Revival

[Darius]

Now maybe I'm the only one, but does anybody else think they should bring back the civil wars that would occur in MTW? Does anybody else want to see faction re-emergences again like I do as well? It was always such an incredible challenge to ensure a civil war would be put down or to take advantage of another nations now disloyal lands.

Another thing they should bring back is the whole "Time Period" selection. Now while it's obvious that the longer you go through the game the harder it will be for anyone to play as anything other than the Romans, it would still be fun and provide that much beloved challenge that I'm always searching for.

[Colovion]

RTW can't have the Time period thing really, as there wasn't that many advances in technology to really consitute putting it into different time frames. For that, I'll wait for MTW2.

As for civil wars and re-emergences, I fully support those and am flabbergasted as to how they were left out of RTW.

[The Stranger]

yeah me too, but i do want the always re-emerging pope out of it, and some factions re-energing 100 years after they were destroyed

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I like the reemerging factions, as long as the pope does not come back every year, or only comes back if enough of the map is christian or something.

I really liked civil wars, I was playing as the Irish recently in MTW and had a great time reconquering my land and fighting the Welsh a the same time.

[Grand Duke Vytautas]

For that, I'll wait for MTW2.
And when is it going to be released ~:confused:

[Byzantine Prince]

2010; Why do you like the revival so? It's completely pissed me off everytime some ancient faction I had destroyed comes back with a vengeance and kills me. It would make the already cluttered RTW map even harder to get a hold of.

[AntiochusIII]

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING, BP? YOU HATE FACTION RE-EMERGENCE? ~:eek:

Oh well, it's a matter of opinions. :dizzy2:

In MY opinion, this is the coolest thing in Medieval to happen (except the god-forsaken devil-reincarnating pope.) I still remember how I helped the once-fallen English restore some of their power and become a thorn on the French side who were growing too fast and too much at the time.. a very useful strategy. If I could give them hard cash and more provinces like I can now in RTW it would be one of the best things in the game: a divide and conquer tactic. Also, I like the time period thing, providing true variety... and Civil War, which helps prolong the game - if used wisely - like when too large a faction exists a civil war can take care of it, though this isn't used so perfectly in Medieval as it weakens the weaker AIs instead of the player and the larger AIs.

Also, I wish to see whole new factions emerging from rebels living in peace for a long time, perhaps with 3 possible government styles that creates different "personalities" like the peaceful league, aggressive empire, and moderate monarchies, with mixed unit roster based on provinces and culture, though that is.... just a dream ~D

[The Storyteller]

It would be good to have faction reemergences. It would probably makes me use the protectorate function more too.

Right now, with the distance from capital factor in, it's too much bother to hang on to provinces. So I just conquer a faction and use peasants and high influence generals to hold them. Once the faction is destroyed, I just let the provinces go rebel and withdraw my armies. Faction reemergence would prevent this.

[Kraxis]

RTW can't have the Time period thing really, as there wasn't that many advances in technology to really consitute putting it into different time frames. For that, I'll wait for MTW2.

As for civil wars and re-emergences, I fully support those and am flabbergasted as to how they were left out of RTW.
I would say that it is very much possible to have at least two periods of the game. Early (like now) and Reformed (Marius). The problem of that would be that Rome would be very strong having control over most of Spain and the Carthagenian lands as well as Greece and several footholds on Asia Minor.

[Quietus]

No for me. Broke ex-heirs appearing with elite armies that are much stronger than their old armies (before all their possessions were taken away by the conquerors).

It's CA's lazy way of saying "challenge" :embarassed: . If it is better implemented, sure. There has to be a reward system (which is lacking TW games, aside from the Senate Missions in RTW).

For example, if an ex-heir can assemble that army, there must have a hidden resource. If a player destroys the army, then all their hidden resources will be turned over to the player (i.e. the reward part).

:duel:

[Kraxis]

Honestly in RTW it could be much more effective. The heir's armies need not be very strong in fact, since we would need more time to get our armies in place, since there is no more Finland-Egypt-Finland maneuvers in two turns. A nice single stack of fairly balanced troops would in most cases be enough to do the job. And they need not be very advanced either as again we would need more time to get to them.

To me it doesn't seem unlikely that such an army would be able to take at least one city before we could respond in force to quell the uprising. And it does sound rather historical.

And no way do we need a reward for beating them off. It would only make us that much stronger and the AI factions that much weaker (as they would most likely suffer more defeats at the hands of uprisers) .But I will conceede that all the mercs in the given province should join up (the heir hires them).

[_Aetius_]

The time period might not have to reflect significant events in history it could just be there to help break the game down abit, I just think it makes for a generally more interesting game, as some factions wouldnt be as mind-numbingly difficult in later periods of the game as they are at the start if their were time periods.

It could just follow the expansion of the Roman sphere of influence, I dont know much about pre Augustan Rome but surely there were points when things changed which are worthy of having their own time period? It would also allow for the introduction of other factions that may have emerged after the games starting point.

The lack of civil wars is just ridiculous it makes absolutely no sense, instead of civil wars the game developers seem to have decided that hundreds of annoying rebel brigands would make a decent substitute when really all they do is provide constant annoyance. Its just yet more weight for the argument that RTW is a massive disappointment.

[Marshal Murat]

I think it would be nice to have the civil war implemented.
The popularity thing I think should be used, a small scale with the popularity of the masses and the governing body (or father) with the information chart of the character. If a unpopular heir is chosen over a very popular one, then the popular one can march to the capital of the empire and declare himself ruler.

And if it is implemented, then neighboring nations can declare support for a heir, if provided with a "contribution" (denari, land you get the idea)
Then the Greek Cities support Achigontias as Seleucid ruler for protectorate status.
While Ptolmey supports Alexander as Seleucid ruler for 30000 denari and Antioch.

