Emperor revolts against himself ?!?

[starkhorn]

Folks,

I had a very strange thing happen in my WRE game. I've made the empire christian, killing thousands of pagans over the first 20 turns in order to quell unrest in my pop centers.

We all know Nero Falvius the great starting commander in France who is 5-star general but has crap loyalty although one good thing is that he is christian. So to improve his loyalty I made him the faction heir. Well after 10 turns or so, the first emperor died leaving the empire to Nero Flavius. He did a great job in destroying the huns and the goths and decided to go on the offensive against the ERE.

Things went well, taking their capital and both pop centers in greece.

The problems was with Athens, it was 99% pagan so I destroyed the temple and built a shrine. I moved my troops out of the region under the emperor and waited for it to rebel. It must be stated that the loyalty of the emperor was 1 loyalty but he was still a christian so i figured no big deal, he isn't going to revolt against himself, is he ?!?

For 2-3 turns, it indeed revolted but strangely I got a message saying that I had a new faction leader but with no death of faction leader message. So I went to greece to see my emperor and his army and imagine my surprise to find that he had joined the rebels?!?

Now I've no problem with my armies or low-loyalty generals joining up with revolting pop centers. It's entirely normal and expected that this sort of thing should happen.

But why on earth would the emperor revolt against himself? It makes no sense? Also why does the emperor still have loyalty ratings? I mean why do we need a rating of how loyalty the emperor is to himself? It doesn't make sense to me.

so has this happened to anyone?

Cheers
Starkhorn

[Captain Fishpants]

This is a known issue. Thanks.

[player1]

I tried to workaround this issue by giving Disloyal as anti-trait to FactionLeader and RomanFactionLeader traits (disloyal to himself has no sense).

Still, it just delays the issue, since traits such as Consummate Politician (-1 loyalty), Deciever (-1) and Conqueror (-2) also give Disloyalty (with first two easily gained by faction leaders).

P.S.
Another option could be giving some big loyalty bonus to faction leader trait (like +6 or +10). On the other hand it would be kinda wierd that every late WRE emperor is commended have very great loyalty to people around him.

[starkhorn]

ahh ok. Many thanks for the swift response.

Cheers
Starkhorn

[econ21]

Another option could be giving some big loyalty bonus to faction leader trait (like +6 or +10).

That sounds like a plan, player1. I've been relying on my faction leader and heir to do all my fighting, but now that sounds less prudent. Unless and until CA produce a patch, I'd second you introducing such bonuses if you ever revise your bug-fixer. ~:cheers:

[PseRamesses]

Folks has this happened to anyone?
Yup, it has. In BI it seems, to me, that the more experience a general gets in battle the more unloyal he´ll become???! In RTW I always used one offensive general from the age of 16 until he died. In BI all my generals are govenors instead (playing ERE/WRE) and my armies are leaderless. Works well for me.
I´ve used so many generals in BI as one of the romans and watched them slowly drop from 4-5 loyalty to 0 over time that I grew tired of this "bug"/ feature that I just stopped using them. Does anyone know what causes this and how to prevent it?

[player1]

Maybe some extra balance needs to be striken in next patch.

I way to often see strategies in which players don't use characters as governors, due to powerful corruption triggers (more money without governors), true for barbarian factions which after hoarding have lots of money (things stabilize few generations later when money gets tight).

On the other hand, In case of romans, is other way around. Disloyalty triggers are too big and players start using captains intstead of generals.

Good command and loyal general seems to be paradox too.

[Kekvit Irae]

Maybe your faction leader was tired about how the provincial governers were handling things, and he decided to take a handful of his trusted men and start all over from scratch? :tongueg:

[gmjapan]

Conquering Generals being less loyal the more successfull they are makes sense as they always come across as ultimatley serving their own political interests. But not your faction leader! Thats just funny.

RTW did have disloyalty built into the campaign in exactly the same way, it was just dressed up differently and your point of view to the events was different. Why else did you make war on the factions the senate marked bad or ally with the ones they approved of and grab provinces? For the glory of Rome? Hell no! You did it so your rating with the plebians would be high enough that you could take Rome for yourself and rid it of the diseased Senate. In effect, Romes most successful conquering General/Family (you) just rebelled and attacked - theres no difference here to BI except that now you are Rome, not just the family.

[Kraxis]

Yes, but generally you use half a century+ to revolt against Rome. Here we have individual generals revolting against his own family, more or less for the fun of it.

I don't mind that successful generals become a bit disloyal, but I think they should just have a higher cahnce of becoming disloyal rather than becoming it outright. Flavius Aetius and Stillicho were very loyal and very good generals (but their ends were not too great though).

[SwordsMaster]

Have you checked, maybe the guy had some sort of "double personality" trait?

[HoreTore]

This is a known issue. Thanks.

Guess we'll get a patch then! \o/

[Rodion Romanovich]

I don't mind that successful generals become a bit disloyal, but I think they should just have a higher cahnce of becoming disloyal rather than becoming it outright. Flavius Aetius and Stillicho were very loyal and very good generals (but their ends were not too great though).

I don't mind it either, but I was a little sad when my general who starts in Aquincum rebelled. He had held off the vandals, killing about 60 percent of their entire horde in different battles. He had held position and made the goths think twice about attacking Aquicum and thereby WRE. He was a such influential Christian that he could convert a settlement in a few turns by simply being in the province. Eventually, when the vandal threat was gone, he was equipped with a huge army consisting of the best troops I'd trained so far in the Italian peninsula. It was the first army with artillery in it. He pushed north and conquered three settlements, turning them Christian and turning the franks into a horde. He then went south to reconquer the settlements on the way south that he had lost to the expected rebellions. Then the frankish hordes arrived, 4 full stacks. In 3 heroic battles right after each other, in the same turn, he destroyed 3 of the frankish large stacks, suffering only 200 casualties in total, and the onagers gained 2 silver chevrons in experience by then, the many units of sarmatian auxilia were also very professional. I was delighted about how professional all units had gone, and how great a commander my general was becoming. Only one more battle to fight before our enemies, the franks, are destroyed, then I'll conquer all the germanic provinces that are left, I thought. Then I hit the end turn button, and got the message "a traitor to our people"! The greatest general in my entire campagin! Grr, that upset me for several hours. Next time I open the campaign I'm going to send another general to kill him for this treachery! The problem is, he's got like 7 in command when fighting during the night, so if he attacks first I'll be in trouble if I send a captain, which is what I'll probably have to do - I can't afford to lose another army to treachery.

[rebelscum]

I think that if you change your faction heir, the former ruling line family should automatically be given lower loyalty trait. Is this already in the game?.
Also vice-versa the new ruling family should be given loyalty bonuses.

[jimmyM]

Not sure about family lines, but I know that an heir I nullified in favour of someone less awful became very unloyal very quickly after the nullification...

[Horatius]

How did you convert everyone?

After the first few turns as WRE there is a massive civil war with half your empire on the other side, and no matter how much money you had before the split you get into debt by about 2000 and every turn you don't reconquer most of your provinces your debt gets larger.

[starkhorn]

How did you convert everyone?

After the first few turns as WRE there is a massive civil war with half your empire on the other side, and no matter how much money you had before the split you get into debt by about 2000 and every turn you don't reconquer most of your provinces your debt gets larger.

By following PseRamesses 3 turn plan in the WRE guide thread.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54952

I didn't convert the pagans, I simply killed them when I retook the town. As a christian shrine is built on turn1, when you retake the pop centers, they come back as mostly christian because of the shrine.

Cheers
Starkhorn