Why do a faction need a province to survive?

[Yayattasa]

This is a bit of proposal, but more of a question, really.
Why do factions need at least one province?
I think some factions should be allowed to survive without any province (and I'm not talking about hording necessarily here).
The nearby area around the armies would be considered that faction territories. You would gain some money from it (imagine plundering and taxing/robbing merchants), and the nearer you stay to ports/cities/trade routes the more you get.
This would allow us to have way more tribes scaterred around the map, without the actual need to give them starting provinces.
Because, really, we are dismissing lots of individual tribes that lived in provinces owned by other factions.

[GeorgiBG]

The logic is simple: When one faction is not controlling at least 1 province - it does not exist. We are not talking about the people's which were living there, we are talking about the country factor. And in the real world is the same.

[HusKatten]

If the purpose with such a feature would be to depict all tribes, then that will result in a hell of a lot of fighting and diplomacy - especially for the Celts and Germanics. Maybe too much?

[Anna_Gein]

It still would be nice if a Faction would not be destroyed with the lost of their last settlement if they got an army left. Especially if it is a full stack who was on the field and was out-manoeuvre by a 5 unit stack who managed to take their settlement.

[Jokern]

It still would be nice if a Faction would not be destroyed with the lost of their last settlement if they got an army left. Especially if it is a full stack who was on the field and was out-manoeuvre by a 5 unit stack who managed to take their settlement.

They had this feature in Shogun 2. If you conquered your enemy's last region but they had an army in that region it will still be there and you'll have to destroy it.

[oppaiO_O]

They had this feature in Shogun 2. If you conquered your enemy's last region but they had an army in that region it will still be there and you'll have to destroy it.

it would be awesome if this would be applied to the player also, if you have an army in that region but not close enough to defend the city if the ai takes your last region then that army becomes rebels you can control....

[The Useless Member]

Uhh... that's right I guess. However, in Shogun 2, left-over units from factions kind of become rebels. In theory, they aren't destroyed, but more like "unorganized" when they lose all regions.

[Nicolaos]

Well in ETW, NTW and Shogun2 destroyed factions could reemerge. That's perfect.

[Augustus Scipius]

Because it would suck having to run around a conquered province, destroying every last army and general.

Besides, in real life, conquering the capital of a nation was usually such a blow, symbolic or otherwise, that the nation surrendered as a whole. After all, if you can't defend your most important city or if you don't have any lands left, what hope do you have of defeating the enemy, even if small pockets of resistance remain? In these cases, the remaining armies either disbanded, surrendered, were merged with the victor's army or then they became brigands.

[Arcani 4 Ever]

You're totally wrong, In Rome II a province is a set of regions! So the question should be why do a faction needs a region to survive?

And the answer is simple, gameplay mechanics. I wish the moment you capture a settlement, the armies belonging to the settlement's faction rally forth to said region, to a final fight for survival. The problem is, if you apply that mechanic i am 100% sure the AI will spam the crap out of it, making it a really annoying mechanic.

[MathiasOfAthens]

I am sure there will be factions that dont exist but can emerge. The same was true for ETW and NTW. If that is possible modders can create additional tribes and factions as well which would be pretty damn cool, imo. I would create some fantasy factions like a re-emergent Persian Empire.

[HigoChumbo]

This is actually an interesting question (and that's quite a lot more that can be said about most of the rest of this forum in the past weeks...).



To all the no-sayers: what if the HUMAN PLAYER has 8 full stacks but only one region (aka, one of the old provinces)... what if for some reason a 1 unit army manages to slip through them and conquest the player's only remaining city? Should that player (and those 8 full stacks that could change the course of a lot of battles and conflicts concerning other factions) just disapear and make the player lose the game? I mean... hell, the player could just take his city back with extreme ease the very next turn.



I think you should survive until you have no units/armies left, or at least untill all your leaders have died. EVEN if you don't own any province. If you got the time and money to maintain your troops a few more turns i don't see why you could not just take back a city.

[Anna_Gein]

This is actually an interesting question (and that's quite a lot more that can be said about most of the rest of this forum in the past weeks...).



To all the no-sayers: what if the HUMAN PLAYER has 8 full stacks but only one region (aka, one of the old provinces)... what if for some reason a 1 unit army manages to slip through them and conquest the player's only remaining city? Should that player (and those 8 full stacks that could change the course of a lot of battles and conflicts concerning other factions) just disapear and make the player lose the game? I mean... hell, the player could just take his city back with extreme ease the very next turn.



I think you should survive until you have no units/armies left, or at least untill all your leaders have died. EVEN if you don't own any province. If you got the time and money to maintain your troops a few more turns i don't see why you could not just take back a city.