It would also make your protectorate status more interesting if two parties were formed. Declare yourself for one, and fight for them.

[SpencerH]

The idea of having civil wars was a good one but I only had 1 civil war (Byzantines) in all the MTW campaigns I fought (VH). It was just too easy for the player to control the factors that led to civil war so they became an human-only exploit. RTW has enough problems to be fixed before new complexities are added.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I like the faction reemergances, if implemented better they could be much better in RTW than they were in MTW> I loved being able to kill of the English have them reemerge a bit later and then allying with them against my enemies! It only happened a few times but it was great. Felt like I was allying with the bastard son of the english king who had very different ideas on how to rule England. He died in the end, but he didn't know that was going to happen.

[Darius]

One of the main reasons I feel that civil wars/re-emergences should be reimplemented would be to help prevent "blitzkreig" style expansion by the player. If they want to expand they would have to make sure they had standing armies throughout their lands at certain intervals, otherwise, a re-emergence or a civil war could entirely gut your empire from within. The main reason I normally get bored with a campaign is because I'm able to simply steamroll any and all opposition and only leave behind a few rebel hunting parties here and there. If there were entire populations of an opressed people rising up against me it would likely take a bit more than my standard hunting party to deal with them. The same goes for a civil war. This way I might actually get to reach the Marius Reforms before the game is over.

[SigniferOne]

Guys, I just thought about it for a sec, it would be ridiculously easy to make different time periods in the game, without making any new skins or doing practically any work at all. Just copy the Imperial Campaign into two Provincial Campaigns: "Early" and "Reformed" or some such thing. The "Early" Campaign is basically the one we have now, and to make the "Reformed" Campaign, just tweak who owns which province in 80s BC, and make Romans have only post-Marian troops as buildable. Oh and tweak the starting year and the ending year.

Presto - less than 30 mins of work, yet instantaneously resulting in two separate and very different Ages.

[Colovion]

And when is it going to be released ~:confused:

it probably won't, or it'll be even more arcade-like than RTW

:embarassed:

[Strongsword]

Civils Wars: Yes; Revival of Destroyed Factions: No; Time Periods: Absolutely

It was extremely aggravating in MTW to have a faction come back with far advanced units than they had before being conquered. Besides, the culture penalty forces a conquorer to garrison properly or rebellions will occur (not that rebellions are that hard to put down).

Civil Wars, on the other hand, would provide excitement because specific family members could take sides along with the cities in which they sit as governors.

Also, I agree that time periods wouldn't be difficult. It would allow Roman factions to go straight to the Marian Reforms. Plus, after a while I always played MTW in the Late Period so I wouldn't have to go several sessions of building and buidling before getting to the advanced units.

[Penguin]

I definitely miss the civil wars and faction re-emergences.
I didn't have many civil wars in MTW but miss keeping my generals
loyal :charge: and beeing involed in a major war with
spain then have germany remeger :dizzy2: right behind you

[The Storyteller]

I think a post Marian reform time period would be a great idea. It would be a very challenging time period as well. However, in order to make it work, I think the game has to have a lot more historical accuracy.

For example, in MTW, the Mongolians would always pop out. There was no way to eliminate them.

In RTW, no such thing happens, even though Rome was plagued by enormous armies popping out from other states! Well, enough of that, I say. Have enormous armies of Mithridates, Italian rebels, Spanish armies under the command of Quintus Sertorius and Germanic hordes pop up in the right year. Have a faction reemergence if the player has conquered these factions out of existence.

That way, we would be able to accurately represent the challenge the Senate had faced - fielding an army with very few funds, rebels popping out all over the place and the enormous armies of the Eastern barbarians.

The game is flawed, currently, because it doesn't show how the most chaotic era of Rome's history really took place AFTER the Marian reforms.

[SigniferOne]

And as I say, it would take 30 mins tops, to create.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Just set a few stacks up with a good general in the general vicinity if you are Turkey and wipe them out.....

Post reform time period would be good.

[Stuie]

I think a post Marian reform time period would be a great idea. It would be a very challenging time period as well. However, in order to make it work, I think the game has to have a lot more historical accuracy.

There are a couple mods being worked on for a post-Marian reform start. With due respect to dsyrow1, it is taking more than 30 minutes (at least for my team - The First Triumvirate mod) because we want to do it right. Doing it right includes splitting the Gauls into more than one tribe, getting the Senate to behave appropriately, changing the "family" factions to properly represent the period in question, etc. etc. etc.

My team for one is not just rushing out some 30 minute edit - we are trying to provide a new and immersive experience, fully tested and ready to enjoy.

[Ginger]

I think that late game civil wars would be a great idea. What id like to see is a unified rome ala RTR splitting apart towards the end of the game.

Your family tree could be more of a representation of the senators currently seconded to posts outside of rome e.g. generals and governors, within which there are certain tribes and families. Cities and armies would have individual loyalty to their current family member, depending on their traits and length of time in charge.

When the civil war occurs you could lose control of all troops apart from those with high loyalty to your nominated family which you have of course put in good positions. It would be great if the AI was to bring all roman and senate troops to italy for a mssive showdown near rome.

The bind would be finding a way of preventing the player from shamelessly exploiting the mechanic to leave AI family members with no troops.

Alas tis but a dream.....

[Bob the Insane]

There is revolts in the game and that is really as good as faction re-emergence especially now the rebels have a little more variety and have their own regional titles...

I do miss disloyaty in your generals though, and if we could imlement that somehow it would be easy to have civil war as a civil war simply requires a reasonaly large number of generals and troops to rebel...

I wonder what would happen if you introduced high influence diplomats to the slave faction? would it try to bribe generals? If that could be made to work perhaps you could make those diplomats invisible on the strat map to make the revolts appear random??