I miss civil war/reborn factions

[DojoRat]

I never thought I'd say it but it's true. I've finished two long campaigns but I usually get a faction about 3/4's of the way there and call it quits. It just gets too tedious to take the last 16 provinces or so once all of Rome is yours. I think it would be more enjoyable to tone down the squalor driven peasant revolts and replace them with ambitious governors, or ethnic driven rebellions and the like.

In a recent German campaign it would have been a challenge to have Britain rebel, for instance, after I had moved my capital to Milan and was driving into Greece. It would be historically accurate because most "barbarian" leadership was personal and with the great leader or his armies far away why wouldn't an ambitious nephew want to be his own boss?

It would also be good to have your Roman faction face a lot of uncertainty as it went for it all during the civil war. Family members are way too loyal, and many of the non heirs in the backwater should be tempted to switch side or set up their own shop.

Just a thought.

[lancelot]

yep I agree

IMHO they have removed FAR too many cool features from MTW and replaced them with a fancy graphics engine. Which I think, doesnt make the game.

Bring back GA mode, re-emergenence, the north of england!, norselands, titles that give bonuses and buildings that give title bonuses..

[qmark]

Good idea that. Having Governors decide to stop paying taxes and build his own little kingdom/Empire is not only historically accurate but should provide an extra challenge. The traits could point to a character who's likely to rebel.

[Bob the Insane]

RTW does not appear to have a loyalty stat... Some VnVs mention loyalty but only as a modifier to the bribe cost of the character...

Without a loyaly stat it is hard to see how to could define a family member as being rebelious... You do have the possiblility for individual settlements revolting and declaring independance (joining the Slaves faction) or joining their old faction... There appears to be a lot less invested into the Faction Leader and more into the faction family itself... All family members and considered to be automatically loyal to the family (VnVs might effect their bribe cost though)... Settlements do not seem to really care what faction/family is in charge and are only bothered by taxes, living conditions, the quality of the local governor and cultural differences with the ruling faction...

It appears the concept of loyalty is not in the game and it is more on the individuals happiness, keep the plebs happy and they don't care who is in the palace (this is made easier by the guy in the palace being popular of course..)...

[Sin Qua Non]

I don't quite miss the constant rebirth of factions like MTW, but I definitely miss the civil wars. I would like it if rebels left alone for too long organized and made their own nation, like in Europa Universalis 2. They could just use everything from the culture most synonymous to them (units, buildings, names, etc).

Loyalty in an expansion pack? Seems too big a re-write for a patch.

[Bob the Insane]

I reckon there would be a lot of mileage in the rebels (Slaves) being more numerous and more agressive... Especially if they outnumber the garrison in the local province, they should siege and assault the local settlement... Now if you made it way more expensive to bribe generals then a rebel army lead by a general would be a nasty thing indeed...


Link their appearance to the net Public Order level and they would be quite common in the fringes of you empire... Oh the possibilities...

[Colovion]

yep I agree

IMHO they have removed FAR too many cool features from MTW and replaced them with a fancy graphics engine. Which I think, doesnt make the game.

Bring back GA mode, re-emergenence, the north of england!, norselands, titles that give bonuses and buildings that give title bonuses..

I want MTW 2

[Bob the Insane]

the north of england!

LOL... You won't be talking about Scotland would you???

[Akka]

yep I agree

IMHO they have removed FAR too many cool features from MTW and replaced them with a fancy graphics engine. Which I think, doesnt make the game.

Bring back GA mode, re-emergenence, the north of england!, norselands, titles that give bonuses and buildings that give title bonuses..

I wouldn't downplay the addition of the new incredible engine to the game, but I agree that many features of MTW (each general being a character and able to be a governor, loyalty and dread stats, a reduced number of V'n'V, normal-sized rebellions, faction leader's stats affecting the whole faction, etc.) were much better done than in RTW.

[lancelot]

LOL... You won't be talking about Scotland would you???

LOL, yea I should have said north of the British Isles. But I suppose there wasnt technically a scotland back then

[-Abbey.keeper-]

I think it would be more enjoyable to tone down the squalor driven peasant revolts and replace them with ambitious governors, or ethnic driven rebellions and the like.

Hear Hear!

