A new simple civil war system

[PeonKing]

I think they wanted to avoid having 'half your armies' revolt against you regardless of your choices. That would likely piss a lot of people off, since there are some real meticulous tacticians out there that having half your forces automatically revolt would take any fun out of the game. I would say your suggestion is worse than what they have in place, which is saying a lot because the current system is pretty terrible. I don't mean to offend you saying that, you're just one guy on a forum thinking up ideas, not a company that is being paid to make a cunning civil war mechanic.

Your suggestion is probably the most obvious choice, but it's glaringly obvious why it wouldn't work out, mostly being that the civil war mechanic MUST take place, which means you would eventually lose half your forces whether you wanted to or not. This is when you would say 'Well, why does the civil war have to take place' in which I would reply, you're right, it doesn't, but something would need to replace it, so the civil war would then be fulfilling a different role, and this would solve the problem with late game being too easy. So it would change the civil war from being a speed bump late game into an additional, nice feature, which is well and good, but still doesn't answer how to make the late game harder. A realm divide like in S2 wouldn't really work because this game is 'supposed' to rely more on diplomacy and you don't actually need to conquer the whole world to win. So making a point in time where the whole known world just joins forces against you would make diplomacy pointless, like it did in S2.

Honestly it would probably end up with people making weak armies with disloyal generals at the head prepping for the civil wars, which would make the army cap useless. The 'just take away half your stuff' approach would just be annoying and tedious in the name of making it 'challenging.'

[baptistus]

I think they wanted to avoid having 'half your armies' revolt against you regardless of your choices. That would likely piss a lot of people off, since there are some real meticulous tacticians out there that having half your forces automatically revolt would take any fun out of the game. I would say your suggestion is worse than what they have in place, which is saying a lot because the current system is pretty terrible. I don't mean to offend you saying that, you're just one guy on a forum thinking up ideas, not a company that is being paid to make a cunning civil war mechanic.

Your suggestion is probably the most obvious choice, but it's glaringly obvious why it wouldn't work out, mostly being that the civil war mechanic MUST take place, which means you would eventually lose half your forces whether you wanted to or not. This is when you would say 'Well, why does the civil war have to take place' in which I would reply, you're right, it doesn't, but something would need to replace it, so the civil war would then be fulfilling a different role, and this would solve the problem with late game being too easy. So it would change the civil war from being a speed bump late game into an additional, nice feature, which is well and good, but still doesn't answer how to make the late game harder. A realm divide like in S2 wouldn't really work because this game is 'supposed' to rely more on diplomacy and you don't actually need to conquer the whole world to win. So making a point in time where the whole known world just joins forces against you would make diplomacy pointless, like it did in S2.

Honestly it would probably end up with people making weak armies with disloyal generals at the head prepping for the civil wars, which would make the army cap useless. The 'just take away half your stuff' approach would just be annoying and tedious in the name of making it 'challenging.'

Did you play medieval total war ? The civil war in medieval 1 works the same as this idea and it is the best civil war in a TW, a real civil war. And trust me, when half of your empire decide to be your enemy/rebels in medieval 1, it is a good challenge.
So I invented nothing, it is only one of the "old" good features which CA forgot, as many others.... and players forgot/don't know these good features too because medieval 1 is an "old" game.

[brandbll]

Did you play medieval total war ? The civil war in medieval 1 works the same as this idea and it is the best civil war in a TW, a real civil war. And trust me, when half of your empire decide to be your enemy/rebels in medieval 1, it is a good challenge.
So I invented nothing, it is only one of the "old" good features which CA forgot, as many others.... and players forgot/don't know these good features too because medieval 1 is an "old" game.

It makes you wonder why none of these Devs are required to have played the old games. You'd think CA would hire people familiar with their products. Because i can't imagine a meeting where this was brought up. And if it was, i picture something like this happening:

Joe Bagofdoughnuts- "Hey guys, remember that old civil war feature we used in Medieval Total War? Something like that would be awesome and work perfectly as a civil war feature for this game!"

