Political turmoil during a change on the throne

[Jurand of Cracow]

Guys,
As I read pieces on ancient history - this time on the Parthian "empire" - what strucks me is that the most delicate time of any ruler's reign was the period just after he had sat on the throne. Not surprising: during the changeover time somebody could have spotted his chance to gain the throne for himself, and any noble would had to wait-and-see what's going on - these were times of anxiety. Such event would thwart almost any expansion during this time.

In the EBII, as I understand, a change on the throne is related to the initial Authority of the ruler. He is likely to have it low and this may create problems. But usually it's not something breaking the play, and - I think, but I 'm not sure - most of the conquests would be continued.

As the modder of EDCT in M2TW I always wonder how it could be presented in the mod given the coding possiblities (eg. see the ideas for the SSHIP).

The result of the change in that attitude of the nobles should be that they refrain from offensive actions. This could be achieved either through -20 movement points, or in drastically low Loyalty.

I don't know if it does exist in the EBII or how the changes on the throne are dealt with (I've witness just two as Pergamon and Hayasdan - and they're very easy).

So my question is as usual: what do you think about the issue? How it's reflected now?

JoC

[Lusitanio]

I would say it's complicated because while for some factions it would be realistic to make Generals more unloyal upon the changing of the ruler, in general, EBII always suffered from having few FMs, so reducing them even more due to rebelions is not something I would really like. However, I'm for scripted civil wars to simulate events that really happened and in that case, a one time general rebelion on your territories would be great.

[Sarkiss]

would be nice to have more severe repercussions tbh. if you are interested in ways of making change of a leader more impactful, i would suggest looking into DLV. it has the most substantial turmoil changes triggered by the death of a king that ive ever encountered. loyalty will be severely reduced, general will be picking sides - to follow the new leader or go rogue, etc. iirc, everything literally comes to a halt until new leader reasserts himself/rebellious generals dealt with. the bigger the realm the worse it gets.

what would also be great is if at this stage all the existing treaties would become null and void and needed to be renewed (following Granger's assumption that monarch's treaties were always personal, subject to auto-cancellation and renewal upon king's demise).

[Roma_Victrix]

I don't know about having "severe repercussions", but it would be reasonable to have a few rebel stacks suddenly appear in your territories to represent revolt and disloyalty of nobility or aristocrats who side against the new ruler (or in the case of republics like Carthage, Rome, and Koinon Hellenon, opposition to the new oligarchic or democratically elected regime).

I think the furthest I would take this concept would be the occasional rebellion of a province, but not every time a faction leader dies. Perhaps have a 20% chance of that.

I am playing as Epeiros now and my faction leader Pyrrhos of Epirus died in epic fashion while successfully taking the city-state of Syracuse in Sicily and expanding the empire. He did so after only 9 years in the game, 263 BC, so I didn't have too many family members by that point. It would be rather devastating to lose any of them, especially core Aikidai royal family members in line for future succession! Ptolemaios took the throne after him and thank the gods he has been a competent leader who I've fostered and led into battle until he became "Grizzled" (i.e. fighting more than nine battles).

If you're going to penalize family members with -20 movement, this should apply to anyone but the faction leader, who absolutely has to fight battles in order to increase his authority right away. The only other way to do that is to take the gradual approach of increasing authority points by having him govern and babysit the capital city.

Interesting idea, though! Kudos for that, Jurand the Polemaster, Grand Messiah of Poles, and +1 rep to you.

[Jurand of Cracow]

My thoughts have come in relation to the battle of Carrhae - the Parthians haven't exploited the opportunity due to dynastical wars problems (what was a recurrent issue). In the Middle Ages the most spectacular case was 1242 evacuation of Batu Khan to Mongolia - for a few years the whole Europe was baffled what's going on.

I think that such a situation should prevent the offensive actions (not only creating problems at home, like rebellions). So maybe a drastic loss of Loyalty for the nobles "In Foreign Lands" (like after 2 turns? plus -300 siege points to prevent the guy from taking new province to escape the threat)? However, I don't know how fast low Loyalty leads to defections in the EBII...

I don't think that making all treaties would become null and void would be a good move, though.

Obviously, all the restrictions would be for the player, not for the AI (it's already so indecive).

Any comment from the team? (well, I expect the British Parliament answer anyway - it was 7 times "no" or more?)

[Slaytaninc]

I really hate dumping a huge movement malus every time a weak faction leader takes over. If anything the generals would move their armies a lot faster to get into the thick of the action if a civil war breaks out. It's just a punishment to the player for something out of their control.

[moisesjns]

I am with Lusitanio and the other guy that mentioned Rebel stacks popping up. You can even make them well trained (4-6) chevron depending on unit. To make the battle tougher and to in a way showcase "loyal" soldiers being turned against their rulers by the generals who led them. Like 1-4 Stacks would be enough and that is entirely dependent on the size of the faction (for pontos who has only 1 place surrounded by rebels maybe just 1-2 stack. For AS if you were able to implement 4 stacks spawning, but not all in the same area. Would really make the player Stop all conquest to defend his homeland.

[Lusitanio]

I am with Lusitanio and the other guy that mentioned Rebel stacks popping up. You can even make them well trained (4-6) chevron depending on unit. To make the battle tougher and to in a way showcase "loyal" soldiers being turned against their rulers by the generals who led them. Like 1-4 Stacks would be enough and that is entirely dependent on the size of the faction (for pontos who has only 1 place surrounded by rebels maybe just 1-2 stack. For AS if you were able to implement 4 stacks spawning, but not all in the same area. Would really make the player Stop all conquest to defend his homeland.

If you want that, you will love the next version of EBII with the new rebel spawning script. Rebels are now a huge threat to you, sometimes even more than factions and especially when they are 8 units stacks which in huge is around 1300 soldiers. They do not appear on the same area and have enough power to besiege your cities.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

Personally, I'm not a big fan of rebels without a cause... The rebels should have a good reason to spawn not just having a new ruler. Speaking of the region where Parthian empire was, there was a ruler who's rule was secure despite not being born yet...