Generals becoming traitors seems ahistorical

[Septentrionalis]

I am annoyed by the gameplay mechanic that makes generals become traitors and defect. It doesn't seem plausible at all especially for the Romani faction. Why would a senior Roman general with a good track record suddenly just abandon everything he has (position, career, family, friends, access to Roman lifestyle, etc.) and go with some minor rebel faction? Is this gameplay mechanic simulating something else, as historically Roman generals would pick sides only in times of civil war? I have read quite a bit of history on classical antiquity, and I do not really recall anything like that happening regularly.


I feel like starting to save scum my way out of these situations. Is that lame? How do you feel about this traitor business?

[Rad]

You lost a favorite army, didnt you? I feel your pain bro. Life will eventually move on... but those traitors wont!

[Septentrionalis]

Haha, right you are! I am royally butthurt over losing a general I was invested in role play wise. Just trying to come up with a satisfying role-playing interpretation of what keeps happening to me

[tentaku]

Haha, right you are! I am royally butthurt over losing a general I was invested in role play wise. Just trying to come up with a satisfying role-playing interpretation of what keeps happening to me

Just like in Avatar/Last Samurai, your general sympathized with the natives, and turned on you...

[Neyak]

Maybe he doesn't feel like he's betraying you as much as he feels that your current faction leader has betrayed his people through cowardice, greed, or whatever fits the gameplay that explains your leader's low authority? Perhaps you are the true traitor and he's the only one standing up for what is right?

[Roma_Victrix]

Not sure about Romans joining tiny or insignificant factions, but Quintus Sertorius sided with the Lusitani when fighting against Sulla in the Sertorian War of Spain. There were also figures like Quintus Labienus, a Pompeian who defected to the side of the Parthians and fought against Mark Antony. In fact, Labienus was killed by Mark Antony's officer Publius Ventidius Bassus during the unsuccessful Parthian invasion of the Roman Levant and Anatolia by Crown Prince Pacorus in 40 BC. There are other examples, but I think you get the point. It did happen, but perhaps with even less frequency than EB II would have us believe due to the game mechanics.

[Rad]

Haha, right you are! I am royally butthurt over losing a general I was invested in role play wise. Just trying to come up with a satisfying role-playing interpretation of what keeps happening to me

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Horus_Heresy

[Genghis Skahn]

There's no need to fix an issue like this a little reloading can't solve . By the way, the republican Romans already have a default loyalty bonus for all FMs to compensate for at least some of what you mentioned above. It ends after a certain year(post-republic) I think, but it's pretty late if so. But otherwise it'd be crazy to remove desertions from the campaign.

Also, sometimes it's just bad luck. Once Brennos, my Boii Heir, who had 5 freaking loyalty and was destined to succeed as the next leader, betrayed me and took my best army with him.

[Rosbjerg]

See it as a general wanting to become dictator or Consul and seeking foreign aid to do so.

There were several problems with the loyalty of generals in the Roman Republic, especially after the Marian reforms, where soldiers became more and more dependent on their commanders for the loot and pay they'd signed up for. Julius and Augustus Caesar were simply the last and most successful generals, of the Republican era, to turn their military connections into political power.

[Septentrionalis]

Thank you all for support and ideas. And big up to Roma_Victrix for spot-on historical reference.

I realize now that I have completely ignored authority during this first playthrough of mine. There are quite a few new things to keep in mind now after playing the very original Rome. I had apparently moved my faction leader out of the capital and had him push papers without seeing any action. The poor guy had only one eagle in authority.

So the faction leader has to work to keep up his credibility and to keep his generals in check. Man I love this mod and all the community effort that was put into it.

[Ivir Baggins]

Thank you all for support and ideas. And big up to Roma_Victrix for spot-on historical reference.

I realize now that I have completely ignored authority during this first playthrough of mine. There are quite a few new things to keep in mind now after playing the very original Rome. I had apparently moved my faction leader out of the capital and had him push papers without seeing any action. The poor guy had only one eagle in authority.

So the faction leader has to work to keep up his credibility and to keep his generals in check. Man I love this mod and all the community effort that was put into it.

Yeah, faction leaders need to be either a) out there on campaign or b) governing the capital. Rest of the time authority will decay.

[Septentrionalis]

Yeah, faction leaders need to be either a) out there on campaign or b) governing the capital. Rest of the time authority will decay.

Ok, I now understand that I let things get pretty bad. What is your estimate on the possibility of getting things back to normal? Is vigorous campaigning going to give him his authority back anytime soon, or should I start working on my heir and maybe save scum until I get him to replace the old leader? I assume just sitting in the capital is not going to improve authority. I really do not want to restart the campaign.

[Ivir Baggins]

Ok, I now understand that I let things get pretty bad. What is your estimate on the possibility of getting things back to normal? Is vigorous campaigning going to give him his authority back anytime soon, or should I start working on my heir and maybe save scum until I get him to replace the old leader? I assume just sitting in the capital is not going to improve authority. I really do not want to restart the campaign.

