How do I start a civil war?

Ok, so I'm playing the XL mod. I'm the Byzantines, the year is 1217, I've conquered all of the Balkans, Crimea, Asia Minor, Antioch, Tripoli, and that's about it. Now I want to make things harder for myself. I want to start a civil war to overthrow the Komnenian dynasty, but I don't want to lose all the 7-9 star generals I've built up. I have 240,000 florins in the treasury. How can I most effectively lower the loyalty of all these generals without killing them?

Also I have another somewhat related question. What kinds of negative traits can a king get? I've seen my kings get the Steward and Builder traits but never anything negative. If I could give them some negative traits without badly damaging my empire, that would be cool because then I could lower my general's loyalties all-around the board.

A civil war with Byzantium? Hah. The "Basileus Basileon" 's influence is so ridiculously hyped that it´s all but impossible. For a civil war you need low loyalty, high dread, and high command generals. I doubt any of your generals fits the reçuired stats.

You can get negative traits for your king by getting him in battles and slaughtering prisioners wantonly, and executing all captured rebels so you get "random justice". But these won´t affect loyalty.

For a start, if you really want to try, and you don´t want to attempt the easier way of triggering a civil war by having generals of royal blood but no direct heirs: move the Emperor and all his family to one of the Mediterranean islands, and cut off all routes. This will remove part of his influence bonus.
Then start adding-removing titles (removing via emissary) so that (hopefully) the loyalty of said generals drops. Also, make them attack and call off the attack over and over. This will get them a low loyalty line of traits.
Another low loyalty line of traits can be attempted by trying to frame unsuccessfully generals with treason dropping a spy on them, but it might kill the general (and you´ll have to start again), or it might utterly backfire and drop the "Loyal because of trials" line

Even so you will likely have a hard time triggering this, as you´ll need several generals with low loyalty. BTW: push all the taxe levers to "very low". You want a civil war, not massive peasant rebellions (Influence affects that too)

Yeah I can see it being hard. I have lots of generals with good dread and high command, but the problem is getting all their loyalties down. I had done the spies trick but I was losing too many good men. I also stripped all my generals of their titles but that still didn't do the trick.

Actually the main reason I want to start a civil war is because I have an aging king with no heirs and there are no other generals with royal blood. He has three brothers but none of them have any sons either. My faction died out so I went back to the last save point determined to overthrow the Komnenoi.

As for the taxes, I've kept them all on "Very High" mostly because I would welcome the challenge of some peasant revolts, and also because I want to save up money so that when a civil war breaks out I can bribe any good loyalist generals back onto my side. Playing as the Byzantines is so easy that it can quickly become uninteresting, so I'm basically trying to screw myself over, but without destroying any buildings in my favorite provinces or losing my best men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

A civil war with Byzantium? Hah. The "Basileus Basileon" 's influence is so ridiculously hyped that it´s all but impossible. For a civil war you need low loyalty, high dread, and high command generals. I doubt any of your generals fits the reçuired stats.

You can get negative traits for your king by getting him in battles and slaughtering prisioners wantonly, and executing all captured rebels so you get "random justice". But these won´t affect loyalty.

For a start, if you really want to try, and you don´t want to attempt the easier way of triggering a civil war by having generals of royal blood but no direct heirs: move the Emperor and all his family to one of the Mediterranean islands, and cut off all routes. This will remove part of his influence bonus.
Then start adding-removing titles (removing via emissary) so that (hopefully) the loyalty of said generals drops. Also, make them attack and call off the attack over and over. This will get them a low loyalty line of traits.
Another low loyalty line of traits can be attempted by trying to frame unsuccessfully generals with treason dropping a spy on them, but it might kill the general (and you´ll have to start again), or it might utterly backfire and drop the "Loyal because of trials" line

Even so you will likely have a hard time triggering this, as you´ll need several generals with low loyalty. BTW: push all the taxe levers to "very low". You want a civil war, not massive peasant rebellions (Influence affects that too)

---

Byzantines on early seem too easy for my taste. I think that Cambryses´s mod balances their rooster a lot, so that they don´t become either too good and numerous on Early, or too outdated on Late. Even so, the sheer number of provinces they start with makes them something of an economic monster, so they can still churn out enough troops to vançuish everything on their path. In my current HRE game they´re worryingly too close to my border.

The real challenge with the Byzantines, imho, comes with playing them on High (specially in the Pocket mod, where you start just with Nicaea and three galleys). Then it becomes something of a challenge, as before you start pondering whether to go for your neighbours, you have to retake Constantinople and it´s surrounding territories, and build decent garrisons for them. This will give everyone enough time to become tough enough to prevent you from steamrolling (the computer has a particularily hard time in this setting).

