How to improve the CIVIL WAR function.

[helmersen]

The idea of a civil war, is in my idea, a cool function. but the way it is implemented... well, the public opinion speaks for itself. I too am not a huge fan of it. However, I have an idea on how to improve it.

In Rome 2 we have a political system where the power is divided between the families. This is good. However, it is badly used when it comes down to the nitty gritty. When the civil war errupts, you and your family still controll everything. Well, except for one city. Why? If it is a civil war, why would 15 000 soldiers just spawn in a random city while you keep controll of everything? Not realistic, not that much of a challenge (if you know how to play and get over the headache of taking those surprise armies out).

Now. In Empire: total war, revolutions would start by having a revolt in your capital. An ok function, but with a better twist: you could choose to fight the rebellion or join it. Now what if, when a civil war errupted, you would have controll of your armies, but you would lose the controll of your cities (at least the ones not conquered by your family's armies). This way, it would be like you were Caesar, having to march on the republic, and the civil war would be won, or largely won, by managing to take controll of Rome. Also, if a general in your family rebelled, you could choose to join him, I.E lead him to Rome and make him dictator, OR you could choose to out him from the family and fight for the republic.

Would this not make it more up to the player? Make it more fun, and more rpg like? I think so.

[biohazardcake]

It would be awsome, good idea i'd love to see it in a mod.

[xvin879x]

i agree. the civil war in Rome 2 is stale and dead. this takes me back to the civil war in Rome 1 where there were separate 2 other roman factions to compete with and each furthering their own interests and their own territories. i was disappointed when i found out in Rome 2 i control the entire Roman faction.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

The politics should be way better implemented, and the civil war should really hurt, like tearing your empire to little pieces that you have to collect again if you failed at politics and you got a civil war.

But the way politics are now which is meh and the way civil war is now which is meh, it's all a big pile of mediocre meh :S

[Daeworn]

One way (and I think it was mentioned somewhere else already) how to make civil war hurt, is actually taking the politic system in account. Because as it is now, it does not much matter how big influence you have or who command your armies and who is in senate (states men). What I thought at the beginning, was, that when the civil war erupts, the generals of other families will revolt against me (with their armies and cities they are actually in). The "other faction" was somehow mysterious for me, but dependable on your influence it could join you or rebels. Secondly, provinces without government could get high unrest penalty to reflect chaos in a government and can revolt, join rebel faction or just spawn NPC faction, from which it was originally taken. That way you had to keep an eye, who is leading your best armies, who control important regions/provinces, etc. Not like now, when some "desu-ex" faction spawns with ridiculous army, which defeat itself by starvation.

[Rittsy]

I think when your influence becomes too low you can march on Rome (although you'd have to lose almost every battle and really c*ck up your game to get in that situation).

I kinda think the whole thing needs to be reworked. So instead of the three families and 'Other Houses', all you have is your "generals", the senate and the plebs (similar to Rome 1, although no multiple factions). So the senate would issue you missions you'd need to complete to keep them happy; the plebs would want conquests ie. slaves, land and loot. Also if they added a feature where you had to retain loyalty of your troops which could be increased through victories, looting settlements (money goes to troops, not your treasury) and your general's traits. So you'd need to decide at that moment, do you want your troops loyalty or money for buildings etc? You wouldn't have a faction leader rather your highest ranked general (gravitas); if this general were also ambitious he may acquire the ire of the senate who would ask him to disband his legion, return to Rome, commit suicide etc. If you don't you could march on Rome, other generals may choose to join yours if their opinion of your leader is high enough, their legions may join if their loyalty is as well.

As far as the Civil War goes: the higher your rating with the plebs the more settlements you retain. If you continuously defeat the senate's armies other senators/generals/legions may choose to join you rather than fight; you can choose amnesty (all is forgiven, but they may betray you at a later date) or punishment (you reject their surrender, have to fight). The 'faction leader' of the senators (the Pompey of the civil war) must be defeated before others defect. Civil War ends when either you've defeated all opposition through conquest, or their support from the plebs drops to 0%.

...oh a boy can dream.

[helmersen]

Yeah, I just wonder why it was made the way it was? It practically leaves everything up to chance (the ambition trait), and why the frick do you keep your whole empire? what? There's civil war and I lost one city?

[SinerAthin]

I'd also like to see the civil war being possible to forego.

Maybe by careful diplomacy or exterminating opposing families & their supporters.

[helmersen]

I wish we could get the senate and the people "factions" back. Like how much support you had from both and so on. Maybe they could also add a military factions like it, how loyal your soldiers and generals were.