinion,different taste etc...we can discuss but more often than not we will only agree that we disagree. Correct me if im wrong, but from last month +/- I cannot recall any positive word from you about the game..and no points from others were able to convince you otherwise...yet you play. So I was curious if it is just that there is no alternative or masochism or simply you refuse to give in...I dont know and sorry it is not meant in any negative way regarding you. It just seems you play to find more bad points about update, DLC..

Im not simply seeing so many assassination attempts nor just one event in my campaign. I was also able to dodge civil wars yet it was not so easy as in your case. Was it due to having higher difficulty, no idea. Im quite experince gamer so I can game the game pretty well and im not shy to using nice toys like beach landing, spells or whatever tool i have at my disposal... Also CAI is building armies and I feel pressure ...I could contine for longer but overall Im simply enjoying the game. Heh dont you think that in the rest of history there were no backstage plottings? No killings in family,clan, house, faction? Come on...means and technics are different, people are the same for whole human history.

Anyway in both cases of army poisoning or assassination you can either use them yourself or be sad about them. If you are building system so much dependant on our king well such situation happened more times in human history. One sudden death and empire is in ruin....Poor Alexander could tell. It is quiote historical a lot rulers were not in possition to take strong response to others simply because it could further destabilise the country. Or subject may gather up and retaliate together..Many did, many kept is secret to use it in proper time to get favours etc. Especially if you are not using 4TPY mods...your kings should be dying like flies from old age..

BTW: regarding A team caring about warhammer only....have you already read about Mortal Empire delay? Even A team can mess up things...

[Huberto]

It's totally reasonable to criticize the new politics system and other aspects of the DLC. CA set a pretty high bar for itself for Empire Divided by charging $17 bucks for the campaign and not including new map or audio. Maybe that's asking too much? But it's not OK to have four or five dilemmas coming around again and again with the same answers yielding the same results. And many longstanding elements of Rome 2 system, CAI behavior, bad diplomacy, endless agent and general level ups, are as tedious as ever.

But this DLC also shows that CA is taking one of its -- admit it -- deeply flawed products and working with it to improve it and get more in line with what it should have been all along. I won't fault them for trying and they appear to be moving in the right direction with their systems to deliver better historical strategy games.

I think it just boils down to the fact that most of us are ready to move on past TWR2 and would like to see something new, well conceived and seamless from the beginning and not four years on. Perhaps ThroB will be that thing, we always hope so.

[Basil II the B.S]

160 turns into the standard Roman campaign, I have to give a negative review to this addon.

First of all, you can ignore it completely, save for clicking ''secure loyalty'' even 10 turns or so.

Mostly because it does not affect the key elements of the game in the current gameplay: secure a solid income, stack your armies, develop techs to improve your armies.

When it comes to income, the game is easy. You will be making tons of money, so you don't particularly need to improve your characters or even switch to empire to add more income. Empire government helps, but it's not necessary by any means.
Stack armies: essentially unaffected. Develop techs, it adds a research bonus, but it's barely noticeable as you can spam libraries to do that anyway.

The only reason you might actually look into the government thing, is that indeed empire is superior in any way to other forms of government. But you don't need it to win, nor it's fundamental to gain extra money, the research boost is nice, but not that necessary either; the loyalty boost makes it more stable than republics, but again, that's relevant only if you have decided to meddle and switch type of government because it's cool to be empire. Otherwise you can and will the game easily as a republic, using other families characters and securing loyalty to avoid secessions.

The truth is, if you ignore it completely, you won't have problems. You will have problems only if you decide to mess with the other families. So... why do that?

And that's why the negative review. It's an addon you don't want to touch, because it adds primarily annoyances. The bonuses of the empire government are not worthy all the build up to secure the 65% influence.

[Welsh Dragon]

160 turns into the standard Roman campaign, I have to give a negative review to this addon.

First of all, you can ignore it completely, save for clicking ''secure loyalty'' even 10 turns or so.

Mostly because it does not affect the key elements of the game in the current gameplay: secure a solid income, stack your armies, develop techs to improve your armies.

