Please add along side Rebellions the Civil War mechanics

Currently viewing this thread:

dannazgu

Sergeant
The feature of Rebellions is great, it give us pause to think on the people that should be governor to a settlement, choosing careful among our Clan Members, Vassals and/or Companions.​
Rebellions occur when loyalty of a settlement is drastically low, than a random Clan with generate and take control of the Castle or Town, which is great, because eventually that rebel Clan will become a real one and can be recruited or not. I wished they could restore a faction that was destroyed like Vlandia, Battania, NE, SE, Etc;​
But, now imagine a system like that but one of Civil War? The aspects could be:​
  1. An already existing Clan of a determined culture can declare Independence and restore his Lost Kingdom​
  2. Personal relations affecting the Characters of Calradia, like my heir and his brother has positive relations of one another or they have a rivalry against one another, or with another member of an existing Clan/Vassal​
  3. When comes to Elections the loser side could declare a Pretender to challenge the Noble Election, which would result in Civil War: this could be even among Clan Members that has low relation to the selected Heir and the New Elected King/Emperor.​
  4. On this system Clans would choose sides according to their Clan relations​
  5. On this system Characters would choose sides according to Personal Relations ( friendships/Rivalry/Marriages)​
 

Varrak

Baron
WBWF&SNW
+1

Imagine the king dies, and there are multiple children. Some clans in that faction would randomly support one, and others support other ones, and faction would be divided into that number of mini-factions that will be at war until it's united again, and i one foreign faction declares war on one of those mini-factions, then all mini-faction would turn hostile to that attacker faction until they make peace with that mini faction they have attacked first place.

It could be fun imo
 
Yes, I think civil war is needed to make the game more dynamic. I was really hoping that was going to be part of the rebellions update. There is a mod called 'separatism' which does this to an extent.

I think civil war would pretty much end snowballing too, especially if culture played into it, since it would make having an empire over all of calradia pretty impossible. I feel like the only major superpower should be if all of the different "empires" west, south etc. unite into one empire. But still if they roll over battania or something then later on battania might rise up against them. Or perhaps the empire gets split apart after the death of a king.
 
+1

Imagine the king dies, and there are multiple children. Some clans in that faction would randomly support one, and others support other ones, and faction would be divided into that number of mini-factions that will be at war until it's united again, and i one foreign faction declares war on one of those mini-factions, then all mini-faction would turn hostile to that attacker faction until they make peace with that mini faction they have attacked first place.

It could be fun imo
The faction having a civil war could be easily torn apart by their neighbors. Imagine Sturgia seperate in two parts as Eastern and Western Sturgia. They're weak even though they're united and I can't think what will happen when they seperate.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
A Civil Wars mechanic is definitely needed to bring this game's mechanics together.

* There's no point in having heirs and dynasties if you can conquer the whole map in a lifetime and have no enemies left to fight. Civil wars would provide an endless source of enemies even after you've "won", and would give us endless replayability in a single save if we wanted it.

* Warband had a simple civil wars mechanic. Obviously good features should be carried over from older games when making a sequel.

* When it comes to faction balance, which has long been a problem for Taleworlds, civil wars would fix the problem. If some factions became overpowered, a civil war could split them in half to balance things out.

Here is my suggestion for how civil wars could work. A rating can be used to influence the likelihood of civil wars occurring, similar to how settlements have loyalty/security ratings. Each faction has a "Unity" percentage rating, which determines the likelihood of it falling into a civil war. When the rating reaches 0%, a civil war occurs and all clans that dislike the leader will rebel. The following things influence likelihood of a civil war.

* If the faction is already at war, Unity rating cannot drop below 0%. This represents the feeling of a common enemy/greater threat. It also serves to prevent civil wars from being too common, or diplomacy getting too confusing.

* Faction wins a war: +10% Unity.

* Faction loses a war: -10% Unity.

* Each new fief gained at the end of a war: -5% Unity. This is an anti-snowballing mechanic which makes empires become less stable if they expand too rapidly.