John Doe in charge of meeting- "Joe Bagofdoghnuts seriously...shut the up! How many ing times do we have to go over this ? None of us played those old games and none of give a flying about them! Seriously man, ing drop it already. We're doing the random spawn thing Blah Blah came up with and that's that. Let me tell you something Joe B; unlike you, we have lives outside of work and no one here wants to stay after to design some that you saw in some old ass title that none of us were part of or care about. Let me remind everyone again, we are NOT here to make some masterpiece or build on the past, we are here to sell-ing-games! Anything else is irrelevant and if anyone has a problem with that you can pack your up right now and get the out of here!"

[baptistus]

It makes you wonder why none of these Devs are required to have played the old games. You'd think CA would hire people familiar with their products. Because i can't imagine a meeting where this was brought up.

are you sure it is only the fault of CA ?
when I read this kind of comments, I am not sure.

That would likely piss a lot of people off, since there are some real meticulous tacticians out there that having half your forces automatically revolt would take any fun out of the game.

If the players are "pissed off" by a real civil war system in a TW game, I understand why there is no more logistic or management in Rome 2: 'cause "It take any fun out of the game" .
To me gta V is "fun", but I will not use this kind of qualifier for a TW. It is the same as to say chess are "fun" or not. It doesn't have any sense.

[LewisVee]

The civil war mechanic is nothing but lazy.

If you defend CA for this horrible mechanic your deluded.

[Epic]

Thinking about the civil war mechanic for the Romans and Carthage, I was wondering why the player gets to control what the other houses do. To clarify, if I choose to play as Julia, why do I get to control what the generals of Cornelia, Junia and other houses do. On a grander scale, why do I get to control what the whole Roman Republic does with its armies. Shouldn't I only be controlling my house, and armies and regions falling under my control. This is why I believe we should have had a system somewhat similar to what Rome Total War presented, in which Rome was broken into multiple factions. One controlled by the player and the others controlled by the AI. After sometime the other factions would just declare war on you.

Now I'm not saying RTW system was perfect, but I think a better civil war mechanic can be built along that concept.

[krisslanza]

Thinking about the civil war mechanic for the Romans and Carthage, I was wondering why the player gets to control what the other houses do. To clarify, if I choose to play as Julia, why do I get to control what the generals of Cornelia, Junia and other houses do. On a grander scale, why do I get to control what the whole Roman Republic does with its armies. Shouldn't I only be controlling my house, and armies and regions falling under my control. This is why I believe we should have had a system somewhat similar to what Rome Total War presented, in which Rome was broken into multiple factions. One controlled by the player and the others controlled by the AI. After sometime the other factions would just declare war on you.

Now I'm not saying RTW system was perfect, but I think a better civil war mechanic can be built along that concept.

I view it more that the player is playing the role of the Consul, and thus controls all of Rome. They happen to back/side with one particular House, but they control the entire Empire, instead of only controlling a singular Family.

[jamreal18]

I view it more that the player is playing the role of the Consul, and thus controls all of Rome. They happen to back/side with one particular House, but they control the entire Empire, instead of only controlling a singular Family.

This!

[theparagon]

I view it more that the player is playing the role of the Consul, and thus controls all of Rome. They happen to back/side with one particular House, but they control the entire Empire, instead of only controlling a singular Family.

Consuls were elected each year and many of them were generals who led a legion when Rome was at war. So the player being the consul doesn't really make sense.

[Ano2]

I view it more that the player is playing the role of the Consul, and thus controls all of Rome. They happen to back/side with one particular House, but they control the entire Empire, instead of only controlling a singular Family.

Clearly you have no idea about Roman history. Firstly there we're always two consuls, and at times a third acting as proconsul. This was designed to prevent any one man having too much power. Secondly these consuls we're predominantly drawn from the noble families, and the first Roman civil war was between Pompey and Caesar who we're both consuls from rival families. Thirdly consuls never controlled rome, they we're its generals, rome was ruled by the senate, at least up until caesar took power.

There are only two ways to view the player's role when in charge of Rome:

Either the player acts as the gods, favouring one house for no apparent reason.

Or:

The player represents some illuminate style group that secretly controls Rome.

