Civil War And How to Prevent It

[Advo-san]

Since I ve lost the first two campaigns (HRE+English) I ve ever played due to devastating civWars, I ve done some research and here's what I came up with:

1) Causes of Civil Wars
Civil Wars are caused when your king's influence is reduced. Low influence is the only thing that can cause massive general disloyalty, thus leading to CW.

2) Why does it usually get so ugly later in the game?
The larger your empire is, the larger your armies have to be. The larger your armies are, so is the number of your generals. The manier the generals, the manier the potential "rebels" and "rebel armies".
But it goes further than this. The larger your empire is, the more difficult it is to forge alliances, that would have boosted your influence.
And more, as time goes by, it takes longer and longer to complete constructions, and so aquire the Builder, Great builder, Magnificent Builder virtues that boost general and people loyalty.

3) The recipie for a CivWar
-You have an extended empire and a great king. You r feeling strong and you don't care that even the Pope is at war with you, cause your NUMBERLESS troops and people adore you...
-But then again, life is a bitch...And you are dead.... Your heir haven't fought a fight in his life, he is a medieval total ass, but he became King because he was your son! Well, that is not enough to gain him some influence..
-Since you r so expanded and rich, you don't fight.Since you r too strong none won't ally you (everyone-hate-the-big-guy-phenomenon). Since most building need more than ten years to build, no construction is completed for years. No influence is granted to your sorry king.... Your mighty generals grow disloyal, so does the people. CivWar is ante portas....

4) How to prevent it?
You have to keep boosting your young king's influence, till it reaches a decent level.
-Fight, fight, fight. Even if you don't plan to annexe the region, nothing boosts your influence more that a retreating enemy army...But do not lose, you 'll have instant CW...
-Build fast, even if you don't need the buildings.
-Try making an alliance, you never know...
-Try to build up the heir's profile BEFORE he becomes king.
-Try to keep your army as small as possible.
-If you have a spare daughter, give it to a mighty general whose loyalty is questionned. That 'll cheer him up.

[King of Atlantis]

King of Atlantis's civil war prevention program.

1. I cant stress enough how important having control of the sease is. It keeps your provinces loyal, thus greatly reducing chance of civil war and and increasing your chances of fighting it.


2. Heres something I havent seen posted around here. The best way to win is kill your sons. Kill your first borns. When a king has like 5-6 sons the 5 or 6 is usually by far the best in traits. If you send those that oppose his throne to certain death in battle you will end up with one powerful young King, who will in turn have many powerful sons to lead your armies.


3. Whenever an empire gets to where it owns more than 40% of the map, every faction will want a piece of it. Make sure you dont expand to big until you are ready to take on everybody at once.

4. DONT LOSE A CRUSADE!

[Advo-san]

King of Atlantis's civil war prevention program.

1. I cant stress enough how important having control of the sease is. It keeps your provinces loyal, thus greatly reducing chance of civil war and and increasing your chances of fighting it. I agree, control of the sea is IMHO half the game..

Also, losing a crusade is really bad for your image. It is far worse than loosing a battle or a province, even a homeland. But, nomatter what you do, you 'll always have to gain a newly coronated king some influence in every way possible!

King of Atlantis: IMHO I was always scepticist about this heir-selection tactic that you describe. Many times I have been tempted to wipe out my lazy king and a couple of princes to see a 9-acument, ox-healthy, full-piety, 7-star heir becoming king, but I never did it cause I m affraid of heir-lackness, which is by far the less glorious finale toa MTW campaign. ~:)

[EatYerGreens]

And more, as time goes by, it takes longer and longer to complete constructions, and so aquire the Builder, Great builder, Magnificent Builder virtues that boost general and people loyalty.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no corresponding 'demolisher' or 'pillager' line of V&V's so this is an activity you can indulge in, seemingly without penalty.

If your territory is broad enough that a central province is well out of reach of the enemy and thus of little immediate strategic worth, then I suggest you raze it down to zero and start again from scratch. The 'builder' one seems to crop up after maybe as few as 10 lots of construction.

