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

Do family trees undermine the politics system?

AlwynTWAlwynTW Registered Users Posts: 9
edited August 2018 in Ancestral Update Support
I'm enjoying very much the improvements in the Ancestral update - the better graphics are amazing, I'm enjoying the more active AI and the culture-specific abilities for characters and it's fun to build my ruling family in the family tree, trying out the new intrigues.

I'm concerned about the effect of the family tree on the politics system. It doesn't seem difficult to acquire a large ruling family. Keep marrying family members when they come of age (giving them the first, free, promotion if they need a gravitas boost to marry), hire new members of the ruling party (then adopt them and marry them off) and your family tree keeps growing. This provides a plentiful supply of free generals and admirals who contribute their gravitas to the Influence of my ruling party.

In patch 19, if my generals were killed in battle or if I recruited several new armies quickly, I'd often need to hire generals from rival parties. Their gravitas would contribute to their party's influence. With more rival party members as generals, there was a bigger risk that a rival party leader would be killed in battle - a likely cause of secession. I liked that, for me it added to the challenge of the game.

With Ancestral, when the player has a big family in their ruling party, it's expensive to hire generals from a rival party and free to hire ruling family members. My generals and admirals are almost all from my ruling party and there doesn't seem to be a downside to this (I imagine that a rival party would be less loyal if their members were rarely appointed to senior roles in the army and navy). My faction gets bonuses from very high influence and there's no risk of civil war.

I wonder if other players agree that this is a problem. Maybe there are already constraints to having a large family which I've missed (of course, a large means tends to mean more political actions which themselves reduce the loyalty of rival parties, but this doesn't seem to be significant issue so far.) Of course, it's easier to identify a problem than suggest a solution. Perhaps there could be -2 to rival party loyalty each time we appoint a ruling party member as a general or admiral? Maybe there could be an increased risk of a new rival party emerging, if the player's family free expanded beyond a certain size? Other players might think of better ideas, if you see this as a problem.





Comments

  • BoicoteBoicote Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 823
    edited August 2018
    I found the same problem in my campaign as the Seleucids.

    Perhaps the solution is to give more autonomy to the AI in managing the rival parties. Rival parties should marry their own characters, so they can have their own children. When they reach adulthood, they should appear as rival party members, without any kind of control by the human player (right now, the human player can easily control the number of rival party members simply by avoid hiring them).

    In what concerns to adoption, this intrigue should have a limited % of success because the current system favours the human player over the AI. For example, if the human player tries to adopt an AI character, he is always 100% successful as long as he met the necessary requirements. However, when the AI tries to adopt characters from the human player, the later receives a pop-up messages that allow him to stop the adoption. So, when humans try to adopt AI characters, the change of success should never be 100% to represent the attempts from the AI to stop the adoption.
    The AI should also try to adopt some of your supporters and even your family members more often (especially when the human player manages to adopt rival party members) .

    From time to time, some of our characters should die from random diseases and random accidents (ex. falling off a horse, murder during an assault, etc)... just like in real life.
    Post edited by Boicote on
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276
    edited August 2018
    I think that one simple change would be to incentive the hiring of rival characters by making them cheaper to hire and having incentives attached to their party.
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyRegistered Users Posts: 1,739
    You should get massive loyalty drops, if you don´t hire other faction members.

    In reality nepotism led to rebellions.
  • BenjinBenjin Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 256
    I agree, there should be more incentive to recruit candidates for rival parties (e.g. lower cost, short-term loyalty gain for recruited candidate's party etc).

    Currently working on a whole lot more, stay tuned.
  • AlwynTWAlwynTW Registered Users Posts: 9
    Thanks for your helpful comments! I agree with Boicote that it would be more challenging if it was harder for players to adopt characters, if rival parties did this more and if adult characters occasionally died from accidents, illness or crimes.

    cool_lad's idea of making rival party members cheaper sounds good, too. Maybe negative traits could appear slightly more often in large ruling families (like the bad traits listed here: https://www.honga.net/totalwar/rome2/trait.php?l=en&v=rome2&category=)? If so, the player would choose (more often) between a born leader from a rival party and a cowardly leader from the ruling party, or something similar.