* New vassal clan joins a faction: -1% Unity.

* Each culture in the territory owned by the faction, that season: -2% Unity. (This can add up to -12%). This means that large, multi-cultural empires suffer from strife within their borders, which makes a civil war gradually more and more likely to occur in a big faction.

* Each clan (in the faction) with +1 to +50 relations with the ruler, that season: +1% Unity.

* Each clan with +51 to +100 relations with the ruler, that season: +2% Unity.

* Each clan with -1 to -50 relations with the ruler, that season: -1% Unity.

* Each clan with -51 to -100 relations with the ruler, that season: -2% Unity.

* Each clan leader in the faction with upstanding trait, that season: +1% Unity.

* Each clan leader in the faction with devious trait, that season: -1% Unity.

* Each clan member with less Influence than the ruler, that season: +1% Unity.

* Each clan member with more Influence than the ruler, that season: -1% Unity.

* If the player succeeds a faction's "expose a plot" quest, it gains 5% Unity.

* If the player succeeds a faction's "plot to depose the monarch" quest, it loses 20% Unity.

* Rebellion occurs: -10% Unity.

* Ruling clan dies entirely: -90% Unity.

* Civil War occurs: Both the new and old faction are set to 100% Unity (Everyone who chose to stay with the ruler is loyal to their choice).

So, for example, let's say that Battania had 10% Unity in the winter of 1090. Caladog is well liked by the majority of Battanian clans (+11%), but is less influential than 5 clans (-5%). Battania controls towns of Sturgian, Vlandian, Empire, and Battanian cultures (so -8% Unity this month due to internal strife). This brings the Unity rating down to a precarious 8%. Then, in the spring of 1091, Caladog is still well liked (+11%), and still holds towns of 4 different cultures (-8%), but has increased his influence to be more influential than three clans (+3%), so the Battanian faction sits at 14% Unity. If Caladog failed to increase his Influence in that year, or died, or lost a war, or had a rebellion occur, Battania would soon fall into civil war.

So for a very small faction with a well-liked, influential leader, civil war is almost impossible. For a very large faction with a disliked and non-influential leader, civil war is bound to happen soon. A default faction with a lord who is neither loved nor hated and has majority influence will take quite some time to have a civil war, which will probably only occur rarely in peacetime.

When a faction's Unity finally drops below 1%, it kicks off a civil war. A new faction is created out of the faction's lords who have the lowest relations with the ruler, or are more influential, or have traitorous/greedy traits. This new faction automatically goes to war with the faction it was created from, and the most influential clan within the new faction becomes its leader and gives the new faction its name and culture: For example, if the Banu Sarran is the most popular clan in the new faction that breaks away from the Aserai, then the new faction will be called the Sarranid Sultanate and have the Aserai culture. In this way, even if a certain culture has its affiliated faction totally wiped out, it can be reborn as a new faction later.

Civil wars should be unlikely for the player to face in their early kingdom. But by the time the player has conquered most of the map, chances should be very high. So there can be two ways to counter civil wars. 1: Travel around your empire doing quests and trying to keep everyone happy. 2: Build up your military strength instead so you can be ready to kill the separatists when the civil war does happen. The player can deal with civil wars at the endgame depending on the play-style they prefer.
 
Last edited:

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
* Faction wins a war: +10% Unity.

* Faction loses a war: -10% Unity.

You say this is a anti-snowballing- feature and then awards the winner :smile: + 10 for several wars and you are quite safe from civil wars.
While expanding rapidly historically often led to quick uncontrollable civil wars.

I think remove them is better.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
You say this is a anti-snowballing- feature and then awards the winner :smile: + 10 for several wars and you are quite safe from civil wars.
While expanding rapidly historically often led to quick uncontrollable civil wars.

I think remove them is better.
Hmm, perhaps this could work better: Winning a war is still +10 unity, but every new fief or every new vassal that joins your faction is -5% Unity.
This simulates the instability caused by "expanding rapidly", and would truly be an anti-snowballing feature.

