Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

[Proposal] A Change to the politics/family system for more fun civil wars [Updated]

12346

Comments

  • dawnslayerdawnslayer Member Registered Users Posts: 64
    edited September 2013
    family system? what family system? i don't know who the hell these people are except that they happen to be under a specific faction in the faction screen. plus their faces change every reload, doesn't help.
  • MadcatGTsMadcatGTs Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 236
    edited September 2013
    Sooo, you want to make senate run states in to monarchys. Granted that the current political system is no where near up to snuff, but a family system makes even less sense. Since just cause you have a son does not mean he will have any power what so ever, cause there are no heirs in to roman government.

    Honestly, they should do away with the 3 factions of Rome/Carthage, and just have Rome/Carthage, and totally rethink the political system.
  • ElicasElicas Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 218
    edited September 2013
    MadcatGTs wrote: »
    Sooo, you want to make senate run states in to monarchys. Granted that the current political system is no where near up to snuff, but a family system makes even less sense. Since just cause you have a son does not mean he will have any power what so ever, cause there are no heirs in to roman government.

    Honestly, they should do away with the 3 factions of Rome/Carthage, and just have Rome/Carthage, and totally rethink the political system.

    I'm not sure where to even start with the amount of ignorance in this post :rolleyes:

    By the time period this game entails, the Senate was the primary source of power in the Republic. Typically drawn from the highest ranking Magistrates in the city by the Censor (after 318 BC), the Senate was dominated by Patrician and Equites aristocratic families. While Plebeian Senators were occasionally raised, they were a vast minority, hence the Civil wars between the "Populares" party under Caesar and the "Optimates" party under Pompey and the majority of the Senate.

    The senate was absolutely hereditary. Whilst legally a son had no right to the Senate or Magistrates because of his father, the Senate would usually only vote for 'one of their own'. The Senate was a very conservative and traditionalist body, hence why those who disturbed the waters stand out so much in history.

    If you really want to know more in depth about it, Polybius has the best references about the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Wikipedia has a certain amount of good reference material, but you really should read Polybius and Livy yourself for the best understanding of the period.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_the_Roman_Republic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Roman_Republic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla%27s_first_civil_war
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Civil_War

    A family system makes perfect sense, seeing as how this game directly deals with the period encompassing the mid-to-late Republic and the rise of the early Empire. The period where the Senate and the ancient families of Rome were at their most powerful.
  • MadcatGTsMadcatGTs Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 236
    edited September 2013
    Elicas wrote: »
    I'm not sure where to even start with the amount of ignorance in this post :rolleyes:

    By the time period this game entails, the Senate was the primary source of power in the Republic. Typically drawn from the highest ranking Magistrates in the city by the Censor (after 318 BC), the Senate was dominated by Patrician and Equites aristocratic families. While Plebeian Senators were occasionally raised, they were a vast minority, hence the Civil wars between the "Populares" party under Caesar and the "Optimates" party under Pompey and the majority of the Senate.

    The senate was absolutely hereditary. Whilst legally a son had no right to the Senate or Magistrates because of his father, the Senate would usually only vote for 'one of their own'. The Senate was a very conservative and traditionalist body, hence why those who disturbed the waters stand out so much in history.

    If you really want to know more in depth about it, Polybius has the best references about the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Wikipedia has a certain amount of good reference material, but you really should read Polybius and Livy yourself for the best understanding of the period.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_of_the_Roman_Republic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Roman_Republic
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla%27s_first_civil_war
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesar%27s_Civil_War

    A family system makes perfect sense, seeing as how this game directly deals with the period encompassing the mid-to-late Republic and the rise of the early Empire. The period where the Senate and the ancient families of Rome were at their most powerful.

    So, you call me Ignorant but prove my point? Also, you might want to read a bit more on what you posted yourself. Theres no Hereditary in there, It has more to do with connections and family name. Same as today, Its just transferred more in to brand name.

    Also, explain how the family system make sense, when one single family didn't have full control over the whole republic? If you want to go for realistic then really the player should only be single family in the roman empire and directly control only a small part of it, then have to vote/debate on the direction the whole empire heads. Though thats a bit much. If you want to control the whole empire and remain kinda realistic, then family should not be a factor at all, since you would be controlling TONS of familys. Which is where the current 3 factions of rome makes no sense.