When it comes to income, the game is easy. You will be making tons of money, so you don't particularly need to improve your characters or even switch to empire to add more income. Empire government helps, but it's not necessary by any means.
Stack armies: essentially unaffected. Develop techs, it adds a research bonus, but it's barely noticeable as you can spam libraries to do that anyway.

The only reason you might actually look into the government thing, is that indeed empire is superior in any way to other forms of government. But you don't need it to win, nor it's fundamental to gain extra money, the research boost is nice, but not that necessary either; the loyalty boost makes it more stable than republics, but again, that's relevant only if you have decided to meddle and switch type of government because it's cool to be empire. Otherwise you can and will the game easily as a republic, using other families characters and securing loyalty to avoid secessions.

The truth is, if you ignore it completely, you won't have problems. You will have problems only if you decide to mess with the other families. So... why do that?

And that's why the negative review. It's an addon you don't want to touch, because it adds primarily annoyances. The bonuses of the empire government are not worthy all the build up to secure the 65% influence.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion.

Reading this, I think it also highlights again something that I've been trying to say. How you choose to engage with the political system (or not,) will effect how you perceive the mechanics and how much or little enjoyment you get.

For example, you're handling loyalty by just using the "secure loyalty" button every 10 turns or so, where as I'm handling loyalty by balancing out my use of different families characters, selective promotions, and use of the various political tools at my disposal. Both get the job done, they just do it in different ways.

Reading the different opinions and experiences, it makes me think of how some people auto-resolve every battle, some auto-resolve most and only directly control the big/important ones, and some will fight most or all battles. We're all playing the same game, we're just playing it differently. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

That's not to say that maybe loyalty penalties couldn't do with being increased, maybe some of the loyalty tools might benefit from being tweaked, and perhaps the cost of Empire government increased. Just that striking a balance that suits everybody isn't easy, and while some of you are finding it all too easy, others I've seen and talked to are finding it quite tricky. So if they make politics really hard, which may suit some here, it may not suit others.

In conclusion, to me it seems like some of you are saying "why engage in politics unless the game makes you" and "why use any other tool than Secure Loyalty." Where as what I'm trying to say is "I'm engaging in politics and playing the political game because I want to, not because I have to."

Anyway, think I've said enough on this as it seems like we're all pretty sure of our own views on the subject. Hopefully everyone will find a way to play the game how they enjoy it.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

P.S. @eXistenZ With your political assassinations, does your King even know which parties or individuals are doing it? I'm also not sure why you say you can't retaliate. You can retaliate by assassinating some of the other parties characters, or spreading rumours about them, or even purging the entire party. Each of those have benefits and drawbacks, so it's your choice how to respond... or you can just "suck it up" as you said.

[eXistenZ]

As I currently only have two parties in my system, it's pretty obvious who is trying to assassinate my king


And yes, you are correct, I could technicly retaliate against it. But the drawbacks outweigh the benefits massivly: It will cost me money, it will lower my percentage of nobles, it will lower loyalty and increase secession risk. And there are actually no benefits to it. Cause even when I manage to clear the opposing party completly, a new one will rise and we are back to the same situation. "Giving" players gameplay options that they don't use because it yields negative results, aren't really options. Which is the same problem I have with diplomats. Yes, they sometimes do something good. But the consequences of their failures outweighs any possible benefit you can get, and therefore isn't really gameplay.

So in theory you can do a lot of things. In practice you have to suck it up.
And the difference theory vs practice comes up a lot here, and it's a very important distinction

[Basil II the B.S]

Fair enough, I respect your opinion.

Reading this, I think it also highlights again something that I've been trying to say. How you choose to engage with the political system (or not,) will effect how you perceive the mechanics and how much or little enjoyment you get.

For example, you're handling loyalty by just using the "secure loyalty" button every 10 turns or so, where as I'm handling loyalty by balancing out my use of different families characters, selective promotions, and use of the various political tools at my disposal. Both get the job done, they just do it in different ways.

Oh but I'm not doing that. My 160, now 170 turns were engaging the system, see how it works and use it to benefit the faction. However, after testing the effects of what does what I came to the conclusion I'm wasting my time.

