Rebells owning Land at the beginning of a grand Campaign

**Dontpanic** · July 13, 2012, 07:39 AM

The Titel says it all. Do you think Rebells should own Lands and cities at the beginning of a grand Campaign like in Rome Total war 1 or Medieval Total war 2 or should all Land be controlled by mayor and minor factions like in Shogun total war 2 and Medieval total war 1?

I ask this, because i thought about how big and how many territories the mayor Factions (playable Factions) should have at the beginning of a grand campaign.

What do you think ?

**Jezza93** · July 13, 2012, 07:44 AM

I think the free people thing used in Roma Surrectum 2 worked great.

**BunnyPoopCereal** · July 13, 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Jezza93

I think the free people thing used in Roma Surrectum 2 worked great.

Agreed!

**Stoferr** · July 13, 2012, 07:45 AM

Well, I think that it was good CA made mostly all provinces owned by factions at the start since Empire, as that was historical accurate. However I think that a huge part of the lands in Rome II should be either owned by rebels or even better, by the tons of small independed tribes that excisted back then. My only concern with the lands being owned by rebels is the diplomacy factor, meaning that you will most likely be default at war with 90% of the europeon population at start. After all, most empires in the early days, back then relied on minor allied tribes, working as buffer nations, or important trade partners.

**DavidtheDuke** · July 13, 2012, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Stoferr

Well, I think that it was good CA made mostly all provinces owned by factions at the start since Empire, as that was historical accurate. However I think that a huge part of the lands in Rome II should be either owned by rebels or even better, by the tons of small independed tribes that excisted back then. My only concern with the lands being owned by rebels is the diplomacy factor, meaning that you will most likely be default at war with 90% of the europeon population at start. After all, most empires in the early days, back then relied on minor allied tribes, working as buffer nations, or important trade partners.

There should be tribe "cultures" that fight for or against you (or even join you if your specific culture influence is high enough). That seems like it could be buggy, so I dunno. I suppose fighting a few independent provinces could represent a small civil war of a region.

**Hanomean** · July 13, 2012, 07:55 AM

It's more or less a technical thing. The perfect solution would be a playable game with every tribe or every people having their own faction. That's probably not possible though. The next best thing would be a lot of 'rebel' land, though they could name them something else than rebels, it's such a pejorative term.

**Bobz** · July 13, 2012, 08:04 AM

I fully expect CA to carry on with the precedent started with Empire and have all starting territory owned by factions. And I have to say this has definitely been for the better - it was rather ridiculous in Medieval II with the sheer amount of provinces owned by rebels.

**|Sith|Galvanized Iron** · July 13, 2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dontpanic

The Titel says it all. Do you think Rebells should own Lands and cities at the beginning of a grand Campaign like in Rome Total war 1 or Medieval Total war 2 or should all Land be controlled by mayor and minor factions like in Shogun total war 2 and Medieval total war 1?

I ask this, because i thought about how big and how many territories the mayor Factions (playable Factions) should have at the beginning of a grand campaign.

What do you think ?

No, that was horrible. There should be no rebel faction, just emerging factions and when appropriate a rebel shadow faction for each faction (ie Roman Rebels, Seleucid Rebels, Carthagian Rebels etc) plus a civil war faction for most factions, Rome could also have slave rebellion faction.

**PROMETHEUS ts** · July 13, 2012, 08:15 AM

Perhaps if they own land at beginning they shouln't be called even rebels but have their own name , flag and colors ....

**Epic_Eddie** · July 13, 2012, 08:20 AM

Have proper factions representing each region and province, no rebel factions please

**Maximus_54** · July 13, 2012, 08:18 AM

Theres no reason for rebels anymore. The previous games had Faction Amount Limits. There isnt one now.

**krisslanza** · July 13, 2012, 11:21 AM

I liked Rebels. They were people everyone hated, so everyone could beat them up. No worries about sparking some long-standing war because I wanted to expand.

**Awake** · July 13, 2012, 12:21 PM

I'd would much prefer the Shogun 2 style of not having rebels but individual minor factions. Not only would it be more accurate, but it was much more fun for gameplay purposes as well. The rebels in Rome Total War were just filler and didn't really do much of anything besides provide some spread room for large factions in the beginning to grow without actually going to war.

Plus, having individual operating factions makes every campaign you do different. I think the system is what made Shogun 2 so interesting despite it's lack of unit and faction variety. The political game was much more involved and you had to constantly think about where you are spreading, your relations with other clans, who might backstab you, ect. In Rome Total War every campaign always ended up being relatively the same.

**SinerAthin** · July 13, 2012, 01:32 PM

I just want better diplomacy.

If I place two bigassed stacks next to a barbarian vassal and threaten them to attack my enemies, I damn well expect them to!

**Awake** · July 13, 2012, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by SinerAthin

I just want better diplomacy.

If I place two bigassed stacks next to a barbarian vassal and threaten them to attack my enemies, I damn well expect them to!

This exactly.

Rebels were bad because you couldn't interact with them at all outside of just walking in with an army and conquering. If they were all minor factions you could have diplomacy and interact with them, make them vassals, tons of stuff. Of course you can always just waltz in and conquer them too, but you might be fighting their friends right after. Rebels are nowhere near as fun.

**HaveFallen** · July 13, 2012, 02:53 PM

Wait, people actually liked rebels in the game?!

Ugh no thank you. Why have rebels?! Why not just have individual minor factions?! It provides a challenge when they are able to expand and fight, while rebels will just sit there and wait for someone to kill them. It's not fun that way.

**krisslanza** · July 13, 2012, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by HaveFallen

Wait, people actually liked rebels in the game?!

Ugh no thank you. Why have rebels?! Why not just have individual minor factions?! It provides a challenge when they are able to expand and fight, while rebels will just sit there and wait for someone to kill them. It's not fun that way.

Minor factions can have allies! Rebels were just fun because they're essentially free expansion. I just personally disliked warring any faction until I was ready.

Which was rare, given the AI just wars you whenever. Darn French with their dozens of stacks of peasants I have to keep killing.

**Rasic** · July 13, 2012, 03:50 PM

Please, no rebels. That made no sense back then and it makes no sense now. If it's too much trouble to give them a color and a name just call the "independents" or something.

**Bobz** · July 13, 2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by krisslanza

Which was rare, given the AI just wars you whenever. Darn French with their dozens of stacks of peasants I have to keep killing.

Since when has killing thousands of French peasants been a chore?

Honestly it's the reason I buy Total War

**krisslanza** · July 14, 2012, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Bobz

Since when has killing thousands of French peasants been a chore?

Honestly it's the reason I buy Total War

It does become a bit of a chore to sit through a load-screen and engage in a battle that lasts a few minutes, because you know the autoresolve is rubbish.