    Now, if ya want to throw history right out the window, and control all of rome with a family tree, then you effectively turn it back in to a monarchy.
  • KozillaKozilla Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited September 2013
    I registered with this forum just so I could express my support for your idea. The political system desperately needs a refresh.

    Thank You
  • TsoetsoeTsoetsoe Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 12
    edited September 2013
    I like these changes, better than the spoonfed 5 year old system we have right now. I want a complex system that that requires strategy.
  • KalazzzKalazzz Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 10
    edited September 2013
    +support

    Rome 2 needs features returned.
  • DonMegelDonMegel Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited September 2013
    Fantastic. I would like to also suggest securing funds for new legions or buildings, making war and peace, and trade could all be tied to the Senate and politics. Rome itself, and its province, should be controlled by the Senate with no player forces allowed inside.

    Structures built using player funds could contribute to their House’ loyalty and income. Construction plots in cities could be doled out based on bribes to the Senate, or loyalty, or Senate votes. Perhaps the player could call a vote on a certain issue, sort of like the auto resolve feature for battles, with options to bribe or intimidate other senators into voting your way. Intimidation would increase your chances of winning that vote but lose loyalty in the long term and anger other houses.

    When a Legion, City, or Fleet, is lead by a member of another house, it should change color to reflect that. The player could still control those entities but would easily be able to tell where everyone’s loyalties lie.

    I also think a General's loyalty should continue to be a factor after the civil war, but then its loyalty to the Emperor. If a General is too ambitious he could make a bid for the throne. Make army loyalty to the general a factor as well so that replacing a troublesome general runs the risk of the army revolting because they want to see their general on the throne.
  • SturmstormSturmstorm Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 115
    edited September 2013
    Bumping up again, great ideas, just need to wait on CA? lol
    Promotional videos on Rome 2 in Pre-Alpha stage made by CA:
    Video of Game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=3qlEkgkuO2A
    Video of promised AI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6rUnjOIvUA

    I don't have this game !! And neither do you !! come on CA what gives?
    Come clean on the reasons for this mess, a problem shared is a problem halved.
  • Ambiorix-jeAmbiorix-je Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 186
    edited September 2013
    Waiting, waiting... Oh and bump
  • DonniMalakaDonniMalaka Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 613
    edited September 2013
    Read the majority of that, and I love the idea. I haven't experienced a civil war yet, and I'm a bit confused about how its gonna go. However, with this sort of set up for the political system, I could know which settlements and armies would rebel.

    +1 to this idea. Have a good look CA!
    My Rig- i5 4670K 3.8ghz, 8gb RAM, GTX 970 Asus Direct CUII OC Edition
  • RustyHammerRustyHammer Member Registered Users Posts: 74
    edited September 2013
    I dig your suggestions sir. Bumpity bump.
  • MacklesMackles Senior Member UKRegistered Users Posts: 5,464
    edited September 2013
    Here's a few more ideas, to help really push the personal side of things with generals and families.

    - Slave rebellion breaks out? Provincial governor suffers a loss of face for letting things get so out of hands even the slaves tell him where to shove it.
    - Army puts down slave rebellion? General doesn't get much increased authority for fighting slaves but does get a bonus with the more traditional political faction, for upholding stern Republican values.
    - Different bonuses and debuffs in relations to traditionalists/populists depending on actions taken from successful battles and sieges.

    Etc etc
    "Conquer, Punish, Enslave" - Words for the would-be Imperialists to live by!

    Somewhere on that hill, its gonna get bloody contradictory between us and them real fast. - Anon
  • deGaulledeGaulle Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 2
    edited September 2013
    Those ideas would be great! Family tree must come back.. +1
    Enjoy the little things!

    Intel 3570k 3.4GHz
    8 GB G-Skill 1600MHz Memory
    Sapphire ATI Radeon HD 7870
    Win 7 64-bit
  • DGPDGP Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 732
    edited September 2013
    I still like this idea, but it won't make much sense with characters who live maybe 40-50 turns... it would be crazy to manage all these short living characters, so i think it would be suggestive to change the campaign along with these changes to at least 2 turns per year! A character would live 100 turns, which allows you to manage your politics and family better.
  • DonMegelDonMegel Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 23
    edited September 2013
    Bump for CA, perhaps a Senate of Rome DLC?
  • ElicasElicas Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 218
    edited September 2013
    Lord DGP wrote: »
    I still like this idea, but it won't make much sense with characters who live maybe 40-50 turns... it would be crazy to manage all these short living characters, so i think it would be suggestive to change the campaign along with these changes to at least 2 turns per year! A character would live 100 turns, which allows you to manage your politics and family better.