That's it.

At worse your units may start to desert you if you are unable to pay them during x turns. Your faction may be definitely destroyed if every FM is dead and without territory you are unable to recruit any generals.

[AngryTitusPullo]

This is actually an interesting question (and that's quite a lot more that can be said about most of the rest of this forum in the past weeks...).

To all the no-sayers: what if the HUMAN PLAYER has 8 full stacks but only one region (aka, one of the old provinces)... what if for some reason a 1 unit army manages to slip through them and conquest the player's only remaining city? Should that player (and those 8 full stacks that could change the course of a lot of battles and conflicts concerning other factions) just disapear and make the player lose the game? I mean... hell, the player could just take his city back with extreme ease the very next turn.

I think you should survive until you have no units/armies left, or at least untill all your leaders have died. EVEN if you don't own any province. If you got the time and money to maintain your troops a few more turns i don't see why you could not just take back a city.

Well you have the option to either reload a save game and make sure you will that battle so that you don't loose your last city or you can start a new game.

The above options do not exist in real life.

[Tim_Ward]

To all the no-sayers: what if the HUMAN PLAYER has 8 full stacks but only one region (aka, one of the old provinces)... what if for some reason a 1 unit army manages to slip through them and conquest the player's only remaining city? Should that player (and those 8 full stacks that could change the course of a lot of battles and conflicts concerning other factions) just disapear and make the player lose the game? I mean... hell, the player could just take his city back with extreme ease the very next turn.

Yes. Though not for historical/realism reasons, but as a punishment for sheer incompetence.

[Virtanen]

Because the rules of the game dictate that they do.

TW games have never been about historical simulation

[MathiasOfAthens]

I am sure there will be factions that dont exist but can emerge. The same was true for ETW and NTW. If that is possible modders can create additional tribes and factions as well which would be pretty damn cool, imo. I would create some fantasy factions like a re-emergent Persian Empire.

[oppaiO_O]

i like the idea of if the player still has stack running around the campaing map and the AI takes the last city the player then can get an option to either become the rebels of the defeated faction and attack one of your old city or become a new faction and attack a random city..... though i like the rebel one best , oh and surviving without a city/region/province looks like to be more possible since armies have "raid stance" so potentially you can keep an army just by raiding

[Xerrop]

This is a bit of proposal, but more of a question, really.
Why do factions need at least one province?

This is a good question actually. When an intact army including a family members still exist they should get a chance to stay alive.

A state is based on two things I assume. Land owned and a ruling dynasty. Only when both exist no more, than a state is gone. Alexander has finished his conquest of Persia not by conquering the four capitals, instead only when Darios III. was killed afterwards. Would he have survived he might have been declared king again, as soon as a province would have revolted.

I found it quite strange that once the last settlement is gone, even multiple full army stacks disappear instantly. I remember a ETW campaign were France was defeated by Westphalia, although there were two stacks in Spain and two additional ones in southern France. France should have received a chance at least, to reconquer Paris with their still intact armies.

The nearby area around the armies would be considered that faction territories. You would gain some money from it (imagine plundering and taxing/robbing merchants), and the nearer you stay to ports/cities/trade routes the more you get.
This would allow us to have way more tribes scaterred around the map, without the actual need to give them starting provinces.
Because, really, we are dismissing lots of individual tribes that lived in provinces owned by other factions.

The second part of your proposal is not that plausible though. This is something I am against. A faction needs at least a homeland to exist at the campaigns start. Additional factions can be added by emerging (or re-emerging) ones through low public order like in any other TW Game.

And the answer is simple, gameplay mechanics. I wish the moment you capture a settlement, the armies belonging to the settlement's faction rally forth to said region, to a final fight for survival. The problem is, if you apply that mechanic i am 100% sure the AI will spam the crap out of it, making it a really annoying mechanic.

Why should the AI spam new armies? We are only talking about the existing ones staying intact.
Spamming new ones without any homeland in possession is of course nonsense.

[kikokyle]

It makes sense. Wasn't there like a French president or something like that in WW2 who fled to England while the Nazi's occupied France, but this didn't mean the country of France had stopped existing, it was just inactive at the moment and the French leader in England was 'ruling' (trying to get his country back) from there.
But, even though your idea makes sense and is historically proven, in a video game, it'd be hard to seperate what makes and faction and what doesn't. That rule is implemented to give a 'basis' on how to defeat a faction or how to survive as one. It's there for gameplay reasons, and should not be changed.
The only way I could change it would be to make the rule "all your armies are dead," like you have to kill every troop they have. But with things like the recruitment of mercenaries and such, that rule could be abused.