Faction Collapse

[Hobbes]

So I was playing EB the other day, playing as Makedonia and conquering the Ptolemies. You may be unfamiliar with the mod, but it's basically the same old RTW mechanics at its core; build up armies and conquer stuff. What I noticed was that although I defeated two huge Ptolemaic armies and left most of their cities in Egypt with just a couple of units, I still had to besiege every single settlement for them to finally be destroyed. Not to mention that after I was done with Egypt, towns and villages in Nubia and Arabia (completely disconnected form each other) were still under their control, although they could not even raise troops to defend them. If this was a local dynasty I could see how a bunch rump states could be formed but this is a dynasty from some place that locals have only heard of. In the same campaign, Epirus had managed to capture Roma and left the SPQR with some Illyrian cities and Patavium as their capital. Not only that, but after Lusotannan captured most of Italy, Rome still survived in Segestica... Now I may be wrong here, but I don't think that could ever happen. No conqueror had to siege every town and city that was held by the enemy, many of them surrendered willingly. Egypt was taken by Alexander without any fighting in the land itself and Persia was almost done for after Gaugamela. I could be wrong but I ddon't think Caesar had to siege all the Gallic towns and fight all the local militia he encountered. I hope we will be seeing some more realistic conquest in the new game with armies being disbanded because of poor economy and governors surrendering to superior forces. What do you think?

[Kamos]

Makes sense I suppose for under guarded towns of weak factions. Still think they need to be threatened before surrendering.

[Hobbes]

Makes sense I suppose for under guarded towns of weak factions. Still think they need to be threatened before surrendering.

Sure, but that could be done with diplomats and whatnot, too. Say you just ruined that huge army: tell the local governor that he can keep his place if he surrenders to you, it's not like he ever had a chance to be king or do something important anyway. Of course if the governor is the king's brother, the heir or some excellent commander with a half decent force in the city or with reinforcements nearby, I'd expect him to ignore my demands and try to kick my ass.

[Stath's]

Well, it's about the family members also. If some of them (or one) is alive, then it is not so unrealistic to have control of a town away from his homeland nad maybe with some decent army.

If you kill the whole dynasty, then the other cities should rebel.

Also, the public order would have to fall down, if the still-living family member is not a king, king's brother etc. and he just has a distant relationship with the ruling family.

[Ticklestick]

It's because there's no diplomacy in TW games. No politics means no faction collapse. The gauls needed many tribes to group together to fight the romans, lose a big battle and many of your "allies" will switch sides or just surrender to rome in exchange for maintaining some sort of sovereignty. This doesn't exist at all in TW games. The AI views alliances as non-aggression pacts, and views protectorates as a fate worse than annihilation.

What if your faction leader's influence rating had an effect on allied tribes joining you? You would gain influence by winning big battles, and lose it when you lost battles. The "rebel" barbarian tribes would send you soldiers and ally with you if you were being successful, but withdraw support and become protectorates of rome if you got your ass handed to you. It even happened to the romans, a few cities in the south of Italy actually switched sides and pledged their support of Hannibal after he destroyed a few armies. A strong averni leader could unite all of the tribes of gaul without actually having to conquer them to fight the roman threat etc. I think it would be much more realistic AND more interesting. I doubt CA cares enough to do it though.

[SturmChurro]

It could possibly be "fixed" using something similar to the surrender option for battles in Empire, but in diplomacy? Is this what you want? You could then take them up as a vassal state. Good idea, already there if the ai is smart enough to ceasefire and become vassal, but a much simpler way could be good. Though, your example with Egypt sounds odd and quite imbalanced (even if it is historically accurate), just making a faction surrender right off the bat for a total war game. Maybe there could be a region limit (I don't know how the new region system will work) for this option, just for balancing issues if it was to be implemented.

[Maklodes]

Well, the Roman Empire did survive about a millennium after the loss of its home territories in Italy. (They even managed to survive without Constantinople for a while, with Nicaea as their capital, when Franks occupied Constantinople.)

I do see what you're getting at: how can peripheral territories remain loyal to an Empire whose core has been conquered? Creating a rump state, with loyalist armies withdrawing to formerly peripheral territory, is one thing, but when those armies are not withdrawn, but destroyed, and all that remains are a few militia, it does seem hard to imagine the territories remaining loyal.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of "pro-momentum" mechanics. From a balance perspective, I don't like the idea that winning gives you additional benefits which cause you to start winning even faster, or losing causes additional losses which snowball and make you lose even faster.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Well, the Roman Empire did survive about a millennium after the loss of its home territories in Italy. (They even managed to survive without Constantinople for a while, with Nicaea as their capital, when Franks occupied Constantinople.)

I do see what you're getting at: how can peripheral territories remain loyal to an Empire whose core has been conquered? Creating a rump state, with loyalist armies withdrawing to formerly peripheral territory, is one thing, but when those armies are not withdrawn, but destroyed, and all that remains are a few militia, it does seem hard to imagine the territories remaining loyal.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of "pro-momentum" mechanics. From a balance perspective, I don't like the idea that winning gives you additional benefits which cause you to start winning even faster, or losing causes additional losses which snowball and make you lose even faster.

Greece and Thrace was the home region of the Eastern Roman Empire though, so I don't think it's a good example.

[Humble Warrior]

Empire allowed surrenders without the need for long sieges. This was a good idea of Empire. I have no idea why they never followed through with later games.

Some cities do indeed simply surrender wthout even the need for a siege if fearful enough.

[hospitaller13]

Well, the Roman Empire did survive about a millennium after the loss of its home territories in Italy. (They even managed to survive without Constantinople for a while, with Nicaea as their capital, when Franks occupied Constantinople.)

I do see what you're getting at: how can peripheral territories remain loyal to an Empire whose core has been conquered? Creating a rump state, with loyalist armies withdrawing to formerly peripheral territory, is one thing, but when those armies are not withdrawn, but destroyed, and all that remains are a few militia, it does seem hard to imagine the territories remaining loyal.

On the other hand, I'm not a big fan of "pro-momentum" mechanics. From a balance perspective, I don't like the idea that winning gives you additional benefits which cause you to start winning even faster, or losing causes additional losses which snowball and make you lose even faster.

I thing the byzantine empire is a perfect example. Yes it survived in the east because the capital and administration had already been moved there, thus the loss of italy had no impact, however the sack of Constantinople during the fourth crusade 800 years later shattered the empire into rival successor states. Yes the empire survived however it never regained the same level of prosperity and power, it was not even a shadow of its former glory. Even the recapture of Constantinople could not save the empire which quickly collapsed.

I think the loss of a nations capital should have a significant impact. but perhaps not enough to break the faction completely. i think CA should put more emphasis on capital cities making the player choose to defend it over other less important cities.

[Khwarezm]

I really like this idea. I also have a few ideas for this problem. There should be a factor, like war exhaustion. If it gets too high, the faction will be broken. Cities will revolt and new factions will arise if the revotls are succesful.

Cities can also be intimidated. Cities will defect if they have a small garrison while they are besieged by a superior army and the owning faction has high war exhaustion.

[Ichon]

I don't mind easier conquests if it is also much easier to lose conquered territory either by civil wars, native rebellions, emergent factions, or changes in government.

[♔The Black Knight♔]

I don't mind easier conquests if it is also much easier to lose conquered territory either by civil wars, native rebellions, emergent factions, or changes in government.

This, the outside factors should affect conquests. Empires are too hard to make fall apart.

If you owned as much land as the mongols in any total war game, you arnt going to lose. However the mongols fell apart somehow. Changes like this help make the game more interesting.