    I've always maintained that 1/2/4 turns per year should be selectable when choosing a new campaign. It's insanity that CA constantly refuses to give more options to players.
  • ArtemisArtemis Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 28
    edited October 2013
    Those ideas would not only improve the inner politics system - it would actually for the first time amount to a system worthy of being called an inner politics/ civil war system!
    It is of paramount importance for these suggestions to be implemented asap!
    Oh and kudos to Elicas nd all the others for coming up with these ideas
    Suffering is what gives a man strength, just as the steel most hammered turns out the hardest.
  • jfcjfc Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 30
    edited October 2013
    @ OP, GrudgeNL has also been looking at the Politics... See his thread Here

    I put my take on this with this concept:
    jfc wrote: »
    Here is another Photoshop idea where I have expanded on the idea of more information about the state of the government.
    It's probably a little too busy now, but it is just a concept.

    mt85me.gif

    I am hoping it needs little explanation.. So far as to say, there are now three possible causes of Civil War if things are left, from either the army (more prevalent when emperor), The other houses or the Plebs by way of slave or rebel army?

    I think the main point of all of this is looking and being aware of where the next political threat is coming from and having options to deal with it.

    This diagram I have set up shows that the main threat overall is The House of Junia, with one family members showing a high gravitas and ambition coupled with a firm standing of a majority of senators and a falling popularity towards you. This would need some attention to stop civil war or maybe even assassination attempts? The other houses, Army and Plebs seem quite happy with the running of the faction at present.

    Again it is really a generic idea so that it could be used for the other factions in the game.

    Feed back very much wanted.

    Shameless advertising, I know, but CA need to at least acknowledge the great constructive feedback here, instead of just beratement.
  • PieterjanPieterjan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 253
    edited October 2013
    This an excellent post which gives ideas that would add greatly to the in depth gampelay of the game, which until today is not present at all. I hope CA reads this and tries to implement these ideas into their game. If not, they are utterly mad.
  • MathiasJM18MathiasJM18 Member Registered Users Posts: 39
    edited October 2013
    I would like to have family trees back in the game but the rest would just over complicate the game
  • DunlorDunlor Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 559
    edited October 2013
    good, thought out post, with lots of content, and as others has said, beats the current system by miles

    reality?.....this will never be implemented......
  • LightbaneLightbane Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 209
    edited October 2013
    ^^ this is about as good as the game is going to get. It won't go in unless CA release the full mod tools, and even then I don't think it would be possible to change the game on such a scale
  • MatmannenMatmannen Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,235
    edited October 2013
    (sorry about this wall of text)

    I would like to add an idea of my own expounding on the idea already present. I fully agree with the idea stated, as in civil war truly becoming a strife which devides a realm in two; which results in you maybe having to fight your own armies.

    But I think with the idea as it it proposed at the present the player has to much control over the state of the faction; basically if a player senses that a civil war is coming then he can quickly change a many of the governers/generals as possible to the players faction thus changing the loyalty.

    To avoid this, and to further the immersion of the civil war mechanic proposed I would like to propose a system I discussed on another thread much like this one. So finally on with the proposal:

    I would like to suggest a system which is steard by something I'd lie to call a loyalty modifier; let me explain:

    The System
    In all armies and provinces (perhaps also regions, but it might be easier only with provinces) there is a loyalty modifier, a meter which measures how loyal a certain province/army is to your faction, or what ever faction said province/army prefers. The idea is that loyalty is gained through victories. If a army is being lead by a general loyal to your faction, and you win victories the more impressed will the men become with your general and your faction, same thing goes for provinces; victories i provinces will raise the loyalty of said provinces. And (sorry for beginning sentence with "and") let's not forget the grandour a victory is the more impressed will the army/province become, also let's not forget the diere consequece a defeat might have with how the men views your general and faction.

    So what changes will this do to the sytem?
    - The problem with not enaugh family members to fill all governer positions will be solved; as they are no longer vital. You can still have them ingame where they might still be used as a way of buffing the loyalty effects of a victory within a province.

    - Prepering for a civil war will take more planning, you need to plan where which general will fight, to make sure that you get a large number of armies/provinces loyal to you.