Anyway, try getting several generals to attack, and then call of the attack, repeatedly. This should get them a line of vices which will lower their loyalty by three points

Actually at the beginning of the game, I abandoned Nicaea, Anatolia, Trebizond, and Naples to make it harder for me. I let the Turks move in, and eventually I still beat them and won Asia Minor.

Interestingly enough, I used enough spies on one of my generals that he got the "Assassinator" vice which gives -5 loyalty! But then I didn't know when to stop and the next spy got him. I cursed.

BTW your HRE game looks very interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Byzantines on early seem too easy for my taste. I think that Cambryses´s mod balances their rooster a lot, so that they don´t become either too good and numerous on Early, or too outdated on Late. Even so, the sheer number of provinces they start with makes them something of an economic monster, so they can still churn out enough troops to vançuish everything on their path. In my current HRE game they´re worryingly too close to my border.

The real challenge with the Byzantines, imho, comes with playing them on High (specially in the Pocket mod, where you start just with Nicaea and three galleys). Then it becomes something of a challenge, as before you start pondering whether to go for your neighbours, you have to retake Constantinople and it´s surrounding territories, and build decent garrisons for them. This will give everyone enough time to become tough enough to prevent you from steamrolling (the computer has a particularily hard time in this setting).

Anyway, try getting several generals to attack, and then call of the attack, repeatedly. This should get them a line of vices which will lower their loyalty by three points

---

Don't think of Early Byzantines as a strategic challenge and try to make it harder for yourself that way. Try it as a time trial to see how fast you can subdue all of europe. :p

As for civil wars, try using the the island method to create a peasant rebellion and lose tons of provinces to it and retreat your troops out of each one. That ought to trigger a civil war in a hurry.

For a challenging Byzantine campaign allow me to shameless plug the Pocket Mod High era campaign. Starting as the Empire of Nicaea with one province surrounded by foes.

In the the early era they have far too many provinces and are more like the circa 1025 empire. By 1087 they had suffered severe erosion of their borders and had lost Naples, Anatolia, most of Trebizond and most of Nicaea. They had not held Cilician Armenia or Georgia during the game's timeframe anyway so those should be either rebel or installed as new factions. The next Pocket Mod version will address the Byzantine juggernaut problem that the current version still exhibits.

Ok, well I'll try a combination of those two things to start a civil war. Should be a fun challenge. I think it's a shortcoming of the game that attempting to spy on and assassinate your own generals doesn't give the king negative attributes. I mean, clearly things like that, along with removing and shifting titles, should have around-the-board impact because of the way in which they would unsettle the empire as a whole.

I'll add that to my list of MTW shortcomings. It's an awesome game but it's not perfect. One thing that I think would change the game in a very interesting way is to change the movement restriction. Historically, an empire should be capable of moving all of its forces across its territory in one year unless it's a huge empire like Russia. This would make the game very interesting, as you could much more effectively build up in a couple of inner provinces and then suddenly unleash a devastating attack in any direction. It would add an element of surprise and suspense to the game that would also make it more historically accurate. Also I think it should be easier for civil wars and revolts to start. I had a couple of other things I didn't care for but I can't remember them now. Maybe sometime later I'll write them down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II

For a challenging Byzantine campaign allow me to shameless plug the Pocket Mod High era campaign. Starting as the Empire of Nicaea with one province surrounded by foes.

In the the early era they have far too many provinces and are more like the circa 1025 empire. By 1087 they had suffered severe erosion of their borders and had lost Naples, Anatolia, most of Trebizond and most of Nicaea. They had not held Cilician Armenia or Georgia during the game's timeframe anyway so those should be either rebel or installed as new factions. The next Pocket Mod version will address the Byzantine juggernaut problem that the current version still exhibits.

---

Very true. I'm actually reading a fairly large volume on Byzantine history right now, although I'm already familiar with the basics. The XL mod does address the issue of Lesser Armenia and Georgia, although the Byzantines are still incredibly powerful. It's quite true that the Byzantines should not have Asia Minor and should be somewhat weaker to be historically accurate. Nevertheless, the makers of MTW seem to have had in mind that Byzantium would be the "easiest" faction to play. Also the game does reflect that Byzantium, had it been led more capably instead of constantly falling into civil war, could have easily been much more powerful than it was.

It was years of mismanagement by the Angeloi and the fourth crusade the things that dealt it the death-blow, plus several problems, social and economical, that had been dragged for centuries, or created in order to solve other problems. But the Paleologus retake of Constantinople came as too little, too late, and with the Ottomans already strong enough to assume the political-economical role that they formerly had.