[AngryTitusPullo]

So I was playing EB the other day, playing as Makedonia and conquering the Ptolemies. You may be unfamiliar with the mod, but it's basically the same old RTW mechanics at its core; build up armies and conquer stuff. What I noticed was that although I defeated two huge Ptolemaic armies and left most of their cities in Egypt with just a couple of units, I still had to besiege every single settlement for them to finally be destroyed. Not to mention that after I was done with Egypt, towns and villages in Nubia and Arabia (completely disconnected form each other) were still under their control, although they could not even raise troops to defend them. If this was a local dynasty I could see how a bunch rump states could be formed but this is a dynasty from some place that locals have only heard of. In the same campaign, Epirus had managed to capture Roma and left the SPQR with some Illyrian cities and Patavium as their capital. Not only that, but after Lusotannan captured most of Italy, Rome still survived in Segestica... Now I may be wrong here, but I don't think that could ever happen. No conqueror had to siege every town and city that was held by the enemy, many of them surrendered willingly. Egypt was taken by Alexander without any fighting in the land itself and Persia was almost done for after Gaugamela. I could be wrong but I ddon't think Caesar had to siege all the Gallic towns and fight all the local militia he encountered. I hope we will be seeing some more realistic conquest in the new game with armies being disbanded because of poor economy and governors surrendering to superior forces. What do you think?

The thing is if the game allows that faction be defeated if capital cities are taken then player will always abuse that feature and the game will be short and no longer fun.

I think that since Shogun 2 the diplomacy is getting batter when after defeating few field armies and taking few cities the faction will sue for peace and even become your vassal. I'm sure this great feature will be bring over to Rome II.

[Pheidippides]

The thing is if the game allows that faction be defeated if capital cities are taken then player will always abuse that feature and the game will be short and no longer fun.

I think that since Shogun 2 the diplomacy is getting batter when after defeating few field armies and taking few cities the faction will sue for peace and even become your vassal. I'm sure this great feature will be bring over to Rome II.

Supply lines would have to be instituted to curb this somehow, or the AI would have to make better use of chokepoints so you don't just march your army through or land them.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

Well in ETW a faction collapsed if they lost all provinces on their home continent, which was a very nice feature. Perhaps it could be the same in RTW2, but with home regions instead.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Well in ETW a faction collapsed if they lost all provinces on their home continent, which was a very nice feature. Perhaps it could be the same in RTW2, but with home regions instead.

That would be nice, but the difference was it was a colony feature. Rome historically colonized regions and then made them into national home regions sorta speak. So from time to time the capital moved. After Rome it went to Milan and Bolonia I think before moving to Nikomedia and Constantinople. I think Regions should have a transition period into national home regions. So its not just the starting regions.

[Ryou]

Maybe if you deal a severe blow to the faction it sues for peace, and if you deal a realy realy really severe blow it falls apart. For example if ur fighitng macedon, and u take its capital, defeat its largest army and kill its leader and heir all in one battle, it falls apart, with some cities close to you surrendering and cities closer to other factions surrendering to other factions, and some cities with family members in them start their own, randomized factions.

[Sir Pignans]

Tie morale of cities into army size and not just garrison size? That way they'd be more likely revolt if you decimate consecutive armies.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Would be awesome make a lot of sense for non-culture areas to break away when the dominating nations armies were destroyed elsewhere. But even if it cant break away at least increase unrest so if the territories are heavily garrisoned or not.

We have a few examples in history of entire armies being wiped out and the winner owning the field. The Huns were at the gates of Constantinople and dominated Greece and Thrace after eliminating the imperial armies. Hannibal owned the field in Italy but was unable to take Roma. It would be nice if you had an army in a region like Macedonia, there are three cities nearby, say Pella, Thessalonica, and another one... You defeat a major Macedonian army nearby, there are no more armies in the area and the cities nearby suffer unrest or succumb more easily to your requests to surrender. Though if its the cultural heartland of the faction and not part of your culture then it should be harder to make the cities surrender.