Civil strife

Hi...

This has probably been debated before (probably even by me, but my memory sucks), but i was wondering how much emphasis will there be in EBII regarding civil strife.

This is really the thing that lacks most in EB. Once you get your empire rolling, there's no stopping you. In RL, when an empire in antiquity grew very big, it's wealth did not just multiply since every one got a share and rebellions of the nobility were extreme.

And i'm not talking about Rome, since in my oppinion Rome was so succesfull precisely because they had virtualy no civil strife prior the late 2nd century BC.

Imagine if the AS or Ptolemaic empire had no civil strife in RL. I mean those 2 empires would probably still be standing.:laugh4:

So my qustion/proposal is:
Make loyalty a huge factor. There should really be a great king in huge empires, who could have the entire empire without rebellions. Once a weak/young/unpopular king sits to the throne, make strong "satraps, brothers, nobiles" rebell.

Wil something like this be implemented? Do people agree with me?

thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

Hi...

This has probably been debated before (probably even by me, but my memory sucks), but i was wondering how much emphasis will there be in EBII regarding civil strife.

This is really the thing that lacks most in EB. Once you get your empire rolling, there's no stopping you. In RL, when an empire in antiquity grew very big, it's wealth did not just multiply since every one got a share and rebellions of the nobility were extreme.

And i'm not talking about Rome, since in my oppinion Rome was so succesfull precisely because they had virtualy no civil strife prior the late 2nd century BC.

Imagine if the AS or Ptolemaic empire had no civil strife in RL. I mean those 2 empires would probably still be standing.:laugh4:

So my qustion/proposal is:
Make loyalty a huge factor. There should really be a great king in huge empires, who could have the entire empire without rebellions. Once a weak/young/unpopular king sits to the throne, make strong "satraps, brothers, nobiles" rebell.

Wil something like this be implemented? Do people agree with me?

thanks

---

I think this can be done in Kindoms, another mod did much more with this kings strongness, but I don't think it'll be easy.

Yeah, Bellum Crucis 5 or something.

Give more severe penalty for disloyal traits, and trigger disloyalty if the current Faction leader has less command, management, or dread than his vassals.

I think the fact that generals in M2TW have a Loyalty attribute will make representing civil strife much easier. Though honestly, I've never seen a general revolt in M2TW, but I do believe it at least affects bribery costs, which is helpful. It may be possible to make rebelling generals more probable through modding, but I wouldn't know.

Systems implemented like this, although many start off with noble intentions, can become inflexible. Often what happens is the country is punished for expanding, even though they might have an growing (Not necessarily large) economy, loyal armies, and efficient administration; all the things which allow large, multiethnic empires to function well. A good "civil strife" system would use these variables (And maybe some others) to calculate how loyal the populace is. Of course, the question is, can these all be implemented with the TW Engine?

Quote:

---

Make loyalty a huge factor. There should really be a great king in huge empires, who could have the entire empire without rebellions.

---

Many a great man has been let down by treacherous underlings, or events outside his control.

Quote:

---

Make loyalty a huge factor. There should really be a great king in huge empires, who could have the entire empire without rebellions. Once a weak/young/unpopular king sits to the throne, make strong "satraps, brothers, nobiles" rebell.

---

Basing the entire stability of the nation on the traits of one man is A. Unrealistic and B. Gives an inherent advantage to the player over the computer.

Although this is borderline irrelevant, Rhye's and Fall has implemented a superb stability system which very accurately models a system of stability for large empires. Of course, if you're not a Civ 4 player, then most of that will mean nothing to you, and it's impossible to implement perfectly into MII:TW, but it should give you a few ideas as to what should be included in a "Civil Strife" model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I think the fact that generals in M2TW have a Loyalty attribute will make representing civil strife much easier. Though honestly, I've never seen a general revolt in M2TW, but I do believe it at least affects bribery costs, which is helpful. It may be possible to make rebelling generals more probable through modding, but I wouldn't know.