So if a faction wins a defensive war where they take no new territory, they would get +10 Unity. But if a faction wins an offensive war and conquers four new towns, and two lords defect to them (+10%, -20%, -10%) they would get a net loss of -20% Unity.

Thanks for feedback, I will edit the post to add that in.
 
Last edited:

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
Hmm, perhaps this could work better: Winning a war is still +10 unity, but every new fief or every new vassal that joins your faction is -5% Unity.
This simulates the instability caused by "expanding rapidly", and would truly be an anti-snowballing feature.

So if a faction wins a defensive war where they take no new territory, they would get +10 Unity. But if a faction wins an offensive war and conquers four new towns, and two lords defect to them (+10%, -20%, -10%) they would get a net loss of -20% Unity.

Thanks for feedback, I will edit the post to add that in.

Sorry, I still don't understund why winning a war would give increased unity. Other games I have played does not reward expansion this way. And.. "Winning a war" in Bannerlord is only defined by beeing in the winning side of tribute? You can lose holdings but still recieve tribute.

In sports for example, a winning team rarely has the best teamspirit etc. A mix of success and challenges is the best for teamspirit, if that´s compareable in any way.

And loosing a war.. Why kick on weak teams? If low Unity increases the risk of civil war and the vassals defecting, The whole effect is truely more pro-snowballing then anti-snowballing.

Another issue is that a town can swap faction-controll 4-5 times during a war. Should both factions suffer -20 respective -25% unity? In my game these towns are often foreign culture for both sides.

Finally.. Splitting a clan might work but relations is currently the same to all clanmembers as to the leader. How should AI calculate who a vassal clan should support? for example is a battanian vassal has -30 relation to the ruler clan, they has -30 to his brother as well, as long as he belongs to the ruling clan. If he has broken of the ruler clan however, relation is likely 0 towards all and everyone. Meaning everyone with positive relation to the ruler clan probably will join him while those with negative relation will likely join the rebel. I guess personal relations rather than clan-relations is required for this to work :smile:
 

vonbalt

Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&B
Absolutely agreed and when they talked about the imperial civil war in the past i really hoped it would just be a faction starting in a civil war from an existing mechanic for it to happen dynamically.

This is a must to drastically improve the sandbox of the game, i want factions splitting in succession if a claimant decides he would be a better ruler than the chosen heir (and gather enough support from the clans to launch a rebellion), i want displeased lords to conspire to overthrow an unpopular monarch and launching a rebellion when they have enough support and i want the player to be able to interact with this starting rebellions himself or joining ones started by other lords (or deciding to support his king in the loyalist's side)
 

dannazgu

Sergeant
What I was thinking as well was like in Warband when you decided to fought for Isolla of Suno... You became Swadian's Rebels, until you totally finished the Swadians under Harlaus and Isolla would be named Queen, but for Bannerlord besides this type of war I also thought that if you captured the Ruling Emperor/King that you're rebelling from, there would be a special dialogue which would force him to give up his throne and abdicate in your favor, then the Faction would restore to the original name but with the Winner as King, which means the player Hero

  1. Vlandian's Rebels --> Capture Derthert/ or one of his heir in battle or siege ----: special dialogue to the king ----> player Hero is the new King of Vlandia, with Vlandia's Rebels faction being destroyed since you are now the rightful king
Or also happening the the King you're battling against for the crown were killed in action on a battle that you're ( the p. Hero) is participating, then the crown would fall for you too
 

five bucks

Sergeant
Sorry, I still don't understund why winning a war would give increased unity.
The fundamental legitimacy of leaders is based on whether they can defend the nation or not. Winning wars shows your government is a force to be reckoned with. Losing them shows that you are weak and should be deposed for the good of the realm. Perhaps it could be reduced but it has a good reason to exist, military failure is a very common factor in a later civil war. For example Henry VI after losing the Hundred Years' War, or Charles I with the Bishops' War.
And loosing a war.. Why kick on weak teams? If low Unity increases the risk of civil war and the vassals defecting, The whole effect is truely more pro-snowballing then anti-snowballing.
The overall effect should be anti-snowballing if I've done my maths correctly. To use an example. Let's say you have 2 factions starting at 100% Unity at the beginning of the game. Faction A wins a war against Faction B (+10%) and takes 4 towns (-20%); that puts them at 90%. Faction B lost the war (-10% Unity) which also puts them at 90%. But then factor in internal cultural strife, which is doubled for Faction A (-4% per season), because they hold towns of Faction B's culture. Each season Faction A is -4% Unity while Faction B is only -2% Unity.

