Governors an their replacements

[Leon the Batavian]

When a governor dies at a certain city it leaves that city without a leader. In game to solve this problem you send a new governor from another city or hope for a new one to spawn.

How did replacements go in real life. Did for e.g. Rome send a newly appointed governor / leader to that city in need or did they appoint/voted a new one in from their own ranks with the approval of Rome?

How did other societies deal with this matter ?

What I mean to say is........... in game you have to send someone new which can be time consuming. I wonder could it work in game like a shark replaces a tooth. One goes out and is immediately replaced by a new one. (Voting/appointing).

Just wondering.

[WinsingtonIII]

Well you do already have the feature of appointing a new local governor from Type IV governments (semi-autonomous city-states/tribes, etc.) by which you just recruit a new local general/governor. I'm not sure if EB2 will have this same feature or if it will be modified somewhat.

As for the historical question, I'd imagine it really depended on the type of settlement (military-governorship vs semi-autonomous ally vs homeland province vs colony vs whatever other types of settlements you can think of) and the cultural practices of the ruling empire. I'm no expert on Romans so I cannot speak for certain on their practices, but I do know that during Alexander the Great's campaign (which is only slightly before our timeline), he would sometimes put Macedonians in charge of a newly conquered region (which is like sending a new governor from home in game) and sometimes he would put locals in charge (which is sort of like recruiting a local general in EB). He, and the Seleucids after him, largely kept the Persian satrapal system in place, by which most regions would be governed by appointed satraps who exhibited some degree of autonomy. Whether or not those satraps were of Hellenic or local origin depended on the region; some areas expected local rulers more than others and would be less likely to tolerate a Hellenic satrap.

Then again, this practice is not representative of all empires of the time, as everyone tends to do things slightly differently. But in general, I think you would find a variety of different practices depending on how far away the the settlement is from the homeland, how prone it is to revolt, how much local autonomy it enjoys/expects, and how recently it was conquered.

[fomalhaut]

And to add to any of Alex's handpicked governors dying or better yet, executed on Alex's order, he also had to the real life time consuming process of sending another one of his officers to replace the recently deposed. I think this happened quite a few times in Asia Minor while Alex was still in Asia Proper due to conspiracies and such, but i only have Arrian as my source.

Just imagine if everytime (or just the rumour that) your faction leader died your entire empire would be immediately in revolt.

[WinsingtonIII]

Just imagine if everytime (or just the rumour that) your faction leader died your entire empire would be immediately in revolt.

I remember in Europa Universalis III, if you played a faction whose government type was "tribal confederacy," everytime your faction leader died you had a "tribal succession crisis" which involved rebellions throughout almost your entire empire and a pretender rising to claim the throne for their own. It was crazy. If a total war game had this feature it would be even more insane though...

[fomalhaut]

Yeah, just imagine some of your veteran units taking the side of one of the usurpers.

I've only played the demo of UEIII but just from that i definitely can see something that complicated going on, what a neat game. I greatly prefer the battles of TW though. The strategy map just gives it all a meaningful context.

[Atraphoenix]

I remember in Europa Universalis III, if you played a faction whose government type was "tribal confederacy," everytime your faction leader died you had a "tribal succession crisis" which involved rebellions throughout almost your entire empire and a pretender rising to claim the throne for their own. It was crazy. If a total war game had this feature it would be even more insane though...

Once I tried to adapt it to EB 1 with a script its concept was something like late.

-if faction leader dies
-console command create army bla bla on bla bla...

I found it very useless then quit and RTW engines do not like heavy scripting especially by a non-expert one.

[WinsingtonIII]

Did the spawned armies not attack your settlements and just stand there instead?

[Atraphoenix]

Did the spawned armies not attack your settlements and just stand there instead?

exactly :yes:

[WinsingtonIII]

exactly :yes:

Much as I expected; well that's too bad, it would be an interesting feature for tribal-based factions

[Atraphoenix]

I have never played long to see yuezhi invasion. Were they aggressive?

[Populus Romanus]

I have never played long to see yuezhi invasion. Were they aggressive?
Probably not.:no:

[Megas Methuselah]

I have never played long to see yuezhi invasion. Were they aggressive?

I remember reading posts that describe them standing idle on the edge of the map, but I'm not sure.

[Atraphoenix]

I think converting Yuezhi on M2TW as mongol invasion would be great!
On the other hand, will we have such luxury?
I remember many members said they are against for emergent factions. BTW it would be better to discuss this somewhere else. I do not want to kill the topic ....