In Osprey´s book about the fall of Constantinople, they also point out that Constantino XI had been a fairly apt despot, reconçuering parts of Greece, but that as Emperor he blundered badly. His reasoning about holding in Constantinople was sound, however: if he survived long enough, someone would come to his aid to lift the siege, as althrough the Byzantines were disliked for their habit of playing people against each other, the idea of the Ottomans controlling the Bosphorous was altogether too frightening. Indeed, armies came from Hungary, and ships sailed from Venice. But again: too little, too late. At that point even hellenic scholars had begun to hail Mehmed II as "Emperor of the Romans for being the legal holder of Constantinople"

But this is a history rant, and completely off-topic :p

One of the big questions I have is how Byzantine power could have collapsed so quickly under the Angeloi (also I want to know why the Komnenoi, capable as they were, never succeeded in completely retaking Anatolia from the Seljuqs). I'm looking forward to the end of the school year so that I can devote more time to my reading on the subject . . . right now I haven't even gotten to Manziqurt.

You're right about it being severely off-topic, so . . . what do you think of my perceived shortcomings in MTW? Is there another thread that talks specifically about this?

No thread currently, but it has been debated in the past.
I think it arises from the fact that it inherited the Shogun engine, without tweaking it enough. This has been discussed in the past

Namely, shogun worked by stations (summer, winter, autum, spring...) rather than years. Every turn was a station. Every four stations a year.
Also, Shogun was placed in a smaller context than Europe. Hence movement made more sense

That being said, movement is only "partially" shortcoming. Whereas a single man might be able to travel from Berlin to, say, Paris, in a single year, armies are another matter. They reçuire getting organized, having supplies, etc...
Hence, IMHO, it´s not unrealistic that an army, or a battalion, reçuires a year to get prepared to march from say, Constantinople to Trapisond, as it would mean preparing the supply wagons, planning the path to take, gathering the men, march into Trapisond proper, all while distributing supplies, and once arriving there, resting every day, and finally building a camp in Trapisond.

Again, it IS a bit awkard because some provinces are far larger than they should be, and I think this was done out of simplicity´s sake. Germany is swarming with provinces, whereas in Spain there are only eight (Castile should be split in at least three parts, and so should Portugal. Cordoba should get split in two), in Asia Minor 7 (Trapisond should be split in two, Trapisond being the Eastern half, the Western half being Ancyra, and I´d like to cut Anatolia into Anatolia proper and Ankara, and Nicaea into Nicaea and Smyrna). Greece should be split into the Morea Peninsua, Northern Greece, and Macedonia. Finally, Ireland should get the provinces it has in the Vikings campaign.

Finally, I´d like Portugal, Navarre, Ireland, Trapisond (high and afterwards), and Cilicia (to start with) as unplayable factions, to add more spice to the game.

The latter, specially the first three ones, is more viable than the former, and it would add by itself a lot of spice. Not just Castile, that at the start of the game the start of the game should be way smaller than it is, and Aragon, but also Portugal and Navarre into the fringe (Portugal was still small back then, a rebellious duchy of Leon, just like Castile, but Navarre at that point was the strongest kingdom in Spain, barring the muslims). This would make the reconçuista more interesting and flavored, with backstabs and things which would have little to do with "freeing Spain from the infidel invaders" and a lot with carving a kingdom out of the other Spanish monarch´s lands.

Also, in High, it would be interesting to put the Empire of Trapisond as a potential competitor to the Empire of Nicaea, and put up strategical dillemas

I'm not sure I agree with you. RAISING the army and setting up the logistics in the first place is what takes time, and I think the game reflects that excellently. I agree with you that some provinces should be split (and some have in the XL mod), but I still think the movement restriction should be changed. It doesn't have to be unlimited, but it could be something along the lines of maybe three or four provinces per turn.

On the other hand, I don't think it should be possible to move a force from Egypt to Finland, even if you do have ships in every intervening sea area.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I don't think it should be possible to move a force from Egypt to Finland, even if you do have ships in every intervening sea area.

---

And yet IMHO this one makes sense, as it doesn´t take long for that voyage by ship.

Quote:

---

RAISING the army and setting up the logistics in the first place is what takes time, and I think the game reflects that excellently.

---

Imho, the logistics for raising the army, and the ones involved at mobilizing it are two different things altogether. It is one thing to create a force of soldiers in say, Navarre (for instance, by raising peasant levees, or by recruiting local gendry as men at arms or knights, and THEN either arming them or waiting until they purchase their own weapons), and a different one to organize the mobilization of said force from Navarre into, say, Aragon, which would reçuire you to choose a pathway between the mountains, set up a supply wagon and foraging parties, etc...

