Does distance from capital affect the chance of generals turning traitors?

[LordofSunspear]

Hey all, I recently started a campaign with Carthage and I just had my most extreme case of generals turning traitors in EBII.

I beat pretty much everyone in North Africa, Spain, Italy and France and then I reached Britain. Until that point I had no problem with traitors. I decided to invade Britain so I built up 5 full stacks and shipped them over on the island. In 5 turns, I had only 1 stack left because of generals turning traitors every turn. My faction leader did not die, he has been the same for a while.

The only thing that I can think of is that distance from the capital influences the probabilty of becoming traitor but it's pretty much game breaking if the effect is so extreme.

Can someone who knows the mechanics of the game better confirm or deny this? If it's not the distance, what might have caused the wave of desertion?

[Maroslav]

maybe starving there can contribute to that, but as you surely noticed,there are no degrading traits with -loyalty points and still,they loosing that. in my pritonoi campaign i had many fms with 0 loyalty, however they never betrayed me for some reason

[Genghis Skahn]

I haven't noticed anything to that effect. I do believe it's just based on their loyalty trait, which decreases the likelihood of rebellion. FMs/captains going traitor is a somewhat random event, I believe, with high loyalty decreasing the likelihood(but not guaranteeing) of turning traitor. You should know that larger empires have FMs with lower loyalty, while smaller factions have a loyalty bonus to their FMs. Sounds like you just had really bad luck with the traitor mechanic. I've played almost 500 turns before with just a few traitors, even with a big empire. Since you have a large carthaginian empire, I'm guessing your FM loyalty isn't always the most wonderful at this point.

[Maroslav]

question is, what give them loyalty since i never saw any trait increase that.

[LordofSunspear]

I checked it, none of the generals were starving when I first attacked. I launched my invasion in the spring and this happened in the first 5 round of the war.

The loyalty of my generals was definitely low (0,0,1,0,0) and my faction leader isn't the best either (4 influence, 1 authority) but that alone can't be the reason because the very same generals conquered Gaul without a single desertion in the previous 30 rounds.

[LordofSunspear]

I haven't noticed anything to that effect. I do believe it's just based on their loyalty trait, which decreases the likelihood of rebellion. FMs/captains going traitor is a somewhat random event, I believe, with high loyalty decreasing the likelihood(but not guaranteeing) of turning traitor. (...) Sounds like you just had really bad luck with the traitor mechanic. I've played almost 500 turns before with just a few traitors, even with a big empire. Since you have a large carthaginian empire, I'm guessing your FM loyalty isn't always the most wonderful at this point.

I might have had bad luck, I reloaded my save and tried to do everything like I did before. I still had one desertion in the first round but after that none in the second and third round.

You should know that larger empires have FMs with lower loyalty, while smaller factions have a loyalty bonus to their FMs.

Is that true for the game in general or just the EB2 mod? Is there a way to change it?

[Genghis Skahn]

It's true for EB2, at least. I'm not sure how to/ if you can even change that mechanic. It's no wonder that your generals rebelled though...0,0,1,0,0 sounds like 5 untrustworthy generals. Try restricting control of a large army to a FM with higher loyalty unless you specifically want more traitors for RP purposes. Frankly, sounds like you were asking for it in that situation . Authority also affects loyalty. FLs with low authority will usually have FMs with lower loyalty values. I don't trust anybody below a 3 in loyalty to command large forces, and 3 is pushing it in my opinion. The point is, with large empires you actually do get a higher risk of traitors to partially simulate the internal strife of larger factions/empires. The reason why you didnt have an issue in Gaul is purely due to chance. As you just said, reloading avoided some of the traitor events. But you have such very disloyal FMs a few rebellions shouldn't be surprising.

[LordofSunspear]

Haha, yeah, I'm not saying it was an ideal situation but losing 4 generals in 5 rounds still upset me!

The problem is that I can't figue out the loyalty system. I have 36 family members and here are their loyalty stats:

0 loyalty: 17
1 loyalty: 3
2 loyalty: 6
3 loyalty: 6
4 loyalty: 3
5 loyalty: 1

The guys with high loyalty tend to be the young ones who never left their cities, so their command is 0 and whenever I try to "train" them by using them in wars, their loyalty starts to drop (or maybe I'm becoming paranoid?). I don't have the save anymore but I'm fairly confident that my traitors started their campaign in Gaul with higher loyalty and lost it by the time they finished it.

[Genghis Skahn]

Loyalty can drop over time, you aren't being paranoid. Remember that in your Gallic campaign you were still smaller during and before it, which made loyalty take less of a hit from empire size. You can try getting them to spend time with your FL in a stack/city, which I've read on here(there's a guide to loyalty in the gameplay guides section) can increase loyalty. I've seen this happen from time to time. but it's no guarantee of improved loyalty. The leader given loyalty bonus can degenerate over time anyway, because sometimes loyalty just drops over time(and in other ways too). If you're really concerned about losing stacks to traitors, perhaps stick to just FL led and FH led armies? The FH is unlikely to betray you and the FL literally can't become a traitor, so there's that. Those 3 or 4 loyalty guys should give you a bit more reliability in terms of not betraying you, for now anyway.