    - You wouldn't be able to do last second changes in your empire before a civil war. Yes you might be able to change the general of a certain army to a general loyal to you, but upon the start of a civil war the army will reject your general and side with their preferd family. Much like in Gladiator, Maximus' army had been assigned a new general loyal to the emporer, but the men were in reality loyal to Maximus and not this puppet of the emporer.

    - You would get land masses devided through loyalty, and can create situations where spain and gaul is loyal to you, but italy, greece and asia minor has sided with the enemy (sounds familier, that's right, this division happend during the civil war between Pompay and Ceaser).

    In he end I would like to add that perhaps it would be a good idea to restrict the mechanic so that the province in which the capital is found will always be loyal to the state, simply because the state has such contol over that area that those cities loyalties will never change. One could expad this to all provinces bordering capital province (this might cover a too big area though).


    Finally I would like to write about an idea I read in the thread I wrote about earlier.

    It was proposed that the player could try to trigger his own civil war through having a general aclaiming himself emporer or whatever (if the host faction isn't already a monarchy that is). This could only be done if the character had reached a certain level of gravitas (rather high). Then to win the civil war the player would have to fight his/her way to the capital, and upon sieging and taking the capital the civil war would stop, or if the general which was proclaimed emporer dies. Ofcourse the ai can do the same, even if you have succeded to become emporer.

    For the idea I added that it would be cool with internal politics:
    The player would need support from the senators to become emporer. If he has no support then probably your general will be murderd by said senators (as Ceaser had to experience).

    The player can through internal diplomacy try to gain the support from a family in this ambition. To facilitate this point I suggest the "other families" faction be devided into three new internal factions, these families would exist within all factions, but they would not be the dominating factions so they are not playable within democracies. I added this because I believe that it would be rather hard to gain the support of a major family because most likely they would hve the exact same ambition as you and they would not want to "share power!".

    Anyways tell me what you think...

    Cheers...!
  • salamadersalamader Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 171
    edited October 2013
    jesus this is a detailed post! Plenty of new ideas for CA to read over.

    i personally would want a complex system to get stuck into. Even if i dont understand fully straight away, i want something that i can learn and refine over a period of play throughs
  • TheTooobHoobTheTooobHoob Member Registered Users Posts: 68
    edited October 2013
    Just waiting for this to appear in the patch notes...
    Seriously, a fan-made and approved gameplay improvement would be surely well taken by the community and, CA, you don't have to think about the mechanisms, trey're allready there!
    ''Now THAT's a moustache!''
    -Roman Legionnary spotting the gaul army.
    ''They may have huge moustaches, but Greek beards are more impressive.''
    -Answers his companion.

    Elicas' awesome thread about politics! Read and support!
    http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php/92004-PROPOSAL-A-Change-to-the-politics-family-system-for-more-fun-civil-wars
  • HorsemanNLHorsemanNL Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 119
    edited October 2013
    This post has grown a lot... many exellent suggestions have been made but I fear CA is not going to implement any of it. They seem reluctant to give us "lowly, ungrateful and overly demanding customers" what we want and won't "stray" from their money-directed course :S
    Quo Usque Pro Roma Ibis, CA?
  • gibsgoinprogibsgoinpro Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 104
    edited October 2013
    your recommendations sounds great to me. if they were implemented i would actually want to play this game. plus i would need the battle stuff to be fixed too and BAM!, we would have ourselves a Rome game worthy of total war.
  • MatmannenMatmannen Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,235
    edited October 2013
    your recommendations sounds great to me. if they were implemented i would actually want to play this game. plus i would need the battle stuff to be fixed too and BAM!, we would have ourselves a Rome game worthy of total war.

    I fully agree, I really wish we had a more deep and immersive campaign map play. At the moment the campaign map is just for getting your armies from battle A to battle B. In Medieval 2 they added immersion through religion and the papalcy, even in rome 1 and in shogun yu had a longterm goal of taking kyoto/rome and becoming shogun/emporer. As the campaign map play is now CA might aswell remove it and just have a series of battles.

    CA we want a more complex and immersive campaign map play.
  • Kyler721Kyler721 Member Registered Users Posts: 43
    edited November 2013
    Audax wrote: »
    I would like to see a response by the CA, and tell to us if this is possible and or not.

    CA how about you scream out of your dargon friggin face and respond to your customers and not blow us off and not listen to our suggestions?
Sign In or Register to comment.