---

In Stainless Steel I have had my faction heir (with the royal army!) riot next to the capital. In an epic battle (in which my second heir - his brother - died) he even managed to destroy my second army. So, it does happen.

I just hope they can mod it so that they (the rebellious generals) actually lay siege to a city, something I've never seen before.

Make loyalty and also authority a huge factor if you want to represent this. Traits like venal in EBI do little harm unless it will develop in law and trade penalties.

High Authority to could define a strong dynastic king (like Antiochos III Megas). Low could be put on weak kings.

Also the option of rising factions is there now (So Seleucid pretenders like Alexander I Balas can be represented). Has less to do with this, but rising factions can also better represent the Yuezhi hordes.

~Fluvius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

Make loyalty and also authority a huge factor if you want to represent this. Traits like venal in EBI do little harm unless it will develop in law and trade penalties.

High Authority to could define a strong dynastic king (like Antiochos III Megas). Low could be put on weak kings.

Also the option of rising factions is there now (So Seleucid pretenders like Alexander I Balas can be represented). Has less to do with this, but rising factions can also better represent the Yuezhi hordes.

~Fluvius

---

I agree. Unfortunatly i don't really remember the new features of MTW2 and Kingdom, since i never played Kingdom, and troped MTW2 once i started college, since my old computer broke down and my laptop can't cope with MTW2.

I really hope that the dinastic struggles can be represented. Just like you said, I had mostly in my mind the Diadochi, since they appear to struggle from this the most. But that's also to be expected, since these empires were the largest.

Another idea IMHO, is to give generals new traits, when the empire grows too large, of them wanting a piece of the pie. Especially in the Arche, once the empire got big, there were numerous factions which became independent: Cappadocia, Baktria, Parthia....

So generals could, let's say once an empire gets around 30 provinces get a slight lowerance of loyalty. The loyal ones would remain loyal, while for those who were flirting with the idea to betray you, would get the push they needed.

Perhaps this ideas are stupid, but i think stuff like this (perhaps in a more sophisticated way, i'm sure the EB team considered some ways) is essential for portraing this era.

Also, i would suggest that such changes wouldn't apply to the Romans till the Marian reforms. Rome didn't suffer from this since the Reforms, when the army became more loyal to it's general then to the Senate.

I hope i'm not alone in my thinking, so please, debate further:smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

Also, i would suggest that such changes wouldn't apply to the Romans till the Marian reforms. Rome didn't suffer from this since the Reforms, when the army became more loyal to it's general then to the Senate.:

---

Well, in theory the troops should have become more loyal to the senate (they were the ones paying them). Maybe that didn't happen in history (the senate especially wasn't too fond of landgrants), but that shouldn't effect your alternative history.

I think Authority would be a good attribute to base these sorts of things on. Not sure what it does in vanilla M2TW (according to some other threads, it only affects the likeliness of rebellions & possibly brigand spawning rates), but it's in the game already, so it might as well be taken advantage of.

It could probably be modded such that Generals are more likely to develop rebellious traits (reduced loyalty, lower bribery costs, increased corruption, for example) when the Faction Leader has low authority. And the opposite could be true for having above average authority.

A good question is what exactly should promote or demote a ruler's authority? Haven't played M2TW in a while, so my memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that your ruler basically gains a point of authority every time a province is captured. This may be hardcoded, but if not, I think it makes more sense to increase rulers' authority when they personally capture cities and/or win battles. I think it's safe to say a king or emperor who involves himself in battles will be more respected and feared than one who does not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

High Authority to could define a strong dynastic king (like Antiochos III Megas). Low could be put on weak kings.

---

As I said before, having the entire stability of a nation resting on the attributes of one man is unrealistic. Sure, a King may be weak, but if his provinces are getting richer, his troops winning wars, and his nobles loyal, then civil strife isn't going to happen. In fact, the nobles would probably prefer a weak King, as he would be easier to control and manipulate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

Also the option of rising factions is there now (So Seleucid pretenders like Alexander I Balas can be represented). Has less to do with this, but rising factions can also better represent the Yuezhi hordes.

