Barbarossa82
12-03-2004, 19:04
Hi everyone, if this works then it'll be my first post in the Colosseum ~:wave:
I've played several long campaigns now as the Romans and other factions, and I'm thoroughly enjoying this game. When playing as Romans, kicking off the civil war is always a momentous occasion, and it got me thinking about how the turmoil and uncertainty caused by a powerful general's power-grab attempt could be reflected even more clearly in the game.
This is in no way whatsoever a complaint at CA or RTW - they've implemented the civil war event in a perfectly functional manner. It's more of a "wouldn't it be cool if this were feasable?" kind of point. What I really hope is that these kind of points can be constructive in exploring what gamers would like devs to turn their talents to when they design future games.
At the moment, attacking the Senate or another Roman faction (after obtaining the requisite level of popular support) effectively just removes your faction from the roman world politically and makes it just like any other non-roman faction, but with Roman units. What I mean is that after this event there are no more ties between your faction and the other Romans than there are between the Romans and, say, Scythia. None of your commanders have any qualms about participating, and no other Romans outside your faction will support you. It just strikes me that it would add a lot to the depth of the game, and to the momentousness and importance of the civil war phase, if the links between your aberrent Romans, the Senate and the other Roman factions were not completely, instantaneously and unproblematically severed.
Like I say, the current system is not in any way a failure, so this is my "fantasy" implementation of the civil war event:
1) Civil war should have an alternative trigger, namely achieving a Senate floor standing of 8 or 9 points. This could result in the Senate appointing your faction leader as Dictator in recognition of his sterling work for Rome. Other faction leaders would then be forced to bend the knee, or declare themselves defenders of the republic and make war on you and your poodle senate. Perhaps the 8-9 point standing requirement should just be the first step - faction leaders might need to spent tons of cash on political campaigns/buying influence etc. to get the appointment.
2) Kicking off the civil war in the traditional, aggressive manner with support from the people, it should be reflected in the game that some of your faction family members might have reservations about following you. There would be a chance that those with a high "senate loyalty" rating would instead join the SPQR faction or one of the other Roman factions when you declared war. "Senate loyalty" could be gained as a trait by commanding an army which fulfils a senate mission, or perhaps by accumulation of traits like "Good Roman", etc. Especially, holding or having held a Senate office might increase the likelihood of the family member siding with the Senate in the civil war. Obviously it would not do to get too carried away with this, maybe just one or two defections would do it. One advantage is that it would mean faction leaders would have to plot and scheme a bit more about their military coup, identifying those family members who are a bit too loyal to the senate, and relieving them of key commands before the faction makes its move.
3) To balance this out, one or two disloyal family members from loyalist factions might choose to side with the faction mouting the bid for power. A negative loyalty trait would increase this chance, and the "disinherited" trait would increase it dramatically. You can just see it - Flavius Scipio, repeatedly passed over for promotion, his political career stagnating and languishing in a minor provincial governorship, backs the Julii bid for power in the hope of grabbing a plum position in the new government and rubbing his unappreciative family's noses in it!
4) It would be nice if, after igniting the rebellion, you continued to receive messages concerning senate appointments etc., or maybe continued the ability to negotiate with the other factions - i.e. civil war goes badly, Senate agrees to forget the whole thing and re-establish the prior order in return for faction leader's suicide, massive fine and withdrawal of troops from key regions.
Hopefully these rules would better reflect the fact that the civil war is just that - a complicated, fratricidal struggle within the same nation, which splits families and sets brother against brother. It would mean more careful preparation was required rather than just some evil cackling and sucking up to the mob, and would make the outcome a little less predictable. Making a grab for power would become a really bold, daring move - alea jacta est! - rather than the inevitable, straightforward result of accruing massive military power.
Anyway I don't know how feasable any of these things would be, or how desirable - would it just overcomplicate things? I'd be glad to hear people's views. :bow:
I've played several long campaigns now as the Romans and other factions, and I'm thoroughly enjoying this game. When playing as Romans, kicking off the civil war is always a momentous occasion, and it got me thinking about how the turmoil and uncertainty caused by a powerful general's power-grab attempt could be reflected even more clearly in the game.
This is in no way whatsoever a complaint at CA or RTW - they've implemented the civil war event in a perfectly functional manner. It's more of a "wouldn't it be cool if this were feasable?" kind of point. What I really hope is that these kind of points can be constructive in exploring what gamers would like devs to turn their talents to when they design future games.
At the moment, attacking the Senate or another Roman faction (after obtaining the requisite level of popular support) effectively just removes your faction from the roman world politically and makes it just like any other non-roman faction, but with Roman units. What I mean is that after this event there are no more ties between your faction and the other Romans than there are between the Romans and, say, Scythia. None of your commanders have any qualms about participating, and no other Romans outside your faction will support you. It just strikes me that it would add a lot to the depth of the game, and to the momentousness and importance of the civil war phase, if the links between your aberrent Romans, the Senate and the other Roman factions were not completely, instantaneously and unproblematically severed.
Like I say, the current system is not in any way a failure, so this is my "fantasy" implementation of the civil war event:
1) Civil war should have an alternative trigger, namely achieving a Senate floor standing of 8 or 9 points. This could result in the Senate appointing your faction leader as Dictator in recognition of his sterling work for Rome. Other faction leaders would then be forced to bend the knee, or declare themselves defenders of the republic and make war on you and your poodle senate. Perhaps the 8-9 point standing requirement should just be the first step - faction leaders might need to spent tons of cash on political campaigns/buying influence etc. to get the appointment.
2) Kicking off the civil war in the traditional, aggressive manner with support from the people, it should be reflected in the game that some of your faction family members might have reservations about following you. There would be a chance that those with a high "senate loyalty" rating would instead join the SPQR faction or one of the other Roman factions when you declared war. "Senate loyalty" could be gained as a trait by commanding an army which fulfils a senate mission, or perhaps by accumulation of traits like "Good Roman", etc. Especially, holding or having held a Senate office might increase the likelihood of the family member siding with the Senate in the civil war. Obviously it would not do to get too carried away with this, maybe just one or two defections would do it. One advantage is that it would mean faction leaders would have to plot and scheme a bit more about their military coup, identifying those family members who are a bit too loyal to the senate, and relieving them of key commands before the faction makes its move.
3) To balance this out, one or two disloyal family members from loyalist factions might choose to side with the faction mouting the bid for power. A negative loyalty trait would increase this chance, and the "disinherited" trait would increase it dramatically. You can just see it - Flavius Scipio, repeatedly passed over for promotion, his political career stagnating and languishing in a minor provincial governorship, backs the Julii bid for power in the hope of grabbing a plum position in the new government and rubbing his unappreciative family's noses in it!
4) It would be nice if, after igniting the rebellion, you continued to receive messages concerning senate appointments etc., or maybe continued the ability to negotiate with the other factions - i.e. civil war goes badly, Senate agrees to forget the whole thing and re-establish the prior order in return for faction leader's suicide, massive fine and withdrawal of troops from key regions.
Hopefully these rules would better reflect the fact that the civil war is just that - a complicated, fratricidal struggle within the same nation, which splits families and sets brother against brother. It would mean more careful preparation was required rather than just some evil cackling and sucking up to the mob, and would make the outcome a little less predictable. Making a grab for power would become a really bold, daring move - alea jacta est! - rather than the inevitable, straightforward result of accruing massive military power.
Anyway I don't know how feasable any of these things would be, or how desirable - would it just overcomplicate things? I'd be glad to hear people's views. :bow: