Loyalty

[DimeBagHo]

This is a poll to get a sense of what people would like to see happen with the loyalty feature.

In favour of keeping loyalty:
(1) Few other mods set in this period have loyalty.
(2) It can spring some nice surprises on the player.
(3) I might be able to set up civil wars via scripts.

In favour of ditching loyalty:
(1) The loyalty feature is the cause of the settlement capture bug, which is the only significant bug in XGM.
(2) Two faction slots would become available for other uses.

One slot would probably be used for this:

One idea I am considering is an Independent Eastern Kingdoms faction that would serve a similar function to the Independent Greeks and Gauls - it cause be used to represent the Mauryans, and other minor powers like Nabatea, Axum, Colchis/Kartli, Bythnia, and so on.

A faction like this would also solve a couple of technical problems - we wouldn't have regions rebelling to Parthia in odd places like India, Saba would be able to trade with India in the early game, and Saba wouldn't get pulled into early wars with the Ptolemies and Seleucids as a result of loyalist rebellions in Africa and Arabia.

[Hippias]

Well - I just voted to keep it - I like to storm the walls as soon as siege equipment is built, or autoresolve an assault if i have many to do, so i have never had a ctd.

The Roman civil war is IMHO the only thing i miss from Vanilla RTW - Civil Wars was also one of the best things i missed from MTW.

[Da Erobara]

Oh, tough question you ask there. On the one hand, those civil-war scripts sound really interesting, but on the other hand the loss of the loyalty ctd and the addition of new factions (which could be some that no other or only few other mods have to retain some of the unique feel about XGM. I personally prefer ditching loyalty for new unique factions, but as I like the civil war-script idea, I won't be angry if loyalty stays
Edit: These indepent eastern faction sounds great. And the other slot could be used for something like the Bosporian Kingdom of the Crimea, or the Saka to have a second nomad faction with an interesting starting position, or Pergamon.

[Dom9127]

If you can get the civil war scripts that would be amazing and tbh I think we already have enough factions I cant see what would be good about a faction which would just be a glorified form of the rebels.

[supeerme]

hmmm.....maybe we will keep it but unfortunately, I'm in favour of ditching it as i don't like that you have to keep a watch on everyone..

[DimeBagHo]

Hm i really don't know what to say. The loyalty bug can be annoying, but i personaly haven't experienced it much lately, so it's something i can accept and try to avoid. Is it possible to find some way to use the senate again and force civil war between some factions?
Zarax and the other Carthage players can say do this faction needs rebels. For me it seems that they can pass without it. Usualy the AI Carthage doesn't do much in my games, right now in my greek campaign the rebels are going to overrun the main faction and there's not much forces left to fight off rome. They are much like the seleucids - have enough worries even without rebels.

We could add the Senate back in as the Senate, controlling Rome, and internally re-name the other Roman factions. I'm not sure how people who play Rome would feel about losing control of the city of Rome itself. It would mean: (1) The return of missions; (2) A civil war - though a smaller one just against the Senate itself in Latium (we could use a script to give the Senate more armies when war breaks out); (3) A better fight when other factions attack Rome itself (because it would be easier to make sure that the Senate is well armed).

[Kara Kolyo]

Wasn't this the situation sowhere in version 3 with the unified Rome? the player had the surrounding regions and the senate controled rome with lots of praetorians?

[DimeBagHo]

Wasn't this the situation sowhere in version 3 with the unified Rome? the player had the surrounding regions and the senate controled rome with lots of praetorians?

I think that's right. However, I just remembered that one problem with the Senate is that the outlaw event doesn't work correctly with the BI exe. It looks like there might be a way to get it to happen witrh a script though.

If loyalty goes i assume from your previous posts that 3 of the current 4 'loyalty faction' slots will be Indie Greeks, Indie Celts and Indie Eastern Kingdoms - but none of these we be playable in the main campaign right?

That's right, and of course if the Senate returns then it would not be playable either.

[Hippias]

Dime

If loyalty goes i assume from your previous posts that 3 of the current 4 'loyalty faction' slots will be Indie Greeks, Indie Celts and Indie Eastern Kingdoms - but none of these we be playable in the main campaign right?

They will be just like the non-playable factions in the Vanilla game.