~Fluvius

---

There will be no emerging factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

I really hope that the dinastic struggles can be represented. Just like you said, I had mostly in my mind the Diadochi, since they appear to struggle from this the most. But that's also to be expected, since these empires were the largest.

---

Dynastic struggles didn't exist in Antiquity in the same way they did in Medieval/Early Modern Europe. There was no legal system which defined inheritance, and "might made right". Sure, families fought one another, but this was more a way for separate factions to unite behind one banner rather than what you are suggesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

Another idea IMHO, is to give generals new traits, when the empire grows too large, of them wanting a piece of the pie. Especially in the Arche, once the empire got big, there were numerous factions which became independent: Cappadocia, Baktria, Parthia....

---

And yet the same didn't happen to the Romans even though they had a large empire. This is because they had ample amounts of the qualities required for stability I mentioned in my above post.

Quote:

---

Also, i would suggest that such changes wouldn't apply to the Romans till the Marian reforms. Rome didn't suffer from this since the Reforms, when the army became more loyal to it's general then to the Senate.

---

That reduces the incentive to work to that point and get the reforms. And there are plenty of examples of civil strife prior to that (Gracchus etc.)

Quote:

---

So generals could, let's say once an empire gets around 30 provinces get a slight lowerance of loyalty. The loyal ones would remain loyal, while for those who were flirting with the idea to betray you, would get the push they needed.

---

Did you read my post? I explained why that's a bad idea, as size != civil strife.

Interesting discussion.

Some governments did seem able to retain control of provinces: Rome seemed to hang onto a province once conquered. , so they gradually accumulatedna empire. I think Babrabian tribes m,ight be less able to do this, and even some monarchies (eg Epirus) had trouble holding more than a handfyul of provinces together. Of course this is related to manpower, wealth but also administrative capacity. Makedonia spread and contracted several times from Phillip II to Perseus. A strong King with able FMs and generals built an empire, then huie died and itr fell apart. This doesn't happen so well in the TW engine atm.

Could the Romans (and other able administrators) be given an adapted agent (say change the princess unit) as a pacifying "governor" agent, so they can more easly control more provinces? Maybe they could also assist with cultural conversion.

I'm not saying we should deny this to the "barbarians" but they wouldn't start with it: if the Casse want an efficient provincial system they will have to build some monster administrative building/building sequence in the capital, maybe after they get certain reforms.

Romahs might strart one level into the administrative tree producing "governors", others with no levels. That way an active Casse or Arverni could be as conquiest happy as they liked 9and maybe score a bit of loot) but they'd quicklly lose the new provinces to revolts, unless they built the adminitrative expertise to hold their conquests.

I know FMs are governors in cities, but this would be a supplementary agent to represent colonial efficiency.

Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Systems implemented like this, although many start off with noble intentions, can become inflexible. Often what happens is the country is punished for expanding, even though they might have an growing (Not necessarily large) economy, loyal armies, and efficient administration; all the things which allow large, multiethnic empires to function well. A good "civil strife" system would use these variables (And maybe some others) to calculate how loyal the populace is. Of course, the question is, can these all be implemented with the TW Engine?


Many a great man has been let down by treacherous underlings, or events outside his control.


Basing the entire stability of the nation on the traits of one man is A. Unrealistic and B. Gives an inherent advantage to the player over the computer.

Although this is borderline irrelevant, Rhye's and Fall has implemented a superb stability system which very accurately models a system of stability for large empires. Of course, if you're not a Civ 4 player, then most of that will mean nothing to you, and it's impossible to implement perfectly into MII:TW, but it should give you a few ideas as to what should be included in a "Civil Strife" model.

---

I don't think that Rhye's and Fall is a very good experience for changing history as it pretty much turns into a game on rails. IE that no matter how well you do, that mod will force you back into your historical areas...

Which is no fun IMHO.:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Just a thought.

---

That's a pretty good thought actually. That would represent really well the stress placed upon Empires which grow too fast. Although I don't know how good it would be at representing collapses, or how the AI would work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

I don't think that Rhye's and Fall is a very good experience for changing history as it pretty much turns into a game on rails. IE that no matter how well you do, that mod will force you back into your historical areas...