The greatest benefit possible is indeed switching to empire more, which requires careful management of all the families and the characters to guarantee that yours gains the supremacy without causing too many secessions (I got a couple).But I concluded that I can play the game without doing that, ignoring it completely and renouncing to the benefit and I would not be losing that much, just a bonus.

The cost (the minor secessions and the time to cultivate characters) is not worthy the benefit.

I also suspect CA wanted me to play this differently. Essentially let the families develop instead of securing my supremacy from the beginning, and once I had completed the expansion, have a big civil war as it happened with Rome, with the winner becoming the emperor. That is somewhat interesting, but then I look at what happened with my secessions: the seceding family got only Phanzania, a region where I didn't develop any military building... and it spammed doomstacks of praetorian units out of nowhere that would chew through my veteran legionary units like cheese. WTF! Then I can only imagine how bad it'd be if the faction controlled a lot more than a semi irrelevant region.

[Welsh Dragon]

As I currently only have two parties in my system, it's pretty obvious who is trying to assassinate my king

Haha. That's what they want you to think!!! But I get your point. Though if reading Historical Fiction has taught me anything, it's that it's often the people in your own family/party that you really have to worry about.

And yes, you are correct, I could technicly retaliate against it. But the drawbacks outweigh the benefits massivly: It will cost me money, it will lower my percentage of nobles, it will lower loyalty and increase secession risk. And there are actually no benefits to it. Cause even when I manage to clear the opposing party completly, a new one will rise and we are back to the same situation. "Giving" players gameplay options that they don't use because it yields negative results, aren't really options. Which is the same problem I have with diplomats. Yes, they sometimes do something good. But the consequences of their failures outweighs any possible benefit you can get, and therefore isn't really gameplay.

So in theory you can do a lot of things. In practice you have to suck it up.
And the difference theory vs practice comes up a lot here, and it's a very important distinction

I feel differently, but fair enough.

I think there's more involved in the diplomatic missions than just pure chance, as I've generally had good results. I really wish CA would do an updated politics guide, as I think there's a lot going on below the surface (as it were) which would benefit being explained a bit more.

Oh but I'm not doing that. My 160, now 170 turns were engaging the system, see how it works and use it to benefit the faction. However, after testing the effects of what does what I came to the conclusion I'm wasting my time.

The greatest benefit possible is indeed switching to empire more, which requires careful management of all the families and the characters to guarantee that yours gains the supremacy without causing too many secessions (I got a couple).But I concluded that I can play the game without doing that, ignoring it completely and renouncing to the benefit and I would not be losing that much, just a bonus.

The cost (the minor secessions and the time to cultivate characters) is not worthy the benefit.

I also suspect CA wanted me to play this differently. Essentially let the families develop instead of securing my supremacy from the beginning, and once I had completed the expansion, have a big civil war as it happened with Rome, with the winner becoming the emperor. That is somewhat interesting, but then I look at what happened with my secessions: the seceding family got only Phanzania, a region where I didn't develop any military building... and it spammed doomstacks of praetorian units out of nowhere that would chew through my veteran legionary units like cheese. WTF! Then I can only imagine how bad it'd be if the faction controlled a lot more than a semi irrelevant region.

I lost my main military recruitment province in my first secession, while in the middle of a two front war... that made life hectic! And it seems to me that the AI only gets free armies if the balance of power is heavily weighed against them, as when I had it the balance of power was fairly even with me slightly ahead, so they only got one extra army.

And thanks for the reply. It's interesting seeing different people's experiences, and how much they can differ.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[Totalheadache]

So am over a 100 turns in 5 campaigns and no secession...only thing have had is a few riots in the capital plus rats!

[Ygraine]

I agree with you OP. Some stuff is good, but in overall the patch is lacking a bunch of things that a lot of players have been asking in the community the past few years.

Granted I wouldn't even touch this game un-modded with a ten foot pole, patch 18 or not.

[FrozenmenSS]

I agree with you OP. Some stuff is good, but in overall the patch is lacking a bunch of things that a lot of players have been asking in the community the past few years.

