Engineering Civil War

**Martok** · 10-17-2006, 04:31

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I thought that regardless of the general, stacks will break up with units siding with both loyalists and rebels?

Not in my experience. Stacks remain intact when a civil war breaks out (unless of course you'd split them up beforehand). That's why generals are so key; whoever's in charge of the stack will dictate way the entire army goes (loyalist or rebel) in case of civil wars.

**Empirate** · 10-17-2006, 17:55

Everything that lowers your king's influence is important for triggering the civil war: Losing battles (though preferably no provinces...), betraying allies, losing battles, failed assassination/spying attempts, losing battles, and of course pissing off the pope. Try to get excommunicated! I had two civil wars the moment I was excommunicated in two games I played a while back.

**professorspatula** · 10-17-2006, 22:08

Don't forget to burn and assassinate your own king and princes every now and again - that seems to lower loyalty nicely. I'm actually addicted to killing off any princes I take an instant dislike to. And Kings. And why not - my assassins and grand inquisitors get fed up working away from home. In my last campaign I don't think a king ever had more than one son alive at a time. The poor monarchs Still, the weaklings must be eradicated from the gene pool for the good of the people!

**Jxrc** · 10-23-2006, 09:48

Something that happened last Saturday... Not really engineefing but could perhaps help ...

Playing as the Sicilian. Despite a slow start, everything going ok (Malta, Sicily, Naples, Corsica, Sardigna, Rhodes, Chyprus, Crete, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, ships in every square).

Egyptian a bit too strong for my liking (starting invading Venice, Muscovy, etc) so build two crusades in Corsica and Sardigna) and plan to sink their ships.

Plan put into motion, all their ships are sunk except one near Malta. Complete fortress in Malta, king dies, new king pop up in Malta ... Cut out from the rest of the realm.

Rebellion in Norway, Corsica and Naples. Side with the loyalist and rout all rebels ... In Corsica they retreat to the keep and kaboom I loose the two crusade markers

Second civil war in a row ... Side with the rebels this time ... Get rid of the loyalist everywhere but in Sardigna they retreat to the keep .... Two more crusades markers down the drain ...

Third Civil war ... Could only keep Rhodes and Malta because the AI factions had grasped the pattern and taken all the rest from me ... One star king, two poor island, four units of peasants and one feudal seargeant ... Plenty of ships (but nothing to trade

), loads of cash.... World conquest does not seem an option

**Dead Knight of the Living** · 10-23-2006, 12:06

I'm a firm believer that every thread needs a stupid question askerer. I'll be that guy for this thread. Here goes.

Why would you want to instigate a Civil War in your own territories? I had two civil wars as the HRE. They set me back quite a bit. So what is it you all know about Civil Wars that I don't?

**Matty** · 10-23-2006, 12:14

Because if you have a king and no heirs and the king dies, the game is over. If you have a civil war, you get a new king - hopefully with a little more lead in his pencil - and can continue

**satchef1** · 10-23-2006, 13:00

Marrying your princesses to your sons seems to be a good way to cause disloyalty, other than that just fail a few crusades and get excommunicated (and try your high ranking generals for treason)

**Martok** · 10-24-2006, 02:21

Originally Posted by Dead Knight of the Living

I'm a firm believer that every thread needs a stupid question askerer. I'll be that guy for this thread. Here goes.

Why would you want to instigate a Civil War in your own territories? I had two civil wars as the HRE. They set me back quite a bit. So what is it you all know about Civil Wars that I don't?

For answer, I'll cite an example I've used in other threads: I had a Danish campaign a couple years ago where I deliberately started a civil war. The reason I did so was that I had an absolutely terrible king--he had almost no influence, piety, dread, command, or acumen. Even worse, he had just ascended to the throne at a young age (I believe he was only 18-19 at the time), which meant that I would have been stuck with him for a loooong time.

On the other hand, I had three uncles who were all much better suited to ruling an empire. One of them in particular had good stats--6 piety, 5 dread, 8 command, 7 acumen, etc. In my case, it was a no-brainer to find someone who would help my current king shuffle loose the mortal coil.

Klling my king was a snap; he was so worthless, that he was taken out by a rookie 0-star assassin!

(Of course, things didn't go exactly as I'd planned.

When civil war broke out, my two younger uncles opposed my older "super-uncle"--I'd hoped that one of the younger uncles would back the older one, but no such luck. I ended up choosing the "Rebels" led by the two younger uncles, as that way I would still have an heir should my new king be killed. I eventually triumphed over my uber-uncle, and reunited the Danish empire.)

So to sum up: If you have a bad faction leader with no direct heirs, it's sometimes worthwhile to trigger a civil war to get rid of him.

**Roark** · 10-24-2006, 05:24

Spot on.

Also, some people actually like to do it for roleplaying purposes. Like getting the Karolingian dynasty in power over Germany for historical reasons or whatever...

**Dead Knight of the Living** · 10-24-2006, 13:14

Originally Posted by Martok

For answer, I'll cite an example I've used in other threads: I had a Danish campaign a couple years ago where I deliberately started a civil war. The reason I did so was that I had an absolutely terrible king--he had almost no influence, piety, dread, command, or acumen. Even worse, he had just ascended to the throne at a young age (I believe he was only 18-19 at the time), which meant that I would have been stuck with him for a loooong time!

On the other hand, I had three uncles who were all much better suited to ruling an empire! One of them in particular had good stats--6 piety, 5 dread, 8 command, 7 acumen, etc. In my case, it was a no-brainer to find someone who would help my current king shuffle loose the mortal coil.

Klling my king was a snap; was so worthless, that he was taken out by a rookie 0-star assassin!

(Of course, things didn't go exactly as I'd planned.

When civil war broke out, my two younger uncles opposed my older "super-uncle"--I'd hoped that one of the younger uncles would back the older one, but no such luck. I ended up choosing the "Rebels" led by the two younger uncles, as that way I would still have an heir should my new king be killed. I eventually triumphed over my uber-uncle, and reunited the Danish empire!)

So to sum up: If you have a bad faction leader with no direct heirs, it's sometimes worthwhile to trigger a civil war to get rid of him.

WOW, thanks for that answer. I never thought about all that. WHen I have a sorry king I just suck it up and drive on with him. Or I charge him in battle and let him get killed.

I'll have to remember all this next time I have a dirtbag on the throne.

**Hemant A** · 01-21-2013, 14:57

esp if you are in the situation in which COuntMRVHS found himself in as the hungarians. Having a civil war can sometimes be the only option to divide the attention of a combined attack of factions against you. I noticed the AI Egyptians and the AI Aragonese totally ignored the Spanish once they went into Civil war. The loyalists won and they joined hands with me and together we are the two great catholic superpowers in the Mediterrenean. Iam Sicily 1232 AD starting at Early. . . . . NOw the ARagonese are no more and the Egyptians are in a civil war of their own thanks to me destroying their Ribat in Sinai.......