A new simple civil war system

[daelin4]

Recapping on my earlier post, governors can produce dynasty/family specific dimensions to control and influence in that province, and the way you assign governors could play a role in politics: we can utilize the limited pool of candidates for the role of Statesmen/Governors, and Generals can also be governors but obviously carry drawbacks, like the tradeoff of military benefits as opposed to economic. Really, the basic concept would be the same as that in Rome1: your people assigned as governors will be adept at civil affairs, while generals are the guys that do the conquests. You CAN use your governor as a general in the event of attack, but of course he will lack traits and such to be as effective as your actual field generals.

Who gets assign as governor can also be determined by things like Gravitas and your influence: Gravitas therefore becomes the equivalent of Rome1's Influence/ Management trait rating and will have an effect on the province's sentiments, and also play a role in advancing your family's standing globally. So a governor with good Gravitas will not only be a local boon to the province, but will increase the standing of the family in politics as well; conversely bad generals with low gravitas could cause unrest and be an embarrassment to the family. So what happens is you make calculated risks when you throw governors not of your family into certain settlemnts: for a tradeoff in increased unrest you could potentially send them into political quagmires by their poor governance in cities: the game then could cause Dilemma events to oust the governor and install a new one, and if you do things right, you pull out a terrible governor of another family and install one from your own, exploiting the situation. This of course can go both ways, as your own governor may become so problematic that you would have to risk losing standing by installing another, better governor. To prevent abuse, switching governors too much and too quickly will negatively impact both standing and unrest for no one's benefit.

Public perception and their relatonship with governors could also play a role in civil war- the governor is basically the representative of his family back home, so if a city is happy with their governor once civil war strikes, those cities will side with that family, not yours. Naturally, you would want as many of your best cities to stay on your side, which may not always be possible. The way civil war occurs would then be much like a rebellion in, namely that of the Barons' revolt system in Britannia: a few cities secede, and they become pockets or blocs of resistance to your own family. The "large stacks appearing next to one city" is thrown out, and rather than an explosion of civil war the situation flowers up.

Even own armies can play a part in this: since you have can only so many candidates for positions in a family, you have to juggle between who contols armies and who controls cities: Too many of your members being generals might mean you get more armies to control, but also leaves you with few cities- likewise too many of your family members as governors will leave you with few armies to deal with the revolting legions out there. A good balance and careful political strategy would ensure that you control the necessary provinces as well as enough armies to take out whoever took the wrong side.

You can even take things further and have the opposition consist either of the Senate or a rogue family that lost too much standing: this happened on rare occasion in RTW.

[AlexCouceiro]

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.

This is pretty much how civil wars work in EU:ROME.

Civil wars can either be triggered by disloyal governors or ambitious generals. Regarding generals, the more they fight and win wars - thus accumulating prestige and public renown -, the more dangerous and prone to start a rebellion they become. Still, a skilled general who is trusted by his legion makes a huge difference in the tide of wars, whereas a clumsy one - who won't betray you - will most likely be defeated in battle.

[YoungGrognard]

Yes that's what we need.

This arcade bullsh-t over-simplified shoddy so called strategy game with FPS controls to be even more over-simplified.

[Harnis]

I don't like the idea that just because there was a historical civil war, there needs to be a civil war in the game. That is flawed game design.

I liked the old system in Medieval 2 Total War, where characters and towns could rebel against you depending on public order, bribes, loyalty, etc. So you could have anything from one isolated rebellion of a city, to (if you really screw up your empire) multiple cities and characters rebelling against you.

[Epic]

I don't like the idea that just because there was a historical civil war, there needs to be a civil war in the game. That is flawed game design.

I liked the old system in Medieval 2 Total War, where characters and towns could rebel against you depending on public order, bribes, loyalty, etc. So you could have anything from one isolated rebellion of a city, to (if you really screw up your empire) multiple cities and characters rebelling against you.

I agree, if we can keep the balance of power than there shouldn't be a civil war.

[necronox]

has anyone actually made any advances on that? i don't see how it would be possible to alter the civil war unless one make a whole new script. any ideas?

