King of your ally

[Legion_IX]

Historically the alliances were usually limited to a faction leader and not to a faction itself. So does it mean that if a faction leader dies his succesor usually cancel the previous alliences and/or start peace negotiations which were refused by previous king. Due to increased amount of possibilities to simulate political intrigues in Rome 2 it could bring some interesting strategies. For example you can kill a faction leader who is allied with your family and help to succes his relative (for example with money), in return the new king cancel the alliance and ally with your faction. Another possibility would be if you are not able to kill the king, to promise his relative the crone if you are going to win the war. If the character agrees, he henceforth is under your commando with some military units. Maybe it would work in this way not only for allies but also for client kingdoms.

Exactly this strategy was permanently used especially by romans through their whole history, but also hellenistic faction used it widely.

[davieholgate]

Agreed.

[Revan The Great]

I guess it would be a neat feature, but I'd want the new regime to be more likely to honor past agreements than not, unless it's a character who, for whatever reason, has a particular distaste for your faction. It might be interesting if the King of a loyal vassal state has two sons, and the eldest has the 'Crucifies Romans' trait, while the younger one is just neutral. You go out of your way to assassinate or otherwise get the anti-Roman son killed so that the potentially pro Roman son succeeds the King instead.

[HusKatten]

Would be very frustrating to renew all diplomatic treaties that you've got with every faction whenever yours or theirs leader dies. That might result in repeatedly renewed treaties every 10 turn during the later stages of the game. Could have worked if the game was set within a 100 years, and not 300 years.

[Legion_IX]

Would be very frustrating to renew all diplomatic treaties that you've got with every faction whenever yours or theirs leader dies. That might result in repeatedly renewed treaties every 10 turn during the later stages of the game. Could have worked if the game was set within a 100 years, and not 300 years.

Good point I agree with you. With one year per turn that could be really an issue, if the alliances break very fast due to the dead of the fuction leader.
But the dependence of personal references and possibilities to influence it via intrigues is still a very interesting option. If you want to break the alliance you could try to influence a possible successor with money or bride (though for republican Rome only money bribe is possible). With traits like friend of romans, hate carthagians, amorous or greedy it could be easier or more difficult to do. Then you assinate the king, your favourite will be the next leader and the factions break previous alliance and alliances with you. Or if the assasination is not possible you offer the family member the throne if he agrees he joins you with some military forces. When the leader dies, he is getting automaticaly the new leader of the faction wich is also your ally.

An example is Syphax and Massinisa. First Massinissa was carthagians ally and betrothed with a carthagians princess, then carthagians refused him and gave the princess to his competitor for the throne Syphax. Afterwards the romans offered Massinissa the possibility to be the ruler of Numidians if he joins them. He accepted and fought with his troops alongside with romans against carthagians and Syphax. When the romans won second punic war Massinissas became the king of numidians.

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

Good idea, i assume that if the next king has no problem with the existing treaties you will not have to change anything right?

[Legion_IX]

Good idea, i assume that if the next king has no problem with the existing treaties you will not have to change anything right?

Yes. I think it was a good point of HusKatten that the cancelling of all treaties if the king dies would harm the balance, especially with one year per turn system. So know I think the treaties should be still there unless the successor did not want it. Due to intrigues described above (your enemy bribed him for example) or his personal traits (hates romans). So in this way you would

- reproduce the history more accurately, since the treaties depended on the ruler and not just fraction itself and
- significantly extend the political intrigues feature. Even add some role-playing aspects
- add some new strategy options. (like having a foreign prince with his followers in your army who wants to occupy the throne)

[-=PHX=-Hades]

I've thought about this in the past as well. I think it's a good idea overall.

Maybe you wouldn't LOSE yer treaty/alliance when their/your king dies, but maybe just take a hit on yer relations.