Civil strife

[anubis88]

Make loyalty and also authority a huge factor if you want to represent this. Traits like venal in EBI do little harm unless it will develop in law and trade penalties.

High Authority to could define a strong dynastic king (like Antiochos III Megas). Low could be put on weak kings.

Also the option of rising factions is there now (So Seleucid pretenders like Alexander I Balas can be represented). Has less to do with this, but rising factions can also better represent the Yuezhi hordes.

~Fluvius

I agree. Unfortunatly i don't really remember the new features of MTW2 and Kingdom, since i never played Kingdom, and troped MTW2 once i started college, since my old computer broke down and my laptop can't cope with MTW2.

I really hope that the dinastic struggles can be represented. Just like you said, I had mostly in my mind the Diadochi, since they appear to struggle from this the most. But that's also to be expected, since these empires were the largest.

Another idea IMHO, is to give generals new traits, when the empire grows too large, of them wanting a piece of the pie. Especially in the Arche, once the empire got big, there were numerous factions which became independent: Cappadocia, Baktria, Parthia....

So generals could, let's say once an empire gets around 30 provinces get a slight lowerance of loyalty. The loyal ones would remain loyal, while for those who were flirting with the idea to betray you, would get the push they needed.

Perhaps this ideas are stupid, but i think stuff like this (perhaps in a more sophisticated way, i'm sure the EB team considered some ways) is essential for portraing this era.

Also, i would suggest that such changes wouldn't apply to the Romans till the Marian reforms. Rome didn't suffer from this since the Reforms, when the army became more loyal to it's general then to the Senate.

I hope i'm not alone in my thinking, so please, debate further

[Horatius Flaccus]

Also, i would suggest that such changes wouldn't apply to the Romans till the Marian reforms. Rome didn't suffer from this since the Reforms, when the army became more loyal to it's general then to the Senate.:

Well, in theory the troops should have become more loyal to the senate (they were the ones paying them). Maybe that didn't happen in history (the senate especially wasn't too fond of landgrants), but that shouldn't effect your alternative history.

[B-Wing]

I think Authority would be a good attribute to base these sorts of things on. Not sure what it does in vanilla M2TW (according to some other threads, it only affects the likeliness of rebellions & possibly brigand spawning rates), but it's in the game already, so it might as well be taken advantage of.

It could probably be modded such that Generals are more likely to develop rebellious traits (reduced loyalty, lower bribery costs, increased corruption, for example) when the Faction Leader has low authority. And the opposite could be true for having above average authority.

A good question is what exactly should promote or demote a ruler's authority? Haven't played M2TW in a while, so my memory is fuzzy, but I'm pretty sure that your ruler basically gains a point of authority every time a province is captured. This may be hardcoded, but if not, I think it makes more sense to increase rulers' authority when they personally capture cities and/or win battles. I think it's safe to say a king or emperor who involves himself in battles will be more respected and feared than one who does not.

[Subotan]

High Authority to could define a strong dynastic king (like Antiochos III Megas). Low could be put on weak kings.

As I said before, having the entire stability of a nation resting on the attributes of one man is unrealistic. Sure, a King may be weak, but if his provinces are getting richer, his troops winning wars, and his nobles loyal, then civil strife isn't going to happen. In fact, the nobles would probably prefer a weak King, as he would be easier to control and manipulate.

Also the option of rising factions is there now (So Seleucid pretenders like Alexander I Balas can be represented). Has less to do with this, but rising factions can also better represent the Yuezhi hordes.

~Fluvius

There will be no emerging factions.

I really hope that the dinastic struggles can be represented. Just like you said, I had mostly in my mind the Diadochi, since they appear to struggle from this the most. But that's also to be expected, since these empires were the largest.

Dynastic struggles didn't exist in Antiquity in the same way they did in Medieval/Early Modern Europe. There was no legal system which defined inheritance, and "might made right". Sure, families fought one another, but this was more a way for separate factions to unite behind one banner rather than what you are suggesting.

Another idea IMHO, is to give generals new traits, when the empire grows too large, of them wanting a piece of the pie. Especially in the Arche, once the empire got big, there were numerous factions which became independent: Cappadocia, Baktria, Parthia....

And yet the same didn't happen to the Romans even though they had a large empire. This is because they had ample amounts of the qualities required for stability I mentioned in my above post.

Also, i would suggest that such changes wouldn't apply to the Romans till the Marian reforms. Rome didn't suffer from this since the Reforms, when the army became more loyal to it's general then to the Senate.

That reduces the incentive to work to that point and get the reforms. And there are plenty of examples of civil strife prior to that (Gracchus etc.)

So generals could, let's say once an empire gets around 30 provinces get a slight lowerance of loyalty. The loyal ones would remain loyal, while for those who were flirting with the idea to betray you, would get the push they needed.

Did you read my post? I explained why that's a bad idea, as size != civil strife.

[Cyclops]

Interesting discussion.

Some governments did seem able to retain control of provinces: Rome seemed to hang onto a province once conquered. , so they gradually accumulatedna empire. I think Babrabian tribes m,ight be less able to do this, and even some monarchies (eg Epirus) had trouble holding more than a handfyul of provinces together. Of course this is related to manpower, wealth but also administrative capacity. Makedonia spread and contracted several times from Phillip II to Perseus. A strong King with able FMs and generals built an empire, then huie died and itr fell apart. This doesn't happen so well in the TW engine atm.

Could the Romans (and other able administrators) be given an adapted agent (say change the princess unit) as a pacifying "governor" agent, so they can more easly control more provinces? Maybe they could also assist with cultural conversion.

I'm not saying we should deny this to the "barbarians" but they wouldn't start with it: if the Casse want an efficient provincial system they will have to build some monster administrative building/building sequence in the capital, maybe after they get certain reforms.

Romahs might strart one level into the administrative tree producing "governors", others with no levels. That way an active Casse or Arverni could be as conquiest happy as they liked 9and maybe score a bit of loot) but they'd quicklly lose the new provinces to revolts, unless they built the adminitrative expertise to hold their conquests.

I know FMs are governors in cities, but this would be a supplementary agent to represent colonial efficiency.

Just a thought.