[LordofSunspear]

Thank you for the advice, I'll check the guide!

Unluckily, going with FL/FH led armies isn't really an option to me because I simulate my battles when I play TW (I usually do this to save time but in EBII my battles kept crashing when I tried to play them so I have no other option here), therefore I often need to put 3-4 stacks next to each other to overpower the enemy late in the campaign. In this case the Pritanoi have 5 full stacks and some smaller ones on the island, so I need about the same number on my side. I usually don't have problems with loyalty in other mods but this is the second time that I have similar issues in EBII. I also played a campaign with Baktria where my generals kept becoming traitors and it started much earlier.I also won a long campaign and then kept playing with Epeiros, I can't remember a significant traitor there.

[CeeJ]

If a general feels he is "better" than your FL he will also lose loyalty. I don't remember specifically which stats determine this but I believe influence and possible command. Essentially if your FL has low authority and/or low influence everyone is going to be less loyal... particularly successful generals who have conquered many settlements/won many battles. I personally feel like this somewhat simulates how extremely successful generals in history were more likely to rebel against a distant emperor than just some average governor.

[V.T. Marvin]

Exactly! The key here is to make sure that your FL is effective. Take care to groom him while he is still FH, take him on campaign, win battles, get command and influence, let him govern large, well developed cities with academies, etc.

This will help him to gather positive traits and attributes, that in the game result in "respect" from his underlings who will then less likely become traitors. High authority is also very helpful and there are many ways to increase it more quickly - battles, diplomacy, spying, assassinations, etc.

[romanius24]

I wish this stuff was explained better in the game. I had no idea loyalty even worked like that.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

It is true that high authority helps, however, from my experience, not as much I would like. For example, if I have FL who has highest authority level then having at least half of your FM at level 3 loyalty would be good, but often most of them are below 3.

[rovert]

just use 2 FM in each army , problem solved .

[V.T. Marvin]

I wish this stuff was explained better in the game. I had no idea loyalty even worked like that.

It is difficult to explain that in game and it is our common problem that as we are constantly developing stuff we do not have neither time nor motivation to produce proper manuals to describe the inner workings. However I am convinced that most of the game mechanics, while technically quite complex are in fact pretty "common sense". I believe that approaching the game as role-player who just does whatever seems to make most sense in a situation yields most enjoyment as well as close-to-optimal results. Do what feels about right and it will be if not "right" than at least OK-ish.

For instance, sending obviously disloyal general with huge armies to a very far away lands on command of generally disrespected leader (4 Inf, 1 Auth - Seriously? That's EBII equivalent of Aegon the Unworthy!) is something that should be immediately apparent as unsound plan bound to go terribly wrong...

[LordofSunspear]

For instance, sending obviously disloyal general with huge armies to a very far away lands on command of generally disrespected leader (4 Inf, 1 Auth - Seriously? That's EBII equivalent of Aegon the Unworthy!) is something that should be immediately apparent as unsound plan bound to go terribly wrong...

Fair enough but the problem (?) is that most of the time it doesn't go wrong at all, that's the reason why I was so surprised/annoyed. I played Epeiros the same way and I didn't have a single full stack becoming traitor in more than 400 rounds. I used 0-1-2 loyalty generals frequently, sent them to far away lands with disrespected FLs and they just kept conquering.

I usually try to build up my FHs before they become leaders but in some cases it's impossible. Either because there is no opportunity for an easy campaign to improve him or because there is no time, for example my FL dies early due to some freak "accident".

[Maroslav]

4 influence is low? wow i have no idea how raise that.especialy when i should keep conquering with fl and stay in some city for gathering pious trait hand in hand with traits like unsatisfied governor which decrease comand,which is also important. i respect your personal priorities about this mod, but its still game and u would consider put some aspects of game higher in your ladder of priorities bcoz those ones need attention. with those we deal every turn compare to some well done reforms etc. things like this would make it diferent by those blitz-conquering mods.Till this will be finished guys like me will hoard here and will ask for next release in which it will be reworked/updated just few weeks after 2.2 when they finish of with all those nice new units and reforms.

[QuintusSertorius]

You can try blitzing all you like; you'll find it's even less effective/satisfactory in 2.2 than it is in 2.1b. As has been said, the solution to low loyalty generals is to have them spend time with the FL - best of all in the capital where they can also pick up good governorship traits. Which of course will be hard if you're trying to expand in multiple directions, using multiple armies simultaneously.

[Maroslav]

well i have nothing against low stats of generals, i just wish them be explained with traits ingame.well i dont like blitzing(if i understand that well), did it once now with sarmatians vs bosphorians, but they are raiders, shouldnt be recognized as blitzing.well and wish get more oportunities to get more positive stats aswell in future releases. having more fms under comand of more loyal fm in battle prevent them betray me, but thats all. they dont get improve themselve.what i like about sarmatians they have two battle skills- those regular like green,blooded etc and their specific raider skills, which improve even if they are secondary generals in battle, what would be great with those first have them improving too- maybe slower but still.