Granted I wouldn't even touch this game un-modded with a ten foot pole, patch 18 or not.

+1

[mmm1234mm]

I kind of have the same opinion about the new political system it basically mindless and adds just a shallow layer of gameplay that doesn't do much to affect strategic decisions.
In my current campaign I play as Athens on turn 70. And every one of those 70 turns I had to spam diplomatic missions with every statesmen that I have to work on my relations with Aetolian league and Pergamon with which I want to confederate and Rome to keep my relations good. And here are only negative things that I have about it:
a. there's no thought process - just spam diplomatic missions every turn - really annoying to do that
b. the outcome is really random - regardless of which statesman you're sending. And what confuses me the most - How bad diplomacy can kill a diplomat?? In real world if emissary is killed its war straight away but here there's no consequences of that. Just hire new statesman and continue spamming.
c. In the long run these diplomatic missions seems not to produce any outcome because my relations keep fluctuation +/-20 with the factions. The only plus side I get gold in form of tributes - basically it's a mindless spin the wheel to win a small sum of money.
b. This diplomatic mission spam seem to have a side effect of protecting me form civil wars because I get + to loyalty with the party who's statesman I send on a mission
d. it looks like this Power and Politics thing is one sided and AI don't have it at all because I never received a diplomat from the AI and never seen an AI affected by civil war. Really interested if anyone witnessed that?

I think about 30 min of thought went into this new feature and a week of coding before CA decided to spit it out.

[Alwyn]

I kind of have the same opinion about the new political system it basically mindless and adds just a shallow layer of gameplay that doesn't do much to affect strategic decisions.
In my current campaign I play as Athens on turn 70. And every one of those 70 turns I had to spam diplomatic missions with every statesmen that I have to work on my relations with Aetolian league and Pergamon with which I want to confederate and Rome to keep my relations good.

This shows how much people's experiences differ. Some people see the new political system as mindless. I have a different view. We can see why rival parties are loyal or disloyal on the politics screen. Their level of loyalty isn't random (which would be 'mindless'), it's based on their traits and events in the game. I like the way that events on the campaign map affect politics (for example, a rival party is more loyal when an army led by one of their generals wins battles and is promoted) and events in politics have effects on the campaign map (such as when a secession occurs).

As I see it, the new politics system can affect strategic decision-making. For example, in a Carthage campaign, I've decided that I can't defend my outer colonies (Lilybaeum and Karalis) against attacks from Rome and Syracuse. My strategy is to avoid a war of attrition with them and instead to expand east towards Egypt. I hope to compensate for the lost regions and to establish a more defensible empire, taking advantage of the immunity to desert attrition of Carthage's units (and using desert attrition against Carthage's enemies, if Rome and Syracuse follow me). However, the province on my eastern frontier is controlled by a rival party - and, when I lose regions, they might secede. This caused me to think strategically about how I develop that eastern province. The obvious counter to a risk of secession would be to not build military buildings in the regions governed by the rival party. But, if I did that, this would slow my eastern expansion. This encouraged me to consider what the rival party wants and to think about how to avoid secession.

Thanks for the tip about using diplomatic missions involving a statesman from a rival party to increase their loyalty - that's useful. (I'll try that as an extra way to keep the rival party happy.) You asked whether anyone has received a diplomat from the AI or seen the AI affected by civil war. I haven't - my guess is that AI factions don't use the political system. Yes, it's a shame that it's one-sided. It would be cool to see a large rival empire go through a civil war. On the other hand, if secessions/civil wars are a mechanic to make the game more challenging for players, then at least there's a reason why AI factions aren't affected by it. (It would make the game easier, whereas players tend to say that they'd like the mid-to-late campaign to be more challenging, not less.)