Get your FL out there campaigning & fighting and in the meantime put spies in your armies to reduce the chance of revolt. If your FL is over 60 then you are going to need to build your heir instead - if you've had him governing outside of your capital, get him governing there; if he's been your lead general, you should be fine if he doesn't lose his battles.

[Rad]

You can fix it in time, just pay more attention.

Also, put 2-3 spies in your armies. Having agents in an army makes it less likely to rebel, in my experience. It can still happen, but it is less likely.

[Septentrionalis]

Get your FL out there campaigning & fighting and in the meantime put spies in your armies to reduce the chance of revolt.

Also, put 2-3 spies in your armies. Having agents in an army makes it less likely to rebel, in my experience. It can still happen, but it is less likely.

I appreciate you both taking time to help. So far I think that I have lost generals within cities. Should I have a spy accompany my general no matter where he is? I guess having at least one spy (or an assassin?) in each city is a good policy for the future anyway. Just like in RTW.

I could probably also use a little change of paradigm. I have been playing like a bureaucrat, having generals sitting in the settlements until there is a need for an offensive action. Then I have brought in a general from relatively close by who could use some fighting experience only to replace him with a high-influence general who can deal with the seemingly high inherent unrest factor in newly conquered territories. I should probably start keeping better track of their abilities and keep them mobile. Like a builder general going around building, a faction leader or heir taking the important fights, etc.

[Kull]

Stacks with multiple FMs work fairly well, too. Also there is a limit to the number of agents you can recruit, so spamming them in every city or stack won't be possible. And while it's theoretically possible to lose a city and FM to bribery, that's a different mechanism from "traitor to your people" which typically affects the "lone general in a field army stack".

[Rad]

@Septentrionalis

I never had an FM in a city rebel - you should be safe from desertion while staying in cities.

It is when they are in the field that you need to worry.

[BailianSteel]

The thing that's most ahistorical about treacherous generals is that all of them are generals in the field, and generals posted in cities never revolt. The Hellenistic world saw traitors take entire provinces from their Basileus, such as in the case of Ptolemaios Nios (featured in-game start for the Ptolemaioi, though I ended up having to rush him into a Seleukid Phalanx to let Euergetes take over.)

Romans were very quarrelsome, perhaps that general was facing political censure and decided to go out fighting. Even Scipio Africanus was eventually censured by his opponents, so his battle record is not an issue.

Also, Romans probably have the highest Loyalty values in the game. I rarely see a Roman around with 3 or less Loyalty, which is the norm for Hellenistic Kingdoms and Loyalty is becoming an issue for my Boioi empire.


Save scumming isn't a big deal if you don't abuse it to outmaneuver the CAI IMO. My game also crashes a fair bit so I've got no remorse.

[BailianSteel]

The thing that's most ahistorical about treacherous generals is that all of them are generals in the field, and generals posted in cities never revolt. The Hellenistic world saw traitors take entire provinces from their Basileus, such as in the case of Ptolemaios Nios (featured in-game start for the Ptolemaioi, though I ended up having to rush him into a Seleukid Phalanx to let Euergetes take over.)

Romans were very quarrelsome, perhaps that general was facing political censure and decided to go out fighting. Even Scipio Africanus was eventually censured by his opponents, so his battle record is not an issue.

And at the very least the Romans come with fairly high Loyalty values. In terms of Loyalty they blow the Hellenistic and Eastern factions I play out of the water.


I feel the same way about save-scumming, the thing is that it's an invisible roll of the dice in Total War games.

[Jurand of Cracow]

The thing that's most ahistorical about treacherous generals is that all of them are generals in the field, and generals posted in cities never revolt. The Hellenistic world saw traitors take entire provinces from their Basileus, such as in the case of Ptolemaios Nios .

That's right historically, I agree. I think a kind of proxy for such a situation is not difficult to mod, shall the team want it. You just give the guy +10 Unrest (or more) and see the city rioting and rebelling, than the kicked out general (with low Loyalty) would go rebel as well.

Romans were very quarrelsome, perhaps that general was facing political censure and decided to go out fighting. Even Scipio Africanus was eventually censured by his opponents, so his battle record is not an issue.

Also, Romans probably have the highest Loyalty values in the game. I rarely see a Roman around with 3 or less Loyalty, which is the norm for Hellenistic Kingdoms and Loyalty is becoming an issue for my Boioi empire.

I find this quite historical depiction by the EBII. The Roman political system used to produce quite different types of rebellion (and much less frequent) than the Hellenistic kingdoms or the "Barbarians" tribal systems. Eg. there were much fewer rebellions on the fringes (governors wouldn't establish their own states, like hellenistic Baktria, Pergamon etc.), and there were no family-related rebellions that were rife in the whole ancient world. Only in the 1c. BC there'd be serious civil wars - with very special political mechanisms.