Personally, I don't think there is much realism in how armies are raised in MTW and that may be deliberate to avoid the complications involved. A Catholic king might typically have three means of raising troops. He would have his personal body guard, including royal knights, certainly, but elite infantry and missle troops as well. His guard would form the core of his army, but would not be numerous enough to function by itself. MTW sort of has this idea with its Royal Knights, Ghulam Body Guards, Boyars, etc. Secondly, the king might have a feudal levy, both directly on his own lands, and indirectly by summoning his nobles to come to his aid. He might or might not have the right to exact loyalty from the followers of his nobles. If he did not, that could spell trouble. This is because if a noble died in battle and his followers were not required to swear loyalty to the king, then they would probably flee, because they would be under no obligation to serve the king. But the chief problem with the feudal levy is that it was really designed to provide local defense against local threats. It was hard to raise an offensive army through the levy because the king would only have the right to demand a short period of service each year, and it was hard to get people to comply if their own homes were not threatened. MTW does not really attempt to represent the feudal levy. Instead it treats your regular troops as if they were a national army. Not too unrealistic for Byzantium, but England did not have a national army until Parliament made one in the 17th century and beat their own king with it. Thirdly, a king could hire mercenaries to provide professional troops who were more skilled than most of the feudal troops, but too expensive to keep around in large numbers for long. But when the mercenaries were fired (or couldn't be paid) they might join the enemy, or become bandits, causing economic disruption and tying down troops used to put them down or at least protect the towns from them. For example, English king Harold decided not to divide the loot after beating a Viking invasion, but promised to do so later. His Danish mercenaries lost patience and abandoned him and he was beaten by William the Conqueror. If they had stayed on would Harold have won? Maybe.

That makes for a pretty complicated situation already, and I'm sure that the real situation was often more complicated than I even know about.

In short, I don't think MTW is supposed to represent the logistics of raising and mantaining troops too well. The game would be far too complicated.

It IS a bit unfitting, given that feudal men-at-arms weren´t a standing army, as you pointed out (Byzantium did have one, but then again, that was a rump remain of the Roman Empire, and it held to most customs.) In Spain, given the different Kingdoms, Lordships, and stuff, going to and forth, the closest thing to a standing army in the middle ages were Orders of Knighthood.
Otherwise you found things like the Lordship of Biscay, where special feudal laws applied: so long as you could prove "cleanness of blood" (AKA: no muslim ancestors, at least direct ones, I guess), you were not a peasant, but gentry. Of course, this meant that whichever King held the Lordship could call on them to make war, but here comes the second çuirk: they were only reçuired to stay in the army until it reached a certain location, at which point they were perfectly free to turn around and leave. The Renaisse army was pseudo-standing, however (albeit mercenary). I think there was no standing army proper until the nineteenth century, after the Napoleonic wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Again, it IS a bit awkard because some provinces are far larger than they should be, and I think this was done out of simplicity´s sake. Germany is swarming with provinces, whereas in Spain there are only eight (Castile should be split in at least three parts, and so should Portugal. Cordoba should get split in two), in Asia Minor 7 (Trapisond should be split in two, Trapisond being the Eastern half, the Western half being Ancyra, and I´d like to cut Anatolia into Anatolia proper and Ankara, and Nicaea into Nicaea and Smyrna). Greece should be split into the Morea Peninsua, Northern Greece, and Macedonia. Finally, Ireland should get the provinces it has in the Vikings campaign.

---

The problem is that not enough extra provinces can be added to make this worthwhile. If an extra 20 - 30 provinces could be added to the game, I would certainly consider adding many more historical regions and dividing up many of the larger provinces.

I guessed as much -I didn´t know whether it was possible, but I guessed that, even if it was, it would be humongous- thus, I posted it here, when the issue of troops and moves came up. Otherwise I´d have used the -semi- official pocket mod suggestions thread "Trouble with pocket mod" :nod:

On that subject, it reminds me of another tweak concerning assaults I made(threadjump)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Otherwise I´d have used the -semi- official pocket mod suggestions thread "Trouble with pocket mod" :nod:

---

That thread is no more, it has been absorbed by the pocket mod thread. :2thumbsup:

As someone totally unfamiliar with modding, I have to ask: is there some sort of built-in hardcoded limit to how many factions and provinces there can be?

Yes to both, although I'm drawing a blank as to what the province limit is. (I want to say it's about 110, which is only a few more provinces than what already exist in the vanilla game.) The hardcoded limt for factions is 30.

Wait, tho, doesn't the XL mod have more than 30 factions?

Hmm, no, doubtful. I tried XL once, and it had the standard + Knights Hospitaller, Teutonics, Genoa, and two Eastern ones, I think. So it ammounted to around eighteen (unsure)

108 provinces, 32 factions