Like my plan for my Carthage campaign, your strategic plan - to confederate with the Aetolian league and Pergamon - seems to be linked to how you are using the political system, since you're using diplomatic missions every turn. I'm surprised that you 'had to' spam diplomatic missions 'in every one of those 70 turns' - what would have happened if you didn't? You wrote that 'in the long run these diplomatic missions seem not to produce any outcome' (in terms of your relations with those other factions, which makes me wonder why you 'had to' carry out those missions in every one of 70 turns. Would you prefer it if diplomatic missions cost more and had stronger and longer-lasting effects? I wonder if that can be achieved through modding?

[Ygraine]

The core concept is nice, as with many of CA's ideas. But it's the execution that (in my humble opinion) often ends up shallow for some mysterious reason.

In the case of power & politics, just like mmm1234mm mentions, there could have been made significant improvements if there were some more details added to how this system works. For example households and traits that can improve diplomatic actions of the emissary would be a very welcomed addition. It would both give you incentive to use the same character(s) and net greater results in the long run.

Another idea would be to have events based on AI emissaries visiting you. Based on the option you pick, it would grant different results (examples: + relations, - relations, them bringing you gifts, ultimatums that can end up in a war declaration, spawning rebels etcetera). And certain types of events would only "unlock" to you after you reach a certain threshold in relations with that faction. There's soooo much possibility and depth that could've been added with a feature like this, including for modders who could expand upon it.

[eXistenZ]

This shows how much people's experiences differ. Some people see the new political system as mindless. I have a different view. We can see why rival parties are loyal or disloyal on the politics screen. Their level of loyalty isn't random (which would be 'mindless'), it's based on their traits and events in the game. I like the way that events on the campaign map affect politics (for example, a rival party is more loyal when an army led by one of their generals wins battles and is promoted) and events in politics have effects on the campaign map (such as when a secession occurs).

As I see it, the new politics system can affect strategic decision-making. For example, in a Carthage campaign, I've decided that I can't defend my outer colonies (Lilybaeum and Karalis) against attacks from Rome and Syracuse. My strategy is to avoid a war of attrition with them and instead to expand east towards Egypt. I hope to compensate for the lost regions and to establish a more defensible empire, taking advantage of the immunity to desert attrition of Carthage's units (and using desert attrition against Carthage's enemies, if Rome and Syracuse follow me). However, the province on my eastern frontier is controlled by a rival party - and, when I lose regions, they might secede. This caused me to think strategically about how I develop that eastern province. The obvious counter to a risk of secession would be to not build military buildings in the regions governed by the rival party. But, if I did that, this would slow my eastern expansion. This encouraged me to consider what the rival party wants and to think about how to avoid secession.

*cut*

I find a few flaws in this statement:

-first off, its incredibly easy to avoid civil war, as you can buy loyalty for a really low sum, and loyalty will go up, same for using their statesmen. You really have to play badly or oblivious to encounter major problems. The only secession I had I triggered myself, because I was sick of having to care for a pacifist powerhungry dickhead. My party being bigger gave -10, and because you are always at war with slaves, another -5. Thats a -15 loyalty penalty, simply because of random numbers. And that then combined with a loyalty drop when the imperium goes up (which again, doesnt really have a foundation in reality), made me go "im tired of dealing with this, lets get it over with it", rather than something I really like and want to put time in.

And thats my main grip with the update/system. It punishes you for not using it, but it won't reward you for using it in a good way, which is basicly against game design 101: if you want a feature being used, let the rewards outweigh the initial investment. They did a good job with this with the province system: if you synchonize the settlements in a single province really well, you can get some amazing yields. Speaking of provinces brings me to point 2

-Its nice that you consider what to build where in fuction of which clan controls it, but the cold truth? It's irrelevant. As your realm grows, you will see provinces changing from clan, for a reason that is not explained anywhere (in my experience, the game assigns newly conquered provinces to other clans, while shoifting older provinces to you). Also, in a secession the rebels will spawn high tier units that have no relation to which buildings there are in the province. So not building military buildings in a province that is controlled by another clan is great roleplay, but in gameplay terms, its of no relevance or effect

-that an AI faction can not have a civil war/secession because it would make the game easier, is a very sound argument with which I 100% agree. But that shouldnt exclude them from using statesman. As said, the game would be so much more immersive if the AI send over diplomats to you to which you can respond. Or even use their statesman to boost the public order or prevent its armies from starving. You having the acces to statesmen, but the AI not, also makes the game easier, as you can produce food and public order out of basicly thin air.