[GFX707]

LOL, yea I should have said north of the British Isles. But I suppose there wasnt technically a scotland back then

Do you perchance have an american passport? lol! It's usually only yanks that do the Britain=England thing....and as a Scot I was infuriated to read that!

You should be ashamed of yourself young man!

[MajorFreak]

I think it would be more enjoyable to tone down the squalor driven peasant revolts and replace them with ambitious governors, or ethnic driven rebellions and the like.

oh nooooooooooooo! you mean when it says "faction destroyed" there's no later revival? That's a real shame, since it's fun to fight all the factions at least once and having the AI kill off permanently a faction that might have added spice to your battles seems a mite peculiar.

are you sure they removed such an enjoyable part of the game?

[sharrukin]

I hated faction re-emergance in MTW. The way it was done with jack-in-the-box instant mega armies was ridiculous. I would like revolts, non-family generals and governors as well as disloyal underlings. As someone pointed out earlier major revolts should progress and get larger and more dangerous the longer it is ignored. NO FACTION RE-EMERGENCE!

[lancelot]

Do you perchance have an american passport? lol! It's usually only yanks that do the Britain=England thing....and as a Scot I was infuriated to read that!

You should be ashamed of yourself young man!

I do apologize my northern brethren! but its still technically not scotland-yet. I suppose Britannia is the correct description...probably...??

[teutonicwarrior]

Do you perchance have an american passport? lol! It's usually only yanks that do the Britain=England thing....and as a Scot I was infuriated to read that!

You should be ashamed of yourself young man!

sort of stinks you cannot destroy the pictish caterthuns as the romans eh!

I do apologize my northern brethren! but its still technically not scotland-yet. I suppose Britannia is the correct description...probably...??

it's still not scotland? so my mother is really a britanniaian?

[solypsist]

i always liked returning factions, only when it wasn't happening on my lands

[Szun]

I do apologize my northern brethren! but its still technically not scotland-yet. I suppose Britannia is the correct description...probably...??

just some claryfication for you US boys

England comes from the word Angel-land and the angel were a germanic tribe that went to the isle long past rome left it.
The scots on the other hand are of celtic origin.
So calling a scott a english men is like calling a yankee a confed or vise versa.

Angel-saxon..I bet you heared that in robin hood at least once, those were the germanic mix of angel and saxons who came at a later date to 'the Isle'

noone will complain if you call the pict (celtic tribe in the north of britan) scotts...that is more likely then them beeing english

btw I am german :P

[Theodoret]

Just some clarification for you German boys

The Angles, along with the Saxons and the Jutes, began attacking Britannia whilst it was still a Roman province. When the Romans left, the Britons set about governing themselves, but it wasn't long before (according to the Anglo-Saxon chronicles) one of the British chieftains, called Vortegern, decided to invite the Saxons in to help him beat his rivals. This turned out not to be a very inspired idea as these guys soon turned on him, and by the 5th century AD, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes had taken a big chunk of the country. This area was known as 'Angle-Land' or England.

Caledonia in the north had never been owned by the Romans. It was dominated by various Pitish tribes. Around the 7th century AD, a northern Irish tribe decided to take a bit of land just across the waters on the Mull of Kintyre, and called the resulting kingdom Dal-Riyada. This tribe was called the Scots. At the time, the Picts were fighting the Northumbrians (Angles who lived north of the Humber - ancestors of Yorkshiremen and Geordies among others). The grumpy northerners were kicking Pict butt, so the Scots took the opportunity to grab even more land. Eventually the Northumbrians were distracted by various internal and external problems, including the Vikings, and the Scots were left to take over Caledonia, which was ever after known as 'Scot-Land'. The End.


Back to topic. I think the main problem with R:TW is that the game is over so quickly. I guess the squalor effect was supposed to replace M:TW faction emergences. I agree that it would be nice for a city rebellion to have a % chance of turning into a faction revival. Another nice touch would be to make the various AI factions more difficult to conquer - including more difficult to conquer each other. As it stands, Carthage, Thrace and the Seleucids only last a few turns before disappearing.

[Mikeus Caesar]

But I suppose there wasnt technically a scotland back then

There was-there was just a big wall to keep all the scottish people out of england!!! On topic though, i thought the rebron faction thing was cool. I miss it as well, expecting a faction you thought dead to suddenly pop up out of nowhere. And as for civil war, i never had the pleasure of that happening to me on MTW.