Which is no fun IMHO.:(

---

I know what you mean, but the system I linked is pretty non-faction specific. It was just a list of things which would affect stability in a country.

I'm not sure exactly what Cyclops is suggesting regarding using agents to affect stability, but it did bring a thought to mind which I'm confident has probably been suggested before, but I'll bring it up anyway, since it seems relevant to the discussion.

According to the official FAQ, the team has not yet decided whether or not religion will be used in EB2 and in what capacity. I think one obvious application of this particular M2TW mechanic is to use it in a similar way that it's used in the Britannia campaign of the Kingdoms expansion. (If you've already played this campaign, you can skip the rest of this paragraph and the next two.) For anyone who hasn't played it, "religion" has been replaced with "culture", which is essentially the same mechanic, except with a different name, and priests are no longer recruitable. Since the factions represented in the British Isles campaign are all Catholic, each has been given its own culture instead.

Like religion in vanilla M2TW, the primary effect of culture in a given province is on the population happiness. If the Welsh take over a region with predominately Irish culture, that region will maintain a high degree of "cultural" unrest. That is, until its culture is gradually converted to Welsh over time. That conversion is accomplished through certain buildings and also by the governors' stats. Piety has been replaced with... something... I can't remember what it's called right now. Anyway, the higher the governor's stat in this category, the faster the settlement he governs will convert to his own culture.

The secondary effect of culture in this campaign is that certain faction-specific units can only be recruited in regions within which their corresponding culture percentage is above a certain threshold. Other factions can even recruit some units belonging to other factions if they control a settlement with enough foreign culture.

Anyway, I probably don't need to point out how this sort of "religion" system may be useful in EB2, though we could debate for days about all the potential applications of it. My main point is that if "religion" is used/replaced to represent "culture" (or perhaps more accurately, "faction-specific loyalty/pacification") then you could have agents who directly increase the rate of conversion in the province in which they are located. They'd simply be the priests and imams of the vanilla M2TW system, but you can call them whatever you like.

If it is deemed unrealistic to have a specific agent speeding cultural conversion, the trait system could be used to make them represent more abstract concepts. What I mean is, they could be made virtually immovable, so that they are restricted to the settlement from which they are recruited. Or they could be made such that they are only effective when stationed inside settlements (via stat penalties for traveling; stat bonuses for remaining in settlements). In this way, recruiting a "priest/imam" would be representative of investing money (or other resources) into pacifying and pleasing the local population. You could do this with buildings too, of course, but the advantage of agents is that they can have upkeep costs associated with their use, and their effectiveness can be altered dynamically. The main problem would be in getting rid of them once they are no longer desired...

Anyway, that was pretty long, but I thought it was an interesting thought.

Not only has the use of "religion" been decided upon, but its use has also been hinted it a number of times.

See:
Last paragraph of Gaza Campaign Intro and elsewhere of course. Nothing specific mind, but we've certainly progressed past a stage where we wondered what we would do with "religion".

Foot

:oops:
Crap, I was mis-remembering the FAQ part about agents as applying to religion also. My apologies. I'm glad that the mechanic has been given a proper place within the mod. :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

Not only has the use of "religion" been decided upon, but its use has also been hinted it a number of times.
...

---

IIRC one of the religions is "City State" so I guess religion is being used to represent political culture.

Is it possible for a faction to change "religion" in the M2TW engine?

It would be magnificently cool if Rome as a faction could go from having city-state culture to Monarchy (or somesuch) to represent the breakdown of the republic. The should stir up a chariot-load of civil strife. The player would have to scurry around knocking down "city-state" fostering buildings and killing off pro-"city-state" agents and FMs and replacing them with monarchic ones: thus modelling the proscriptions.

I wonder if the same could represent the Gracchi? i am unwilling to characterise them as monarchists but they were a threat to the old oligarchy and the battle between the optimates and populares is similar to the republicans vs the monarchists.