So yes, the update to me also feels like a few extra buttons you have to press without any real consideration has gone into the design or execution

[mmm1234mm]

This shows how much people's experiences differ. Some people see the new political system as mindless. I have a different view.

Like my plan for my Carthage campaign, your strategic plan - to confederate with the Aetolian league and Pergamon - seems to be linked to how you are using the political system, since you're using diplomatic missions every turn. I'm surprised that you 'had to' spam diplomatic missions 'in every one of those 70 turns' - what would have happened if you didn't? You wrote that 'in the long run these diplomatic missions seem not to produce any outcome' (in terms of your relations with those other factions, which makes me wonder why you 'had to' carry out those missions in every one of 70 turns. Would you prefer it if diplomatic missions cost more and had stronger and longer-lasting effects? I wonder if that can be achieved through modding?

I find a few flaws in this statement:

-first off, its incredibly easy to avoid civil war, as you can buy loyalty for a really low sum, and loyalty will go up, same for using their statesmen. You really have to play badly or oblivious to encounter major problems. The only secession I had I triggered myself, because I was sick of having to care for a pacifist powerhungry dickhead. My party being bigger gave -10, and because you are always at war with slaves, another -5. Thats a -15 loyalty penalty, simply because of random numbers. And that then combined with a loyalty drop when the imperium goes up (which again, doesnt really have a foundation in reality), made me go "im tired of dealing with this, lets get it over with it", rather than something I really like and want to put time in.

And thats my main grip with the update/system. It punishes you for not using it, but it won't reward you for using it in a good way, which is basicly against game design 101: if you want a feature being used, let the rewards outweigh the initial investment. They did a good job with this with the province system: if you synchonize the settlements in a single province really well, you can get some amazing yields. Speaking of provinces brings me to point 2

-Its nice that you consider what to build where in fuction of which clan controls it, but the cold truth? It's irrelevant. As your realm grows, you will see provinces changing from clan, for a reason that is not explained anywhere (in my experience, the game assigns newly conquered provinces to other clans, while shoifting older provinces to you). Also, in a secession the rebels will spawn high tier units that have no relation to which buildings there are in the province. So not building military buildings in a province that is controlled by another clan is great roleplay, but in gameplay terms, its of no relevance or effect

-that an AI faction can not have a civil war/secession because it would make the game easier, is a very sound argument with which I 100% agree. But that shouldnt exclude them from using statesman. As said, the game would be so much more immersive if the AI send over diplomats to you to which you can respond. Or even use their statesman to boost the public order or prevent its armies from starving. You having the acces to statesmen, but the AI not, also makes the game easier, as you can produce food and public order out of basicly thin air.


So yes, the update to me also feels like a few extra buttons you have to press without any real consideration has gone into the design or execution

Don't get me wrong this system is a massive improvement to the game, but it could have been so much better.

1. If you don't spam diplo missions your relations will deteriorate over time. So in this case it's a good feature because before you the only option to increase relations was to go at war with the rival faction of the faction you want to improve relations with. But, yes, would be nicer if you couldn't do it every turn and had to decide when to you use and consider associated risks with it. The random death of your statesman is really irritating.

2. The gold prizes I got from the missions are OP, this definitely has to be nerfed.

3. The allocation of territories between parties is bad as well. Attila had a nice idea where you assign a governor to a province. But the problem there was that when it rebels it's only one city that goes rebel and you could always remove that governor before hand. Same with generals. This probably can't be moded

So there's a huge room for improvement. Maybe CA will patch it near future. Or at least listens and implements good system in upcoming title.

[mmm1234mm]

This shows how much people's experiences differ. Some people see the new political system as mindless. I have a different view.