[snuggans]

EDIT: woops i seem to have gotten cultures and loyalty mixed up, although there is a minor relation between each other.

if it means getting rid of the CTD bug i vote to remove it

however i am in favor of reintroducing the Senate.
which could take one of the newly relinquished faction slots.
another faction would also be interesting, perhaps divide the southern greeks in two?

[Kara Kolyo]

If loyalty is not used, can something be worked out with the founding factions for when a settlement rebels? Maybe with some more tweaks for the unrest, something could be done to cause several settlements to join for example the indy greeks at the same time, or something like this?

[Hippias]

Dime - whats the advantage of a non-playable faction with 10 provinces called 'Independent Greek Cities' over just 10 independent rebel provinces?

If these widely spread out factions can't act together in the way a normal cohesive faction can (and therefore are not playable), and if loyalty was the only reason for having them in the first place, if loyalty goes why keep them as factions at all?

[DimeBagHo]

Hippias: The indie factions have a few advantages. (1) You can't trade with or conduct diplomacy with the Slave faction, so the indie factions allow for more realistic relations with other factions. (2) The slave faction will build, recruit, and act aggressively if you give it enough money. But because the Slaves have a huge number of territories at the game start it tends to become a real beast if you give it enough money to get going. Having Indie factions allows us to have "rebels" that can grow and develop, while being more manageable. (3) Every region has an "owner" and may rebel to the owner if there is a loyalist rebellion. That can cause the playable factions to get pulled into wars at odd times, and in weird places. For example, the Seleucids often capture regions in India but then lose them to rebellion, which results in Parthia going to war with them and getting stuck with a region they don't want. With indie factions we can make that happen in a more realistic way, and in a way that won't screw up the players diplomatic relations. (4) We can do things with the indie factions that we can't do with the Slaves, like set up Pyrrhus in Italy, and the Gallic horde in Greece (if they were slaves they would just sit around and do very little). (5) Finally, though I haven't done it yet, the indie factions make it easier to set up provincial campaigns.

[LucretiusTC]

Personally I woudn´t like to loose the control of Rome to the Senate when I play the Romans. It would be a frustrating situation if you don´t have a proper access to your own capital. I think the city of Rome should be treated in the same way as other major capitals at time, e.g. Carthage, Alexandria or Antioch.

Luc.

[icydawgfish]

I say ditch it in favor of a few interesting factions to spice the game up.

Maybe:
-Etruscans if the date was et back a bit

Could certainly be done:
-another celtic faction
-a barbarian faction in central europe
-India
-make the GCS a certain greek faction (like the chremoidian league or achean league) and make another slot another league or powerful city like the Bosphoran Kingdom, Syracuse, Massilia, sparta.

[Cymera]

I would keep it in my opinion. I think it is unique and interesting. I am of the opinion that the current faction list is sufficient and that other factions would only crowd the balance that XGM already possesses.

Keep loyalty man!

[cherryfunk]

I voted to keep loyalty, but it's almost a toss-up for me -- the loss of the bug and the new factions would be huge advantages, so I'm really torn.

The culture aspect, which causes frequent revolts in differently-cultured regions, might be enough. I've played a Carthage campaign that lasted quite awhile, and frankly the barbarian culture of Iberia was more of a hindrance than the rebel Carthage faction. The problem with the rebel shadow factions is that they take control of isolated regions, and so can be snuffed out pretty quickly. Rarely do they get to expand to be any sort of real threat. Now, if you could script some larger rebellions, that might really shake things up...

[cherryfunk]

Personally I woudn´t like to loose the control of Rome to the Senate when I play the Romans.

I agree. I love the Roman Rebel faction, but really dislike the senate being on the map in control of Rome.

[Poulp]

keep loyalty

it's a distinctive feature of XGM, and it provides the player with a real challenge in the late game; when you could steamroll the whole map, loyalty keeps your conquest in check.
As your empire gets larger, it gets harder and harder to hold all those pieces of land together, and that's the way it should be.

without loyalty, conquering the world would still be slow enough, thanks to the colony feature, but I'll miss that "inner foe" feeling.


BTW, how come I can't vote ? not enough ranks or something ?

[Cymera]

BTW, how come I can't vote ? not enough ranks or something ?

It may require over fifty posts. I'm not certain, but it could be that.