If the player was meant to act as a consul then it wouldn't make sense to control other families armies. If the player was supposed to represent the senate then the whole senate support system wouldn't make a lick of sense.

As for the civil war suggestion, I am fully in favour of it, its the best thing give the absolutely diabolical representation of the political system.

[brandbll]

I view it more that the player is playing the role of the Consul, and thus controls all of Rome. They happen to back/side with one particular House, but they control the entire Empire, instead of only controlling a singular Family.

What in god's name are you talking about???



Oh wait, is this another moment where we are suppose to use our imagination to make up for the slopiness and laziness of CA employees?

[Pheidippides]

Presumably you'd be able to avoid the civil war mechanic through playing good politics, something that is basically impossible right now. What I thought we might see are different factions that have to be balanced through in game decisions. Warmongers vs pacifists, nobles vs peasants, rural vs urban, xenophobes vs tolerant folks. Stray too much towards one faction and you start getting penalties and eventually a revolt or civil war. I also expected to see dynastic succession crises in those states with monarchies, like in MTW1. Weak young king vs strong pretender or minister, that sort of thing. Alas, not going to happen.

The easiest way to improve civil war within the current game structure would be to create province or region governorships. Keep the division between factions, with maybe an 80/20 split between characters in other factions and characters in yours. Wildly vary their initial traits, so that putting too many of your incompetent family members in charge of provinces will severely hurt your economy (and the same with generals). Give the player the incentive not to maintain family members in all the highest places but to fill those roles with good characters from other parties, then trigger the civil war automatically and give all regions/armies controlled by them to the rebels. Anything else would probably require more work than CA is willing/able to do at this point.

[baptistus]

The easiest way to improve civil war within the current game structure would be to create province or region governorships.

The goal of my idea is to create a civil war mechanic without to add anything new to the game. Governors are not in the game.
Of course we would like to have governors, family trees ect... ect.. but they will not add it to the game. It is time to be more pragmatic and to find solutions with what we already have.

[AngryTitusPullo]

The goal of my idea is to create a civil war mechanic without to add anything new to the game. Governors are not in the game.
Of course we would like to have governors, family trees ect... ect.. but they will not add it to the game. It is time to be more pragmatic and to find solutions with what we already have.

Well technically eigine wise CA will have to add something new regarding the civil war mechanics since the feature is not existing in TW3 engine which Rome II is base. It's not even featured in TW2 engine which RTW was base.

CA however (I think) would not have to add a lot since the base is there in terms of families and loyalties.

[Boicote]

The goal of my idea is to create a civil war mechanics without to add anything new to the game. Keep this in mind please.
Of course we would like to have governor, family tree ect... ect.. but they will not add it to the game. It is time to be more pragmatic and to find solutions with what we already have.

this is my simple idea which come from the old medieval total war:

-the game select half of your armies (with generals of the other families/party in priority or the one with the less gravitas, so this data will have more importance as the loyality in old total war) and change them to rebels.
Another version if you want to have more armies into the civil war: select only 1/3 of the armies, and complete them news full stack whick could appear at the capital city to have the same number of army in the two side.

-the game select 1/3 (or 1/2 ?) of your regions (with the lower public order in priority) and change them to rebel.


and that is it ! now you have a real civil war.
simple, it doesn't need a lot of very complex scripts, so it could be possible to do it for CA.
Hope we will see this kind of improvement for the civil war.



don't forget to up the official topic
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...vil-war-system


thank you

I totally agree with this. I don't know if you ever played Europa Universalis: Rome, but this is how civil wars work in this game. Your empire suddenly becomes divided in two (you lose several regions) and some of your generals lead some YOUR OWN armies against you. In EU:Rome there are unlimited number of civil wars, and this is something I would also like to see in Total War: Rome II.
There is only one problem: with this system implemented the player will avoid to assign his armies with generals not belonging to his own family.