At a pinch, you could destroy a dozen town watches and have them all rebuilt in two years. They're a pre-requisite building but it's easy to forget to take them down when no longer required and I guess you won't actually have a need to train UMs any more. They can safely be demolished without bringing down all your archer/spear/sword makers, IIUC. I hear they influence province happiness but it's only a short term hit. A rolling programme of destroy/rebuild and a touring temporary garrison could sort that out.

It doesn't take that many farm inprovements to get steward either. But you'd need to ruin multiple provinces' farming if you want it achieved in under 10 years, I suppose. Still, if the 10% empire-wide booster beats the short term loss from degrading just your worst farming provinces and rebuilding them, then it may be worth it. Trouble is, you can't demolish 100% back to 60%, it goes back to zero.

The other approach would be for King 1 just to do all the 20%s; king 2 does all the 40%s, king 3 the 60%s and so forth.

I think it's a fault of programming logic to link boosted happiness and the +10% ag output purely to the efforts of the faction leader. If your cashflow situation is already marginal due to heavily defended borders and loss of the boost, when the succession finally comes, turns profit to loss, that can be a real bummer.

Surely, if the farms are improved, the populace should be happy and extra-productive ever after, not just until he snuffs it, so it's a pity that the steward trait is not inheritable.

Or is it, perhaps, an attempt to model the syndrome whereby a generation or so later and they take things like that for granted because it's all they've ever known and they never got to witness the changes in the process of being implemented? In their eyes, the successor is a lazy git who never did anything to benefit their lives, so malcontent spreads.

In that case, it's a pity that the game gives them progressively fewer outlets to make themselves popular, short of steady conquest and improvement of more impoverished parts of the world.

[Advo-san]

Obviously, there are many ways to prevent CW indeed. But the principle is always the same:Don't sit around, don't lose, BE a winner in every field: Economy, diplomacy, military.

P.S.:It is a good idea to attack your enemies right after their king is dead. If you win a victory or two, the new king's influence will be lowered and rebellions or even- if god wills it- a CW may kick off, doing your dirty job instead of you!

[DensterNY]

Wow, thanks for all the great tips guys... I'm gonna go implement some serious changes the next chance I get to play.

I've been a little worried about my overgrown empire after reading another thread on civil war yesterday. I guess the game mimics how in reality most large empires begin to erode themselves and to disintegrate internally.

Last night I reevaluated everyone who held a provincial title and "removed" those not exceedingly loyal. Also, taking a very close look at my young Princes I saw some were quite disloyal so I added them to the fighting armies of my very loyal generals and charged my Princes into anything that had a spear, halberd, pike or polearm.

The next time I watch a movie or read a book about some King who murdered members of his family or court I won't think him a monster but instead see the prudence of his actions.

[EatYerGreens]

The way I see it is that, in a big empire, virtually everyone is on the make, especially so if not under the close watch of the ruler.

Every General lives to prove their bravery, personal fighting qualities and/or tactical and strategic expertise to all and sundry. So being left in charge of a dull garrison duty in some god-forsaken province, remote from where they were born or where their family still live and, more importantly still, out of the king's sight so that possibilities to gain fame and favour for themselves, or influence politics and goings on at court are virtually nil, is bound to inspire resentment in some - to the point of disloyalty.

With a large enough army under their command, some would seek to set themselves up as a petty warlord (the Shogun scenario) and carve out a small kingdom in their own right, so they turn rebel. Some think bigger-scale and take the time and trouble to see who they can convince to come with them on the enterprise and, when they judge the time to be right, start a civil war, in which they hope to prove themselves. Even if they lose, at least they get to do the thing in life they trained for and also get their name in the history books. These types no doubt see infamy as preferable to non-entity.

[dgfred]

Thanks for the great tips guys :smart: . CW really urks me. :furious3:

[Satyr]

Make sure that the province with the most/most advanced buildings is the one you want your new king to appear in. Nothing worse than being the English and finally taking Constantinople and you king dies and your new king appears there but you have no boats in the med. Instant rebellion in the north!

Don't ever retreat your king into a castle to wait for reinforcements. Did that once and 90% of my provinces rebelled. I would call that being stupid if I ever did it again.

[Babij]

@EatYerGreens
That general loyalty thing was very interesting. Now I can almost sympathise with them when they want to start a rebellion.

