Civil war is nonsensical

[Dago Red]

I haven't seen much on this lately, but recall seeing this brought up as a top complaint about the game. I didn't think it could be that bad until I now, when I finally experienced it for myself.

For those who have yet to play this game due to bugs, CTD's or just plain Total boredom, you may not wish to look for risk of a spoiler.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I like a challenging game and especially one with lots of historical events, often bad ones, that can throw you for a loop but this is just poorly implemented. To begin with its not historical in the least bit and it's just not fun fighting against spam armies. This is something that mods have sought to correct since day one (at least with Rome I onward) and even this absolutely horrible vanilla release is better than some previous titles at limiting stack spam -- credit where credit is due -- but then they add this feature that actually creates stack spam on purpose. A hollow, meaningless purpose.

The logistical absurdity is one thing -- dealing with a 9 full stack spam army + a fleet 6 stacks big that all travel everywhere together -- but the trigger was nonsense. After reading about how lame the civil war mechanic is, I sought to keep my house in good standing with the Senate in order to avoid it. It was tough at first and the game didn't make it easy not spawning any characters from my own "house" to choose from for 2 decades. I dipped well below another house at lease once, but eventually gained ground back and was sitting at 98% APPROVAL rating when this occurred.

The opposing faction is the Senate loyalists -- how does this make any sense at all? Is the goal to be the lowest scum in the Senate's eyes? That doesn't make sense either!

If there was some explanation, some well-written event message that pulled me in and made me believe, that would be something, at the very least! But no, nothing. Just a "Civil war" message, "bargh blah bla!" no explanation, no immersion, no rhyme or reason. No identifiable intelligent design.

Well, falx it, I said. At least it shakes this incredibly repetitive and boring gameplay up. I recalled my armies, made truce with an enemy and shored up my allies, readying for invasion. Next turn, game locks up on the first 5 stack battle. Never even made it to load screen.

Another broken campaign -- 3rd one I've had to abandon since I started playing this in my extremely rare and precious free time. What's another broken campaign on top of all these broken promises... thanks but no thanks CA. You have a ton more work to do before you can cash that check I gave you.

[wulfgar610]

The civil war looks like a placeholder and they never got around to seriously working on it. Really it should be your standing generals and provinces that rebel.

[hippacrocafish]

The civil war looks like a placeholder and they never got around to seriously working on it. Really it should be your standing generals and provinces that rebel.

I vote for actual betrayal of your generals *and* some sort of public order penalty, faction-wide. I'd like that more than fighting ridiculously powerful stacks of elite units in tedious sieges.

If your faction has too much influence (>50%) your weaker generals rebel because they feel threatened, if you have too little influence (<%50) your best general rebels because he's ambitious. It *should* also be possible to avoid it entirely with good management and research, otherwise it's just a late-game chore for talented players and a game-ending " you" to players who aren't so good.

[Dago Red]

Absolutely.

[Mithridate]

How is this different from good old "RD is rubbish"? I quite like CW and eagerly await several improvements of it

Annoyance with the understandable anger aside:

There is ample warning as to the CW if you read the meter, some information as to earlier triggers or chance of triggering would be grateful but it IS nice to be surprised.
It seem that a turn with several losses of battles and or regions may trigger the CW ( likely number of turns too ), but as you say it should not happen when you're that weak and that early nor with such high approval.

Now, if my standing generals rebelled in any major number id be very annoyed and id hate to see it, but more than one region would be logical.

[karamazovmm]

oh wait, your faction controlled 98% of the power and you wonder why the civil war happened?

I will agree and have stated before that the political system needs a large improvement, but concentrating so much power in ones hands usually leads to a civil war in RL if Im not mistaken, and im not, or something very close to it

anyway, there needs to be more options in the political system, you have to lose more terrain during the civil war, say the cities that are under control of the other faction, there should be a random generator to test the loyalty of the generals, the houses should hamper/help you during the campaign, alliances should have been made and broken. this for me would be a good political system.

[Medina]

What a cool feature is that! Ooh a civil war errupting out of nothing! Really cool! I love this game <3

[wudang_clown]

oh wait, your faction controlled 98% of the power and you wonder why the civil war happened?

I will agree and have stated before that the political system needs a large improvement, but concentrating so much power in ones hands usually leads to a civil war in RL if Im not mistaken, and im not, or something very close to it.

Debating the statistics is meaningless, because as far as I know there is no universally accepted and legally established notion of civil war, so we can argue about the meaning as long as we possibly can. As far as I know, each and every civil war in the Roman Republic was fought between parties which had substantial military and political support, so we should remember about that while interpreting game events. 2% in no way is substantial. It could be a revolt, but a civil war? I don't think so. Besides, how those 9 full stacks plus navy relate to that 2%?

That's nothing. The biggest problem is that political system in current setting has absolutely no sense whatsoever. Level of player's influence in the Senate means nothing, because player already has an absolute power. You can control everything: taxes, foreign policy, decide on development on each an every province, decide on military action, recruit armies and agents. You can even control characters that are supposed to be in political opposition to you. What's the point of having that percentage score, if you can do whatever you like anyway? You basically act like an emperor. The "slight" inconsistency is that you are supposed to play as the Roman Republic.

In my opinion, the only reasonable way to simulate the Roman Republic would be to put the player in the role of the Senate. There simply is no other way to create more convincing. coherent and accurate gameplay for the Roman faction at the time of the Republic.

