Civil Wars? ...

[Wishazu]

Sorry if this has been discussed before but I was wondering if this feature would be making a come back. The threat of a civil war in mtw made the game a whole lot more interesting and was in fact my favourite feature. I enjoyed keeping my generals under constant surveillance and then bumping off the trouble makers. I will be sorely disappointed if this feature has not come back.

[A. Smith]

I belive that it doesnt... however, ive read somewhere that generals (not governers, i believe) can go rogue on you, and "converting your faction to another one... i dont remember if it could be a real faction or simply the rebels.

[highlanddave]

Soulflame said:

11. Civil war on the scope of Med1 isn't possible. There will be generals who can go rogue and brigands and rebels, but coups and such aren't possible.

this from page 2 of Soulflame's "med2 preview event.....the answers" thread on this forum page.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=68970&page=2

[The Blind Samurai]

aww man im going to miss cvil war it was great in mTW

[Wishazu]

ah well :( Though im wondering why it isnt possible...

[econ21]

ah well :( Though im wondering why it isnt possible...

I guess it's the same constraint as that on the number of factions. In BI, you had something close to civil wars, with the ERE and WRE rebels. But they took up scarce faction slots.

[Wishazu]

Were there not more factions in M1? I cant remember, its been so long since I played it.

[Mount Suribachi]

I guess it's the same constraint as that on the number of factions. In BI, you had something close to civil wars, with the ERE and WRE rebels. But they took up scarce faction slots.

I was hoping they'd at least implement it along the lines of BI WRE/ERE rebels

[lancelot]

IIRC, in MTW when a faction split they just became rebels...I dont see what the big deal is on keeping this arrangement...

[King Noob the Stupid]

Is it the same about re-emergencies?

[rory_20_uk]

Personally I found the civil wars alsightly wearing. They were so devastating to an empire that I employed draconian tactics to keep them in line - either buried in a loyal stack, with the heir or utterly alone to lower the effect they could have. Really rebellious ones had a tendancy to die in battles. So as suhc I don't think that is was that great a feature.

Do the rebels "think" as a faction, or is it a convenient shell to dump them all? Having them acting at least partly in concert would IMO be a nice change.

[Martok]

Were there not more factions in M1? I cant remember, its been so long since I played it.

There were 14 playable factions in MTW, 17 if you had Viking Invasion. (That's obviously not including the Papacy, Mongols, Swiss, or Burgundians.) There was a total faction limit of 30, however--which many mods took full advantage of (BKB and XL being two good examples).

[Martok]

Do the rebels "think" as a faction, or is it a convenient shell to dump them all? Having them acting at least partly in concert would IMO be a nice change.

I was hoping they'd at least implement it along the lines of BI WRE/ERE rebels

That makes at least three of us; I *loved* civil wars in MTW! I always wished, however, that the "Rebels" would have behaved in a coordinated manner, and had actively tried to defeat me. Since I knew BI had this feature, I was very much hoping to see it in Medieval 2 as well. It's very disappointing to have found out otherwise.

[lancelot]

It's very disappointing to have found out otherwise.

Indeed, CA do seem to have the knack of removing features that were a good idea.

[Wishazu]

The BI civil war feature would have been a great addition to M2 It does seem a massive blunder to have left it out...

[hoetje]

Actually,I don't like the civil wars^^
Just too irritating to see them having more men than you have while you conquered them :s

[Bob the Insane]

Well you still have the possibility of settlements revolting and joining the rebels and it appears that disloyal generals can do the same thing now so it is not wildly different to how it was before in MTW...

The only difference there was the way the event divided all the disloyal settlements and generals into one group and all the loyal ones into another. You would get the choice of which group you wanted to keep and all the other would all rebel at the same time...

That there was really any form of civil war was an illusion based on the fact that the rebel faction in MTW (given sufficient troops) was actually quite aggressive.

I don't think the BI style of having individual rebel factions would be any improvment over your revolting settlements and generals simply joining the default rebel faction. In RTW of course generals would simply never revolt, BI reintroduced that feature.

I will also miss MTW style of civil was I guess, it was fun to abandon your your useless King for the cool userper who yo had pushed into disloyalty and then granted control of the largest and most advanced army in the Kingdom...

[Martok]

I will also miss MTW style of civil was I guess, it was fun to abandon your your useless King for the cool userper who yo had pushed into disloyalty and then granted control of the largest and most advanced army in the Kingdom...

Exactly. I enjoyed deliberately engineering civil wars, especially when I had a crappy faction leader with no direct heirs. Those were always fun!

[Underdog687]

Havent played MTW but the Civil Wars in BI where good, i liked the idea anyway.

[The Wizard]

I guess it's the same constraint as that on the number of factions. In BI, you had something close to civil wars, with the ERE and WRE rebels. But they took up scarce faction slots.

Not in MTW. All it did was turn a section of your provinces and/or armies into rebels as a result of what choice you made (play the rebels or play the king's faction). Could add a whole new dimension to a game that could be too easy.

[Mount Suribachi]

Exactly. I enjoyed deliberately engineering civil wars, especially when I had a crappy faction leader with no direct heirs. Those were always fun!

Never did that, in fact I only ever had 1 civil war, and that was when I rather stupidly walked my King in front of my crossbowmen during a battle against teh spanish.....

[King Henry V]

Well you still have the possibility of settlements revolting and joining the rebels and it appears that disloyal generals can do the same thing now so it is not wildly different to how it was before in MTW...

The only difference there was the way the event divided all the disloyal settlements and generals into one group and all the loyal ones into another. You would get the choice of which group you wanted to keep and all the other would all rebel at the same time...

However, according to the devs, this type of rebellion would not happen on the same scale as in MTW. Why I am getting this feeling that MTW I will still be the best game in the series?

[Napoleon Blownapart]

Is there any chance it could be modded in?

[Biggus Diccus]

I will also miss MTW style of civil was I guess, it was fun to abandon your your useless King for the cool userper who yo had pushed into disloyalty and then granted control of the largest and most advanced army in the Kingdom...

I agree! This was among the funniest things that could happen in MTW-VI

[Bob the Insane]

I remember once being at the wrong end of a civil war in an early game with the HRE. I was left with only the King, a few militia troops and one province in the midst of a sea of grey (rebels)...

Happy days...