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.

[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.

[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 . CW really urks me.

[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.

[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.