Like my plan for my Carthage campaign, your strategic plan - to confederate with the Aetolian league and Pergamon - seems to be linked to how you are using the political system, since you're using diplomatic missions every turn. I'm surprised that you 'had to' spam diplomatic missions 'in every one of those 70 turns' - what would have happened if you didn't? You wrote that 'in the long run these diplomatic missions seem not to produce any outcome' (in terms of your relations with those other factions, which makes me wonder why you 'had to' carry out those missions in every one of 70 turns. Would you prefer it if diplomatic missions cost more and had stronger and longer-lasting effects? I wonder if that can be achieved through modding?

I find a few flaws in this statement:

-first off, its incredibly easy to avoid civil war, as you can buy loyalty for a really low sum, and loyalty will go up, same for using their statesmen. You really have to play badly or oblivious to encounter major problems. The only secession I had I triggered myself, because I was sick of having to care for a pacifist powerhungry dickhead. My party being bigger gave -10, and because you are always at war with slaves, another -5. Thats a -15 loyalty penalty, simply because of random numbers. And that then combined with a loyalty drop when the imperium goes up (which again, doesnt really have a foundation in reality), made me go "im tired of dealing with this, lets get it over with it", rather than something I really like and want to put time in.

And thats my main grip with the update/system. It punishes you for not using it, but it won't reward you for using it in a good way, which is basicly against game design 101: if you want a feature being used, let the rewards outweigh the initial investment. They did a good job with this with the province system: if you synchonize the settlements in a single province really well, you can get some amazing yields. Speaking of provinces brings me to point 2

-Its nice that you consider what to build where in fuction of which clan controls it, but the cold truth? It's irrelevant. As your realm grows, you will see provinces changing from clan, for a reason that is not explained anywhere (in my experience, the game assigns newly conquered provinces to other clans, while shoifting older provinces to you). Also, in a secession the rebels will spawn high tier units that have no relation to which buildings there are in the province. So not building military buildings in a province that is controlled by another clan is great roleplay, but in gameplay terms, its of no relevance or effect

-that an AI faction can not have a civil war/secession because it would make the game easier, is a very sound argument with which I 100% agree. But that shouldnt exclude them from using statesman. As said, the game would be so much more immersive if the AI send over diplomats to you to which you can respond. Or even use their statesman to boost the public order or prevent its armies from starving. You having the acces to statesmen, but the AI not, also makes the game easier, as you can produce food and public order out of basicly thin air.


So yes, the update to me also feels like a few extra buttons you have to press without any real consideration has gone into the design or execution

Don't get me wrong this system is a massive improvement to the game, but it could have been so much better.

1. If you don't spam diplo missions your relations will deteriorate over time. So in this case it's a good feature because before you the only option to increase relations was to go at war with the rival faction of the faction you want to improve relations with. But, yes, would be nicer if you couldn't do it every turn and had to decide when to you use and consider associated risks with it. The random death of your statesman is really irritating.

2. The gold prizes I got from the missions are OP, this definitely has to be nerfed.

3. The allocation of territories between parties is bad as well. Attila had a nice idea where you assign a governor to a province. But the problem there was that when it rebels it's only one city that goes rebel and you could always remove that governor before hand. Same with generals. This probably can't be moded

So there's a huge room for improvement. Maybe CA will patch it near future. Or at least listens and implements good system in upcoming title.

[Alwyn]

I find a few flaws in this statement:

-first off, its incredibly easy to avoid civil war, as you can buy loyalty for a really low sum, and loyalty will go up, same for using their statesmen. You really have to play badly or oblivious to encounter major problems.

My experience is different. In a Roman campaign, an AI faction suddenly captured two regions, triggering the secession of a province. I use a More Aggressive AI mod, so AI factions are more likely to declare war on each other and the player, and more likely to send armies to attack when they're at war. I don't think I was playing badly - we cannot put a large army on every border (particularly when using an AI mod which is likely to force the player to fight wars on multiple fronts.)

I agree that civil wars are relatively rare - you showed that when you commented before that you played a 170-turn campaign without one. (On the other hand, I can imagine players posting to complain, if civil wars were common.) Perhaps the 'buy loyalty' option was put there for people who hate civil wars and want an inexpensive way to avoid them? Should players decide not to use this feature (by considering it an exploit) or mod it so that buying loyalty is more expensive (or has a smaller effect)?