I've never had CW before. How often does it happen? I've only played a 33% game as the English, and I'm at about 30% with the Byzantines right now, and I'll probably go for full conquest. I've only got princes under command of armies at the moment... I assume that they have less chance of starting a rebellion.

[Ironside]

@EatYerGreens
That general loyalty thing was very interesting. Now I can almost sympathise with them when they want to start a rebellion.

I've never had CW before. How often does it happen? I've only played a 33% game as the English, and I'm at about 30% with the Byzantines right now, and I'll probably go for full conquest. I've only got princes under command of armies at the moment... I assume that they have less chance of starting a rebellion.

Depending on how good you play, from often to almost never.

To get a civil war you'll need poor kings (low influence at ancension), loose a few battles/provinces, no loyalty boosting v&v, failed crusades/jihads (most effective way, the marker is enough and it gets destroyed if you tear the chapter house/ribat down), failed traitor trials (also one you do willingly most of the time).

Princes are very dangerous if they got low loyalty, AFAIK only princes or generals with royal blood (by marriage) can lead a civil war (this was the intension from CA atleast). Dead prince's units count as generals with royal blood, even in VI.

[edyzmedieval]

My simple guide:

1. Make your emperor with Magnificent Builder
2. Low taxes

[Ciaran]

Talking about princes, can they be made governors of regions? I don´t seem to be able to do so, but then, that might be me. Giving them some ruling experience on a smaller scale certainly wouldn´t hurt, or would it?

[Babij]

Talking about princes, can they be made governors of regions? I don´t seem to be able to do so, but then, that might be me. Giving them some ruling experience on a smaller scale certainly wouldn´t hurt, or would it?
I think when you are the heir to an empire, you already kind of are the governor of every province. Although I do kind of see where you're coming from, giving princes certain responsibilities at an early age. But I'm sure they do all that kind of stuff in their palace...

[Patron]

I never have civil wars. I see enemies have them though.

[King of Atlantis]

GOOD CIVIL WARS-

I have actually found that sometimes civil war helpes me. With a low trait King in the early game on hard/expert, provinces can be rebelious. The best way to fix it is to try to make civil war and get a new strong leader in charge. This saved a Sicilian campaign of mine.

[Joshwa]

Tell you what annoys me about civil wars: When you don't have enough troops to take on all rebel provinces at once, and your trusted 'allies' kindly swag them off you :furious3:

[Advo-san]

@EatYerGreens
That general loyalty thing was very interesting. Now I can almost sympathise with them when they want to start a rebellion.

I've never had CW before. How often does it happen? I've only played a 33% game as the English, and I'm at about 30% with the Byzantines right now, and I'll probably go for full conquest. I've only got princes under command of armies at the moment... I assume that they have less chance of starting a rebellion.
I have noticed every byz emperor has an extreme resilience to influence loss, more than any other monarch of the game. I wonder if it is a "bug" or just happened by luck in my campaigns..

[Advo-san]

Talking about princes, can they be made governors of regions? I don´t seem to be able to do so, but then, that might be me. Giving them some ruling experience on a smaller scale certainly wouldn´t hurt, or would it?
Wait till the king is dead. The first-born prince will become king and the other princes will become royal knights, allowing you to use them as governors... ~;)

[Satyr]

My simple guide:

1. Make your emperor with Magnificent Builder
2. Low taxes


My guide:

1. Rule the seas - so you never lose control and make massive revenue
2. Autotax - aim for Highest taxes in all provinces

[kiwitt]

I also make all my Governors, either ex-princes, after a new king is crowned or assign to new "Royal Knights". These units have the highest loyalty. If one does have lower loyalty I then have one of daughters marry him.

[Maeda Toshiie]

I have inflicted civil war on the Byzantines (Early) before. It required me to take massive amounts of their territory in a short time to reduce the Emperor's influence enough to trigger it (often via massive naval invasions). However, by the time civil war erupts, they were too weak to pose any threat to me.

The Byzantine has a higher than normal starting factor for their influence. Add in ingame events that add to their influence and you get monster Emperors and princes.

[Ultras DVSC]

King of Atlantis's civil war prevention program.

DONT LOSE A CRUSADE!