I would like it if rebels left alone for too long organized and made their own nation, like in Europa Universalis 2. They could just use everything from the culture most synonymous to them (units, buildings, names, etc).

That would be cool. A new civilisation could pop up to challenge you.

[The Evil Emperor Mindstation]

Actually the wall was most likely used to regulate trade, as it was much too long to be adequately defended. And I love the idea of factions reemerging. I miss that so much.

[Mikeus Caesar]

No, the wall was put up to keep out the scots. They were considered the ultimate barbarians, and were unconquerable. After all, you don't go building a huge wall across an entire country, just to regulate trade, do you?

[WiredOnCoffee]

I want MTW 2

Agree'd

[WiredOnCoffee]

I hated faction re-emergance in MTW. The way it was done with jack-in-the-box instant mega armies was ridiculous. I would like revolts, non-family generals and governors as well as disloyal underlings. As someone pointed out earlier major revolts should progress and get larger and more dangerous the longer it is ignored. NO FACTION RE-EMERGENCE!

I agree about the Instant Mega-Armies, especially The Pope. But it did add more to the game in that way. You had to watch you inner Kingdom as well as the Borders. And what about some other Factions later on in the game, like the Mongols in 1230 AD... talk about instant Mega-Army. I have only finished a Julii Campaign so far and I did it before the year 100BC so Im not sure what the cut off year is, but what about some of the Historically True Rebellions such as Sparticus or The Goths? (Yes I have mentioned this in a few other posts but I like the idea myself) The Sparticus Rebellion was a Gladiator Army.... Slaves yes but trained killers, and the Goths had their part in the Fall of Rome Historically. I think the Goth's and even The Huns would add a whole new Danger to the game.

I know that these Factions Historical weren't too relevant until the 2nd and 3rd Centuries and that would be alot of turns to get to so how about a different Starting point like in MTW (Early/High/Late).

[Mikeus Caesar]

They might do that in an expansion pack. And as for MTW 2, that would rock!!!

[Zelipus]

Rome:Total War. Fall of rome expansion pack

[Khorak]

No, the wall was put up to keep out the scots. They were considered the ultimate barbarians, and were unconquerable. After all, you don't go building a huge wall across an entire country, just to regulate trade, do you?

It served both purposes. With the wall up the only way between the two areas was the gates, so the Romans could tax the crap out of you. The wall also prevented the Scots simply wandering over the border in large numbers. It couldn't be manned like a proper fortification, but it would be pretty easy to spot a couple hundred barbarians trying to get over the bloody thing and set up a welcoming party.

[Schnief]

Civil War and loyality are elements which I miss myself .. But this whole reborn factions really got on my nerves!!! Suddenly an army appears out of nowhere and attacks regions somewhere in the centre of your empire... and your next army is 3-5 rounds away!!!

[the Count of Flanders]

No, the wall was put up to keep out the scots. They were considered the ultimate barbarians, and were unconquerable. After all, you don't go building a huge wall across an entire country, just to regulate trade, do you?

Nope, the wall was built to keep out the Picts, which genetically speaking, only have a minor link with the currentday scots. Just as the English are, genetically speaking, 80% Germanic (Anglans and Saxons) and don't have much to do with the Briton tribes in the game.

[Botis]

Well I guess it depends what you're looking for in the game, but for me, having a more dynamic world where factions would spring up and have actuall AI running them was cool in MTW - although not exectuted as well as it could have been. The faction name was less relevant to the fact that if you had a rebellion in your territory there was a chance it would be more than a localised one province "blip" that you had to deal with. Oh, and if they put in civil war, have an actual civil war where you split into 2 actual factions like Civ 1 did. Not one you run and a bunch of rebel provinces. That's lame.

This game would be much cooler with rebellions that spawn actual factions who can then expand etc etc ... and I can't see how the game is better by not having it there... because a couple of anti-respawn types don't want it... give em the option to switch it off, but, me I personally don't want no boring repetitive linear experience that that entails. Gimme Crusader Kings with RTW style battles - If I had my way Paradox would licence the battle engine and make the strategy game I want. But that won't happen any time soon so I have stopped playing both games as they just frustrate me.