So 4 seasons/1 year after the war, Faction A will be at 74% Unity, and Faction B will be at 82% unity. The larger snowbally faction will be less stable, if all else is equal.
Another issue is that a town can swap faction-controll 4-5 times during a war. Should both factions suffer -20 respective -25% unity? In my game these towns are often foreign culture for both sides.
Extremely good point. Can be fixed by either having a cooldown on the Unity loss effect for an individual fief, or just making the Unity effect take place at the end of the war. Will edit the post again.
 

[Rei]

Knight at Arms
WBVC
This is what I thought rebellions would be about, but nooooo.
Hopefully they continue to expand on this. Would also help against snowballing.

+1 I wanna kill my countrymen.
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
@five bucks The way bannerlord currently works must not mean that you "lost" a war because you play tribute in the peacedeal. you can take 2-3 holdings and still lose the war - lose a town maybe and be weaker on the field and pay tribute.

The 3 imperial factions might benefit quite abit here. They have less risk of civil wars if they conquer each other. Could end up in a massive stable imperial faction in the middle regions:smile: Imperial culture is based on Roman Empire/East Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire. All these are quite infamous for their civil wars:smile:

I´m still in doubt of these modifiers but I leave it for now. I like the rest of your suggestion.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
@five bucks The way bannerlord currently works must not mean that you "lost" a war because you play tribute in the peacedeal. you can take 2-3 holdings and still lose the war - lose a town maybe and be weaker on the field and pay tribute.

The 3 imperial factions might benefit quite abit here. They have less risk of civil wars if they conquer each other. Could end up in a massive stable imperial faction in the middle regions:smile: Imperial culture is based on Roman Empire/East Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire. All these are quite infamous for their civil wars:smile:

I´m still in doubt of these modifiers but I leave it for now. I like the rest of your suggestion.
Good point again, I think the cultures issue could possibly be solved by counting the separate empire territories as different "cultures" solely for the purposes of calculating the civil wars thing. Thanks
 

dannazgu

Sergeant
@five bucks The way bannerlord currently works must not mean that you "lost" a war because you play tribute in the peacedeal. you can take 2-3 holdings and still lose the war - lose a town maybe and be weaker on the field and pay tribute.

The 3 imperial factions might benefit quite abit here. They have less risk of civil wars if they conquer each other. Could end up in a massive stable imperial faction in the middle regions:smile: Imperial culture is based on Roman Empire/East Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire. All these are quite infamous for their civil wars:smile:

I´m still in doubt of these modifiers but I leave it for now. I like the rest of your suggestion.
Not different cultures, but conquest..maybe, some and like occupation, since one conuered the other, must be seen as occupation and lead to unhappiness, less loyalty, etc.. since each region on the three different imperial lands, had some "different" desire in their government
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
Connect the two features. Allow a settlement-rebellion to spark a civil/seperatist war. Say the conquering faction has 3-4 lords of rebellion culture. Give them a chance to join/take lead of the rebellion, if their relation with the ruler is bad. Also, let them join power! Several low-loyality same-culture settlements? Give them some level of syncronisation.
 
Last edited:

Poddicus

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
This would be very appreciated
Would add some much needed depth and make the character relations much more meaningful as they'd influence potential descent in the kingdoms
Also would like to mention that the chance of such descent for nobles rebelling / starting civil wars should grow as the nation gets larger and the attention of the Monarch is split.
 
Top Bottom