Lol, that's it! I had not the slightest idea why had broken out a nice civil war in my small empire, when all of my heirs and generals were relatively loyal... So the problem was that I'd started an unlucky crusade to the east... How long can I station a crusade in a province before it disbands? :)

[_Aetius_]

In my current Seljuk campaign on the BKB mod, i'm constantly under the threat of civil war, a succession of Sultans with poor influence ( 2 or 3) has caused mass discontent especially amongst his brothers and uncles of royal blood.

My empire is relatively large, from Bulgaria to Palestine, the Byzantines still hold Thessaly, Epirus and Georgia plus the islands and the year is 1210. I'm currently at war with the Almohads in north africa and the Byzantines in the Balkans and Asia Minor, having just lost Egypt to the Almohads loyalty has become an even more serious problem.

The way i've combatted it is to purge as many disloyal units as I dare, I have the loyalty of the top generals (8 and 9 stars) but the princes and lesser nobles are increasingly disloyal, many on 1, 2 or 3 loyalty.

I can't purge the army to much as im fighting 2 wars on many fronts and I cant suicide or assassinate disloyal generals as many are to important and valuable to the army. To lose them would mean many armies would be rudderless and frontiers massively exposed.

I'm constantly building so the Sultan will get the great builder and magnificent builder traits, but I can't help but feel that eventually (perhaps when the Mongols arrive) that this fragile balance will be broken and civil war tear the empire apart.

Many players will have been through this kind of balancing act, everytime a Sultan dies and a son takes over the threat of civil war is high and never really subsides.

On the Byzantines, it is extremely rare that they suffer civil wars, however in this current campaign a rather small civil war did take place but the rebels were swiftly crushed. The last time I was the Byzantines and had a civil war was so long ago I can barely remember it and the only time I see the AI suffer it is when the Byzantines are destroyed then reemerge.

[Cowhead418]

GOOD CIVIL WARS-

I have actually found that sometimes civil war helpes me. With a low trait King in the early game on hard/expert, provinces can be rebelious. The best way to fix it is to try to make civil war and get a new strong leader in charge. This saved a Sicilian campaign of mine.
It saved a Scottish campaign of mine. My king was a worthless piece of crap and I was relatively bored, as the Mercians were too strong to take on and there was not much going on. My king had no heirs that were come of age but I decided to assassinate him anyway. I expected to lose but was surprised to see a civil war had broken out. I backed the rebels, who were led by a kick-ass prince who had long ago been in line for the throne himself. For the rest of the game I had decent-to-great kings.

[Betito]

And don't forget this kids: Sending your king to conquer that small, abandoned island with no port is a very bad idea. In advanced campaigns it could mean instant civil war.

[gaijinalways]

Sometimes this comes down to some micromanagement;

checking general's loyalty
checking your king's influence and making sure he is not too far from the center of your empire

checking your cash flow, sudden shifts due to war with a big trading partner will affect some provinces, especially if almost all your income is from trade

checking ths size of armies under your princes and your king (bigger is better)

[Ludens]

And don't forget this kids: Sending your king to conquer that small, abandoned island with no port is a very bad idea. In advanced campaigns it could mean instant civil war.
Even with a port it is still a bad idea. The port will often be destroyed after taking the castle.

[Ciaran]

4. DONT LOSE A CRUSADE!

There´s a nasty experience I made here: If target province of a crusade is taken by another Catholic faction the crusae is considered as lost as well! Mine (HRE, what else ;) ) was still miles away from its destination (as I assembled it in Swabia - my provinces at the time had sky-high zeal, so that made sense, with gathering up new units on the way) or any fighting, but the sneaky English took the target province, my crusade was disbanded and half of it decided to join the rebels.

[Betito]

Even with a port it is still a bad idea. The port will often be destroyed after taking the castle.

Amazing: Lack of practice has made me forget that... I'll better reinstall MTW
:charge:

[Boris of Bohemia]

-But then again, life is a bitch...And you are dead.... Your heir haven't fought a fight in his life, he is a medieval total ass, but he became King because he was your son! Well, that is not enough to gain him some influence..


Build armies while a king has high influence, because they have more loyalty; when a low influence heir takes over, those armies seem to retain most of the built-in loyalty. I try to avoid building armies while a king is new, and instead rely on dad's old-age spamming for a while.

