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.

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Categories

› ›

Post-Hotfix: Should the creation of new Political Parties by Non-Heir Family Members be allowed?

DaggetDagget Junior MemberPosts: 25Registered Users
in Rise of the Republic Support
Today's hotfix notes state that Family Members will no longer separate from the family and create new political parties.

Making Heirs unable to split from the family was a good and widely requested change. However, applying this to all family members seems like an overcorrection, as having less-favoured family members (like someone who wasn't selected as Heir) growing jealous and becoming political opponents gives space for an interesting thematic narrative.

Perhaps a middle ground could be looked at for next Hotfix?

Would like to read your opinions.
Tagged:
Flag · Like

Comments

  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,669Registered Users
    Is it just members within your family tree can't split off, or are "Other Nobles" from your own party prevented from doing so as well? I'm guessing it's just family members, right?

    If it's just members of your family that can't split off, then I don't really mind the change. If by "less-favored" family members you mean characters who aren't used or promoted often, then they wouldn't pose much of a challenge as a rival party, because they'll have practically no gravitas or influence in the government.

    I agree, it would make for an interesting narrative, but I can't see a means of implementing it in a balanced way, you know?
    Flag · 1Like
  • MarcusIuniusBrutusMarcusIuniusBrutus Senior Member GermanyPosts: 1,739Registered Users
    Its only family members, not other nobles from your party.

    And i think its too much effort to restrict it only on heirs, as they had to invest much time to take family members out.
    CA_dionisiev said:

    Hi all.

    Yes, unfortunately we didn't have the resources to address the issues you mention.
    We tried to focus primarily on gameplay related stuff, like the ship disembarkment issue or the family members creating an opposing party which proved frustrating to the players.
    As we worked in a limited time-frame (as usual) some prioritization was in order. I am sure you can understand :)

    Thanks for the reports!

    Team Iunii
    My Mods:
    http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198105622520/myworkshopfiles/?appid=214950
    Flag · Like
  • BenjinBenjin Junior Member Posts: 256Registered Users
    edited September 2018
    I'm fine with family members being excluded while your "Other Nobles" characters in your party can form new parties. It's a good compromise and actually gives more incentive to use the intrigue to adopt those characters into your family - it prevents them from splitting off.
    MY MODS

    Currently working on a whole lot more, stay tuned.
    Flag · 3Like
  • RafSwi7RafSwi7 Senior Member Posts: 1,123Registered Users
    I agree with @Benjin

    For me it would be perfect if ONLY heirs and faction leaders were unable to create new parties. I guess it was impossible or too hard to implement.
    MY SCREENSHOTS
    MY ROME II MODS

    Completed ROMEII, ATTILA, THRONES OF BRITANNIA, WARHAMMER and THREE KINGDOMS campaigns:
    ROMEII
    GC: Ardiaei, Arevaci, Athens, Baktria, Carthage, Cimmeria, Egypt, Epirus, Iceni, Kush, Lusitani, Macedon, Masaesyli, Massagetae, Massalia, Nabatea, Nervii, Odrysian Kingdom, Parthia, Pergamon, Rome, Royal Scythia, Saba, Seleucid, Sparta, Suebi, Syracuse.
    CiG: Arverni, Rome, Suebi.
    HatG: Arevaci, Carthage, Rome, Syracuse.
    IA: Antony's Rome, Dacia, Egypt, Marcomanni, Octavian's Rome, Parthia, Pompey's Rome.
    WoS: Athenai, Boiotian League, Korinthos, Sparta.
    ED: Caledonii, Marcomanni, Palmyra, Rome, Saxoni, The Sassanids.
    RotR: Rome, Samnites, Syracuse, Taras, Tarchuna.
    ATTILA
    GC: Alans, Eastern Roman Empire, Franks, Geats, Himyar, Jutes, Ostrogoths, Saxons, Venedians.
    TLR: Roman Expedition, Visigothic Kingdom.
    AoC: Kingdom of Asturias, Kingdom of Charlemagne, Kingdom of the Danes, Kingdom of Mercia.
    THRONES OF BRITANNIA
    Gwined, Northumbria, Sudreyar, West Seaxe.
    WARHAMMER 1 & 2
    Argwylon, Carcassonne, Clan Angrund, Clan Skryre, Couronne, Last Defenders, Nagarythe, Reikland, The Blessed Dread, The Dreadfleet, Von Carstein, World Walkers.
    THREE KINGDOMS
    Gongsun Zan, Liu Bei, Ma Teng, Sun Jian.
    Flag · Like
  • MigzMigz Senior Member Posts: 316Registered Users
    edited September 2018
    From an historical perspective, how the system was originally implemented (i.e., the most popular and ambitious character, regardless of heir-ness, would create a new party) made the most sense (even though some players didn't seem to understand that), but from a gameplay perspective, I understand why some players were put off from that approach and am fine with CA's decision to change it.

    As for allowing some family members to defect and create a new party while not allowing others... meh, whatever at this point. What the OP suggests wouldn't make any more sense from an historical perspective than not allowing any family members to leave, so imo, the final implementation should only be done for gameplay reasons. Neither way seems much better to me than the other though.
    Flag · Like
Sign In or Register to comment.