    I agree, too, with MarcusIuniusBriutus that it would make sense for nepotism to lead to rebellion/secession and with Benjin that lower cost and loyalty gain for recruiting commanders from rival parties would help.
  • BoicoteBoicote Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 823
    Here is a screenshot from one of my campaigns. I have 23 family members + supporters and the opposition parties only have two members...


  • AlwynTWAlwynTW Registered Users Posts: 9
    edited August 2018
    Thanks, Boicote, my character screen looks similar. (On your screen and mine, it seems that unticking 'Show Deceased' doesn't work. Antiochus I is showing on your character screen even though 'Show Deceased' is unticked. I imagine this has probably been fixed already on the developer build of Ancestral, but I might be wrong.)

    Having played a bit more, the main factors in my decisions to appoint generals seem to be the cost of recruiting them and their abilities (when I'm hovering over candidates). If ruling family generals were no longer free - we're not just hiring a general, we're setting up the administration and supplies for an army or fleet - and if rival party generals were cheaper, that would remove one incentive to keep hiring our own family members. If very large ruling families had slightly more 'bad' traits and if small rival parties had slightly more 'good' ones, that would create an interesting tension for players: do we choose less capable commanders because they're loyal, or more skilled commanders who might secede? (I'm not suggesting that every potential commander in a very large family should have bad traits, just that negative traits would be a bit more common.)

    I also agree with people who said that it would be useful to have a button on the new general selection panel which enabled us to zoom in on the army/navy which we're selecting a new commander for. (To be fair, we can always replace them with somene else if we accidentially appoint our best leader our army which is furthest from the front line.)
  • happycompyhappycompy Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 355
    edited August 2018
    How would you guys feel about high influence decreasing loyalty, thus increasing civil war chance, as it is in Attila? This way, ideally you want a balanced political situation instead of mindlessly trying to max it out 100% of the time?
    HappyCompy's Rome 2 video emporium

    Completed Campaigns:
    ETW: Italian States, Mughal Empire

    Shogun 2: Uesegi, Date, Shoni

    Rome II: Rome, Venetii, Bastarnians, Pontus, Athens

    Attila: Franks (minor), Vandals (cultural)
  • Octavius_5Octavius_5 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 280

    How would you guys feel about high influence decreasing loyalty, thus increasing civil war chance, as it is in Attila? This way, ideally you want a balanced political situation instead of mindlessly trying to max it out 100% of the time?

    I was just thinking something similar earlier today. If the effects bundles at high influence included increasing loyalty penalties as your party gained higher influence I think that would go a long way to forcing the player to make sure the other parties remained influential.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Registered Users Posts: 4,160

    How would you guys feel about high influence decreasing loyalty, thus increasing civil war chance, as it is in Attila? This way, ideally you want a balanced political situation instead of mindlessly trying to max it out 100% of the time?

    I'd be down for that. Right now, I just find myself bumping up my party's influence at every opportunity from the start of the campaign until I hit about 75 or 80%. Then I just spend the rest of the game "Securing Loyalty" and occasionally promoting some meaningless character or arranging a political marriage whenever the other parties start to lose loyalty.
  • happycompyhappycompy Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 355
    Alright sounds good. I'm going to put this in a mod. What do you guys think is a good setup? Something like:

    10% = -15 L
    20% = -10 L
    30% = -5 L
    40
    50
    60
    70% = -5 L
    80% = -10 L
    90% = -15 L
    HappyCompy's Rome 2 video emporium

    Completed Campaigns:
    ETW: Italian States, Mughal Empire

    Shogun 2: Uesegi, Date, Shoni

    Rome II: Rome, Venetii, Bastarnians, Pontus, Athens

    Attila: Franks (minor), Vandals (cultural)
  • Octavius_5Octavius_5 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 280
    That looks about right, although I might make the penalties a little higher for 80 and 90% influence.
  • AlwynTWAlwynTW Registered Users Posts: 9
    edited August 2018
    Good idea, happycompy! I agree with Octavius_5 and Whiskeyjack_5691 that this could work well and that higher penalties for 80% influence and above could be good. I wonder if CA's developers have done something similar in the release build of Ancestral - I guess we'll find out soon!
Sign In or Register to comment.