[karamazovmm]

Debating the statistics is meaningless, because as far as I know there is no universally accepted and legally established notion of civil war, so we can argue about the meaning as long as we possibly can. As far as I know, each and every civil war in the Roman Republic was fought between parties which had substantial military and political support, so we should remember about that while interpreting game events. 2% in no way is substantial. It could be a revolt, but a civil war? I don't think so. Besides, how those 9 full stacks plus navy relate to that 2%?

That's nothing. The biggest problem is that political system in current setting has absolutely no sense whatsoever. Level of player's influence in the Senate means nothing, because player already has an absolute power. You can control everything: taxes, foreign policy, decide on development on each an every province, decide on military action, recruit armies and agents. You can even control characters that are supposed to be in political opposition to you. What's the point of having that percentage score, if you can do whatever you like anyway? You basically act like an emperor. The "slight" inconsistency is that you are supposed to play as the Roman Republic.

In my opinion, the only reasonable way to simulate the Roman Republic would be to put the player in the role of the Senate. There is no other way to create more convincing. coherent and accurate gameplay for the Roman faction at the time of the Republic.

the variations of civil war definitions are actually not meaningful, and more of an ego choice than rather discrepancy in definition

I already posted multiple times what I want changed in the political system and no they dont really involve whatever we know of the senate

[wudang_clown]

the variations of civil war definitions are actually not meaningful, and more of an ego choice than rather discrepancy in definition

The only "ego choice" I see is you denying the nature of some historical and real life events and forcing through your own definition. Can you actually give me an example of a civil war fought by an opposition having 2% of influence in a national assembly?

I already posted multiple times what I want changed in the political system and no they dont really involve whatever we know of the senate

Oh yeah? And I suppose I'm somehow obliged to track your posts and ideas? I wasn't addressing your post specifically with the second part of mine, just expressing my own opinion.

Current political system for the Roman faction is a hotchpotch. You can't really set the player in position of almost supreme being and pretend that this simulates the Roman Republic, or any republic for that matter. It also doesn't simulate the Roman Empire. So what does it simulate, then? The Roman... State Of All Times At Once? It's chaos.

[karamazovmm]

The only "ego choice" I see is you denying the nature of some historical and real life events and forcing through your own definition. Can you actually give me an example of a civil war fought by an opposition having 2% of influence in a national assembly?



Oh yeah? And I suppose I'm somehow obliged to track your posts and ideas? I wasn't addressing your post specifically with the second part of mine, just expressing my own opinion.

Current political system for the Roman faction is a hotchpotch. You can't really set the player in position of almost supreme being and pretend that this simulates the Roman Republic, or any republic for that matter. It also doesn't simulate the Roman Empire. So what does it simulate, then? The Roman... State Of All Times At Once? It's chaos.

the arab spring is one very large example and this is a new one.

no you are not obliged, just dont quote me when you say those things

[Glaumir]

Debating the statistics is meaningless, because as far as I know there is no universally accepted and legally established notion of civil war, so we can argue about the meaning as long as we possibly can. As far as I know, each and every civil war in the Roman Republic was fought between parties which had substantial military and political support, so we should remember about that while interpreting game events. 2% in no way is substantial. It could be a revolt, but a civil war? I don't think so. Besides, how those 9 full stacks plus navy relate to that 2%?

The Senate is just part of the political system. Throughout history there have been many autocracies with a Parliament and the autocrat's party would rule it. Having 98% support is NOT a normal political situation.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

I think it must have something to do with your imperium level... Kind of like the shogun fame bar that everyone started declaring war on you after you hit a certain level no matter if they were in love with you before +250 approval and the such.

I have had 2 civil wars happen to me so far the exact moment my imperium hit the 3rd level where you can field 12 armies.

With senate powers as Rome like 25%-19%-23%-other houses

[karamazovmm]

it is tied to your imperium lvl the higher it gets the more chances you have of a civil war, fully maxed its going to happen

[Szlachta]

it is tied to your imperium lvl the higher it gets the more chances you have of a civil war, fully maxed its going to happen

It has more to do with ambitions rival party members. At a certain point in Imperium, civil war is inevitable, but it will trigger long before you've started to create an empire if you get a rival with level 3 ambition.

[gstephenopolous]

Yeah, imperium level. It's like the final boss battle to this silly arcade game that has been passed off as Rome II. Think you're good now, bam!, 10 stacks.

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Another broken campaign -- 3rd one I've had to abandon since I started playing this in my extremely rare and precious free time. What's another broken campaign on top of all these broken promises... thanks but no thanks CA. You have a ton more work to do before you can cash that check I gave you.

If we could pressure Sega to withhold giving money to CA until they completely fix their game

[wulfgar610]

If we could pressure Sega to withhold giving money to CA until they completely fix their game

CA would shut its doors the same day!

[BSGfan]

the original poster has a good point the civil war was very dissapointing it was over after one turn in my roman campagne

on the other hand i am tired reading about how this game id flawed beyond repair
actually it isn't besodes some Ai issues i never had any CTDS or major game breaking bugs
but then again if people think they can still play this on ultra graphics on a 10 year old pc what you expect?

[AngryTitusPullo]

In all honesty I don't like this style of civil war feature. I was actually imagining when civil war triggered you actually loose half of your army and you have to recruit new one to counter that. This is much better than 'spawned' stack and I believe more realistic.

However this may be not done because player then can make sure only their family members lead armies.

I have never had civil war yet so I do not know about this but did you loose any general when civil war triggered ? Maybe a low loyalty family/non-family member will leave the army and you will need to recruit new general ? Will this feature more believable ?