[brandbll]

has anyone actually made any advances on that? i don't see how it would be possible to alter the civil war unless one make a whole new script. any ideas?

No. The best people have done from what i've heard is been able to simply knock that POS "feature" out of the game. Addition by subtraction. They won't be able to fix it. Look, CA couldn't even make it into what they wanted it to be and it's their code, so i doubt we'll have much luck.

[baptistus]

has anyone actually made any advances on that? i don't see how it would be possible to alter the civil war unless one make a whole new script. any ideas?

remove the civil war.
and wait for the "civil war and poltic" free-lc from CA..... It is the only hope we have.

[spanish_emperor]

At small sizes individual generals will rebel, but once you get to a certain size a civil war can happen. For Rome and Carthage, if you have high power the civil war will kick off away from the capital. It can also kick off at the capital if you have low power, and this is how it works for other factions. When a civil war begins, the characters from other families will join it (if they lead your armies/fleets they will be automatically replaced) and have armies with new units, and your armies will lose men. You won't lose any units, but your armies will need time to replenish up to full strength.

Has anyone actually seen this happen? Do you actually lose men in your armies when a civil war erupts? i have never noticed this.

[ABH2]

There's nothing new here, really, to be fair. But my number one beef with the mechanic remains that the political parties that it is supposedly centered around mean nothing once it starts. Generals from all parties still remain in your faction. You still keep all of your armies. It's also ridiculous that a bunch of armies just spawn by the capital or one area.

CA's biggest mistake, I believe, was just treating the civil war as a chance to spawn another faction. Politics would be exponentially more significant if you simply had to worry about who was in charge of armies and you had a more organic process. Instead of having a new faction spawn, just take the armies already under control of opposing sides and have them change hands. You have to beat your own armies. It simultaneously weakens the player to add the late game challenge while also increasing the importance of the political parties.

You appoint your own guys across the board? You increase the chances of civil war, albeit with more strength. To counter that, the unassigned generals from other families could in fact spawn with new armies - in different parts of your empire. While Caesar's wasn't the only civil war, it's what this is loosely based on. The challenge there was beating his opponents across the map. He had to fight campaigns all over the Mediterranean.

Without resorting to just CA bashing, it's amazing how lazy this mechanic is and how with a slight tweak it could possibly be a great one.

[antred]

That's true. I never bothered with politics in this game at all, because I read that no matter what you do, that civil war is coming anyway. Then when it did come, a bunch of legions spawned directly outside Roman-owned Carthage, which had a very strong garrison and was also guarded by a full-strength legion of mine. Coupled with the absolutely atrocious AI this meant that the civil war was over 4 turns later.

[alQamar]

there is a smart way to get rid of this troublesome "design decision" and it makes the game much more playable as long the civil war and the political system do not make much sense mate. It was ok for Shogun 2 that the Shogunates turn against you as soon you gained too much power, for Rome 2 I feel it is just displaced and too shallow. I agree with your and other ones wishes that this should be reworked but more or less CA declined to rework the game at the very beginning in their Q&A threads.

here you go:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfile.../?id=250473599

[AlexCouceiro]

Answering to the OP, this rightful and so obvious observation has already being mentioned many times, by many people, for several months. In January, one of the CA representatives posted a statement saying this general criticism had already being acknowledged by them, and that something perhaps would be done to improve civil wars and politics in the future.

I am still waiting for a miracle to happen. I guess we can only hope and pray at this point the civil war and politics lazy mechanics have not been developed by lazy developers, as I suspect is the case.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Merged

[Dunadd]

baptistus wrote

originally Posted by krisslanza

I'm pretty sure it wasn't a rush job. It was probably just what they wanted in the first place.
There's not a whole lot I can see that exists in-game, to suggest this was a last minute job.

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...51#post1102651
When a civil war begins, the characters from other families will join it (if they lead your armies/fleets they will be automatically replaced) and have armies with new units, and your armies will lose men.


http://forums.totalwar.com/showthrea...51#post1102651

So how it is possible to say it is not a rush job ? the final product of the civil war is half finished compare to this description made only one month before the released of the game. ONE MONTH.

You proved that pretty conclusively. Well done. Whole game is a rush job.