[Vladimir]

Has no one mentioned trying disloyal generals for treason?

[phred]

Another way to prevent civil war:

Don't play as HRE ~;)

[yesdachi]

sorry

[yesdachi]

crusades are the best for gaining influence, even a short one to an easy mark is a good deal.

[hlawrenc]

All of this discussion on Civil Wars got me wondering if rebels ever have problems with civil wars or rebellions? I had a theory that if rebels could have "rebellions" in their provinces it would be a free way to gain extra troops.

I decided to test they hypothesis in BKB, playing rebels, knew that a cheat allows you to play rebels .conan. so tried. Hypothesis proved incorrect, rebel lands all have 100% loyalty, no more no less even at very high tax and even with no units in the province at all. BUT... since I was there thought would try playing rebels and see what happened.

If you like playing desperate defensive battles and get bored with your usual factions try playing rebels once. EVERYBODY hates you and comes after you. Obviously you have no faction leader but can pretty much raise decent armies if you can survive. Oh... and don't wipe out a faction if you can help it. They always come back in massive numbers! Have to run them into some corner province, beseige them till you get the message that the last fort is about to fall, then back out, let them have the province back and then re-invade every couple of years to keep their numbers down! Ended up having to manuever Novegrods into Finland then let them rot. Same with Kievens in Crimea.

Other bad point is that rebels start at 2000 florin so you are pretty poor initially. Have only played about 15 years playing BKB early but it is one tough fight after another.

On the positive side, in addition to the existing rebel lands you start out with at the beginning of the game, anytime any other province rebels you suddenly become the rebel leader.

Most of the early rebellions are impossible to fight... you get two archers and a vanilla spearman against a full stack of opponents, but a couple actually had a decent numbers of troops in the rebellion stack to have a good fight. Plus if you lose it doesn't matter that much because you did not have that province in the first place.

I can't see playing it too much further without having to do some serious modding (no shipping, etc. ) but can tell you from a defensive battle standpoint it is awfully challenging. AND... no rebellions or civil wars or princes to try to marry off!

[Horatius]

Why does sending your King to take the abandones/unconquered place hurt your king/you?

I would think that the easy victory and newly gained glory would advance your cause.

[Ludens]

Why does sending your King to take the abandones/unconquered place hurt your king/you?

I would think that the easy victory and newly gained glory would advance your cause.
There seems to be a bug which causes a king invading enemy territory is considered cut-off from his own countries (even though he just in the province next door): this can cause a big loyalty drop if your king has high influence. It is especially bad, when invading an island province because oftentimes the port gets destroyed so the king is completely severed from his homelands. Many an English king lost his kingdom to rebellion while he was stuck on Ireland (in game, not in history).

[Deus ret.]

when talking about CW: in the meantime one of my favorite ways of taking down powerful enemy empires is to trigger a CW in them. the best way is to decimate the ruling family with assassins, especially a successful assassination of the king often spells disaster for them. CW is nice because all kinds of once-lost factions reappear and harrass their former oppressors, which are not beaten into oblivion but reduced to a more manageable threat most of the times -- which is the best state for an enemy faction since there's definitely no danger of THEM reappearing.

however the internal scaling of the 'built-in' influence level seems to be more sophisticated than the juxtaoposition of 'byzantine' and 'normal'. I use the XL mod, and most of the new, smaller factions have an extremely low generic influence (similar to the HRE); I watched portugal conquer the whole of western europe and then fall into CW amidst a small break in this expansion drive. apparently not taking a province for two or three years had been sufficient to reduce their king's influence from 4 to 3 (they even didn't lose a province in that time) at which point the CW erupted and left their empire in pieces.....hell and even if they had lost a province, their king's influence should be higher than 4 after a successful 10-year campaign!
then there are the 'medium' factions, those that are not under a constant CW threat when they don't keep expanding. most of the medium and greater powers fall into this category, and at the top --no doubt-- byzantium.

I may me wrong but that's what I can draw from my observations.

BTW this may be off-topic but is it true that the higher a king's influence is, the better his heirs are?

[Geezer57]

BTW this may be off-topic but is it true that the higher a king's influence is, the better his heirs are?

Yes, although there's a large random factor involved - but the trend is definitely better heirs from a high-influence ruler.