Would it be good to have a mod which increased the chance of secession at certain levels of Imperium (by modifying the penalties for loyalty of rival factions), so that an expanding empire would go through periods with a high risk of civil war, but not have a constant high risk? Imperium levels could alternate between high risk and low risk of secession (for example, level 5 would be high-risk, level 6 low-risk and level 7 high-risk). The historical explanation for alternating between high-risk and low-risk could be that, after a civil war, a generation or two are traumatised by the experience and don't want to go through it again. After no-one remembers what it was like, people are more willing to start a secession. The playability explanation could be that a high, temporary risk of civil war would slow down the player's expansion (players sometimes complain that it's too easy and that they can 'steamroll'). This would create challenging stages of a campaign: in high-risk levels of Imperium, the player would face internal and external threats at the same time, and would need to expand in order to reach the next level of Imperium, which would have a low risk.

-Its nice that you consider what to build where in fuction of which clan controls it, but the cold truth? It's irrelevant. As your realm grows, you will see provinces changing from clan, for a reason that is not explained anywhere (in my experience, the game assigns newly conquered provinces to other clans, while shoifting older provinces to you).

It's relevant to me, since Carthage is losing territory and secession might happen. It's interesting that the clan might control different regions in the future, but that's not a major factor in the decisions I'm making now.

Also, in a secession the rebels will spawn high tier units that have no relation to which buildings there are in the province. So not building military buildings in a province that is controlled by another clan is great roleplay, but in gameplay terms, its of no relevance or effect

You're right, of course, that in some campaigns high-tier units will spawn. It seems that this happens when people are playing on a higher difficulty level. I could be wrong, but I believe the difference is that I'm playing on Normal. My experience is different. When a Roman province broke away, its spawned army was appropriate for the buildings in that province. Also, of course, a secessionist faction which begins with a barracks can expand its army more easily, with better units. When a secession occured, the Roman Secessionists started with a small spawned army, but they built that army up to a full stack. So the choice of building military buildings in a province controlled by another clan does have relevance to me. I understand that your experience is different to mine.

-that an AI faction can not have a civil war/secession because it would make the game easier, is a very sound argument with which I 100% agree. But that shouldnt exclude them from using statesman. As said, the game would be so much more immersive if the AI send over diplomats to you to which you can respond.

That's true, and you make a good point that the player has an advantage by using diplomats. On the other hand, AI factions send me plenty of requests using the ordinary diplomacy system (for non-aggression pacts, trade agreements or to join in wars they are fighting, for example).

1. If you don't spam diplo missions your relations will deteriorate over time. So in this case it's a good feature because before you the only option to increase relations was to go at war with the rival faction of the faction you want to improve relations with. But, yes, would be nicer if you couldn't do it every turn and had to decide when to you use and consider associated risks with it. The random death of your statesman is really irritating.

I haven't noticed my relations deteriorating over time (unless you mean the normal deterioration which comes from the player expanding and having higher Imperium level). Either I'm not paying enough attention to diplomacy (which is entirely possible) or you are playing on a higher difficulty level.

2. The gold prizes I got from the missions are OP, this definitely has to be nerfed.

Fair enough, hopefully that can be done with a mod.

3. The allocation of territories between parties is bad as well. Attila had a nice idea where you assign a governor to a province. But the problem there was that when it rebels it's only one city that goes rebel and you could always remove that governor before hand. Same with generals. This probably can't be moded

Is the allocation of territories between parties bad? It makes more sense to me that the previous system. Looking at the civil wars in Imperator Augustus and Empire Divided, or the Succession Wars involving the rival empires who inherited parts of Alexander's empire, each rival faction has a large block of territory in one area of the campaign map (as opposed to separate regions scattered across an empire). This seems to be the kind of civil war which the new politics system aims to simulate, by causing rival parties to have blocks of territory (as opposed to small pieces of territory scattered across an empire). When there is a rebellion (due to low public order), only one city becomes a rebel, yes - but when a secession occurred in my Roman campaign, a province broke away, not just a region.