Aruernoi Campaign

[kdrakak]

Excellent feel, very good game mechanics, both with Govt and military!
Strong, if heterogeneous, armies with nobles forming the hard core, while costing less and being available far more rarely than regular troops. Naked dudes fight very well, but die as they should. Wide array of troops, wider than most (if not every) factions and a govt scheme that is realistic, makes sense and demands your attention or else... Faction leader is a very important focal point of politics and watching his authority rating directly dictates your campaign strategy.

When my 1st faction leader died I noted the heir had an authority rating of zero!!! My enthusiasm for seeing the "dying gaul" (and congrats btw, excellent choice) armed me with determination. The new Aruernoi Rix went on campaign to built up his authority (Now here is a paradox: you need authority to solidify your conquests, yet in my mind this was what would build authority for my new Rix - that and spending time in a settlement with a "Place of Knowlegde" which I did not have - who did not have any.

So can we get a nod or smt on whether or not this how you build authority with Gauls?

On another note there is a pirate fleet in lake geneva... what are they after? Ice?

As for early campaign tips, as either the Arvernoi or the Aedui storm the enemy capital asap, i.e. first turn. After taking Bibracte I was attacked by a rebel army with 7 units or so 2 of which were Brihentin. I do not know if that is supposed to happen (the remnant Aedui army gone rebel and exacting revenge???) but you can weather that storm especially if you know it's coming.

This was my second campaign, the first one was Taksashila 2.0. I definitely suggest playing this in its current form. Taksashila... not so much. Not developed enough for my taste; at least in 2.0.

So, once again, Great Job on the Gauls!!!

[Sylon]

Fighting battles with your faction leader does help increase authority, yes. Having good personality traits, and simply letting time pass also boosts authority slowly.

At the risk of plugging myself, I wrote a short guide (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?665744-Authority-and-Loyalty-A-short-guide-EB-2-0) on TWC regarding this. It's for 2.0, but should apply for 2.01 as well.

[V.T. Marvin]

Here is the summary of how the Celtic government system was intended to work:

You will hate me, Andy, I have been thinking.... :stupido2:

And while thinking pretty hard how to make all this, including our previous discussions on the subject, come together, it occurred to me rather simple, radical, and hopefully effective and interesting solution. It is based on the assumption how faction leader's attribute "Authority" works in the game. Let me present it:

Authority
For the faction leader: Increases all generals' loyalty;
For the faction leader: Decreases chance that captains will turn rebel (or accept bribes?);
For the faction leader: Decreases chance of rebels and brigands appearing;
For the faction leader: Might affect diplomacy (I have seen nothing conclusive, I think there is a good chance that it doesn't, and some people just assume it does because it did in the original Medieval Total War);
For family members: When it comes time to select a new heir, the family member with the highest authority (which is a hidden trait for everyone but the king) is selected.


Based on this we can make a system, which could work for all tribal societies, namely for Aedui, Arverni, Pritanoi, Boii, Lusos as well as Arevaci, and which would in essence contain just these options (further minor faction-specific tweaks are still of course possible):

Allied State - we already have this, anyone can build this anywhere and it does provide pretty restricted building options and limited local recruitment. It also comes in two flavours, one centered on elites (cavalry and other high tier-units plus peasant rabble), the other on the middle-class (primarily mid-tier infantry).


Military Occupation - our usual faction-specific government building's precursor: no recruitment, very limited building options, buildable everywhere.


Protectorate - buildable everywhere, yields some economic benefits, unrest is negated by high law bonus, but allows no recruitment and needs to be garrisoned and protected by troops drawn from other regions.


Migration - buildable in regions where European Tribal culture (rel_e) is less than 50%, provides conversion bonus slowly raising rel_e percentage in the region and as this rel_e level rises it allows rising, yet still very limited, recruitment of low-level factional troops. Causes high unrest. Suitable for regions outside "Celtic" world that one chooses to eventually settle with his own people and incorporate fully into the faction.


Confederation - highest level factional government, buildable only in regions where European Tribal culture is already dominant (rel_e is more than 50%), allows full construction options as well as full factional (and in case it is far from "homeland" also some local) recruitment. I.e. the powerhouse of the faction. Yet, here is a twist!!! For each such gov building constructed (besides the original starting one) within a faction, the faction leader's Authority attribute is decreased by one point.


The reasoning is that the larger a confederacy, the more tribes and polities it includes, the more difficult is to maintain central control and to prevent fracturing. Because the Authority attribute can have values from 1-10 there is a soft cap on how many these co-equal tribes a player chooses to establish. He really has to balance the trade-offs and take suitable strategic decision because with each new Confederate he gains manpower and long-term economic benefits, but also higher risk of rebellion.

I think this is actually pretty historical: small empires are internally cohesive, but vulnerable to outside threats, while large empires are plagued with challenges from within.

If a player chooses to preserve his faction leader's authority and does not accept new regions as co-equal confederates, he will be forced to garrison and defend and expand his realm only with troops drawn from his core region and from Allied States, both of which will eventually expend the recruitment pools and he will end up with forces spread thin and little to no reserves to cope with emergencies and invasions.

Conversely, if a player chooses to expand his base and accept newly conquered regions as co-equal confederates, his faction leader' would be just a primus inter pares with low comparative authority over his powerful confederates and his realm, while capable of fielding large and powerful armies would increasingly face the risk of rebellions, defections, etc. This effect might be restricted to be human-player-only.
And (with the exception of Britons who eventually gained their own unique government structure better representing the Iron Age British societies, which were egalitarian and held together by bonds of kinship and networks of exchange) this is what we eventually made.

Have fun and hone your faction leader!

[Sylon]

Speaking of 'barbarian' government types, I've noticed something odd. If you choose not to expand your confederation and instead rely on allied states for manpower, it is currently more profitable economy-wise in the long run to conquer provinces which lack your culture type and build Migration there, than to conquer provinces with your culture type and build a protectorate there. This is because Migration is considered a level 3 government type, and thus allows construction of key infrastructure such as granaries, while Protectorate is considered a level 2 government type, and thus has fewer build options (once again, granaries). As a bonus, Migration gives recruitment options while Protectorate does not.

It might be better to re-balance it by making Protectorate a level 3 government type and Migration a level 2 government type. Even then, though, you still run into the issue of Migration being superior to allied states, since it provides a greater variety and higher numbers of troops at high levels of faction culture compared to an allied state, on top of having greater access to infrastructure. The obvious downsides, of course, being that you are restricted to your own factional troops, and the bonus/penalty to public order.

[Nightshift]

Just had the same feeling when playing gauls for the first time. Definetely liked it alot. It felt very fleshed out and I can only recommend it too. Especially for someone who is new at EB and does'nt know what to expect from future releases! :whip: not that I don't want to put any more pressure onto the hard working developers :whip:

Together with all those descriptions about society, agriculture and everything I really had the feeling of a distinct insight wich in turn I tried to reflect in the decisions I made ingame. :book2:

[kdrakak]

My Aruernoi faction leader had an authority rating of 7. Added two provinces to the Confederacy. Still an authority rating of 7. Is this working properly?