[baptistus]

There is only one problem: with this system implemented the player will avoid to assign his armies with generals not belonging to his own family.

so the game choose armies with generals of your own family if there isn't enough generals of the other families with an army.
And if you don't have all the armies that your current army cap allow,the game will spam enough armies on the rebels regions to be sure the army cap is divide by 2. (for example if you create only 8 army with a armies cap of 10, the game will add onr full stack army to the rebels. So the civil war will a be 5 vs 4 and you can create one more army ).
and if a rebel general only have a few units, the game will add some units to be sure the army rebels are not totally weak at the begining of the civil war.

There are solutions to adjust the system and avoid silly tactics.

If you ask me - the whole idea of ONE MANDATORY civil war is stupid. Civil war should be preventable, and it should have a possibility of occurring several times in the course of 300 years..

I totaly agree.
It will avoid the tactic which consists to create the civil war the most quickly possible.

[AlexCouceiro]

I totally agree with this. I don't know if you ever played Europa Universalis: Rome, but this is how civil wars work in this game. Your empire suddenly becomes divided in two (you lose several regions) and some of your generals lead some YOUR OWN armies against you. In EU:Rome there are unlimited number of civil wars, and this is something I would also like to see in Total War: Rome II.
There is only one problem: with this system implemented the player will avoid to assign his armies with generals not belonging to his own family.

This is also what I wanted to see implemented. The player would then at some point have to face the following dilemma: Should I entrust my legion to a capable but not reliable general who will most likely win wars for me, or should I take the opposite direction?

[AngryTitusPullo]

The goal of my idea is to create a civil war mechanics without to add anything new to the game. Keep this in mind please.
Of course we would like to have governor, family tree ect... ect.. but they will not add it to the game. It is time to be more pragmatic and to find solutions with what we already have.

this is my simple idea which come from the old medieval total war:

-the game select half of your armies (with generals of the other families/party in priority or the one with the less gravitas, so this data will have more importance as the loyality in old total war) and change them to rebels.
Another version if you want to have more armies into the civil war: select only 1/3 of the armies, and complete them news full stack whick could appear at the capital city to have the same number of army in the two side.

-the game select 1/3 (or 1/2 ?) of your regions (with the lower public order in priority) and change them to rebel.


and that is it ! now you have a real civil war.
simple, it doesn't need a lot of very complex scripts, so it could be possible to do it for CA.
Hope we will see this kind of improvement for the civil war.



don't forget to up the official topic
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...vil-war-system


thank you

This is almost like what I want. It's more like the Medieval civil war/rebellion and not just a one time event and it can be small. Maybe just one legion/region each time. However I like using features as in FOTS too where while you empire splits into 2 (or 3 maybe) your existing allies takes sides so some may go to you and some may go to your enemies.

Anyway, there is already existing feature in the game which needs a bit of fine tune to make it more interesting IMHO. We already have the political sides in game where you can either use your family as generals which leave your standing in the government low or use rival family members as generals which makes you stronger in the government but maybe leaves you weaker military wise.

If you keep the government side stronger you will have most regions but need to raise new armies quickly (10 units per turn maybe) but if you're all military you'll have most existing experience legions with you but no regions (maybe 1 or 2).

The above is base on Caesar's/Pompey's civil war which can also be use for other factions.

If you keep balance between military/government then when civil war starts more balance (like FOTS) with maybe other family want to create a breakaway republic having their own sets of legions and regions.

The above is more like Anthony/Octavion period of civil war.

[daelin4]

I think a way to add some sense in losing settlements would be to involve statesmen as governors of provinces (unsurprisingly, that's realistic) and depending on who you assign them to, these provinces will influence who joins which side in a civil war. The assignment of governors would then mimic the commision system used in Shogun2, and of course either supplement or replace the Secure Promotion thing in the politics system.

[Toho]

The best thing they should have done is each time you capture a region then you assign a governor to it. Only one governor can be assigned per province. So you don't need to assign 150 governors and once you assign a governor to a province that family keeps that region until you do political actions like marrying into their family or securing promotion. Each of these actions costs political capital and the more governors you have the less political action you have. This means that to have the a senate balance and keeping other families happy you have to be fair.
For monarchy systems the system is exactly the opposite.

Once the civil war begins each region under other families will spawn one stack with their respective governors. Also any army under enemy family will have desertion this way you don't lose an entire stack but a big chunk of it.