• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Emperor Leo

The Brainstormer
18 Badges
May 17, 2008
1.016
2
  • Cities in Motion
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Deus Vult
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Divine Wind
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Hearts of Iron Anthology
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Sengoku
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • 500k Club
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
I thought today we could take a look at Triumphs. When I started typing this, I didn't think there'd be much to say about them, but now I've reaslied that Triumphs could be given more complexity and impact in the game.

Triumph

At the moment, Triumphs can be awarded to any character who has won a battle (once a year). This means that if your Ruler has a low popularity, you can stir up a single unit of Barbarians and defeat them with your Ruler, award him a Triumph and get his popularity back to 100%. I read some information on Triumphs and there seems to be prerequisites that aren't taken into account by the game. I won't go into what the requirements are, but an in-game translation could be as follows:

A Triumph can only be offered if the following requirements are met:

  • The victory is against a foreign enemy in a declared war (i.e. no Barbarians, Rebels or Pirates).
  • The victory resulted in 5000 enemy casualties (or the loss of 5 enemy ships).
  • The victorious General must be located (or docked) at your Capital to recieve the Triumph.

A Triumph should also gain the unique, permanent title; Triumphator. This title would give the awarded General something like:

  • Monthly Prominence +0.5
  • Unit Loyalty Chance +0.5
  • Max. Friends +1
  • Max. Rivals +1

A Triumphator's rivals should also suffer a small, instant loyalty hit. The popularity and loyalty increase for the Triumphator should remain as it is in the current game.

Imperial Triumphs

I also discovered that in the period of the Roman Empire, Triumphs were reserved for the Emperor and his family. So, I think that if you have the government type Imperium, the following requirements should be necessary:

  • The victory is against a foreign enemy in a declared war (i.e. no Barbarians, Rebels or Pirates).
  • The victory resulted in 5000 enemy casualties (or the loss of 5 enemy ships).
  • The victorious General must be located (or docked) at your Capital to recieve the Triumph.
  • The victorious General must be part of the Ruling family.

Ovation

An Ovation (or Ovatio) should also be a seperate reward for victorius Generals in the game. The restrictions wouldn't be as harsh as those for Triumph, but the rewards and negative effects will be half of what a Triumph would give and there would be no unique title given. The only restrictions should be:

  • The victory is against lesser enemies (i.e. Barbarians, Rebels and Pirates) and not in a declared war.
  • The victory resulted in the loss of less than 2000 friendly troops (or 2 ships).

An Ovation can be awarded to a victorious General twice in one year.

Again, I apologise for the long post. Let me know what you think. :)
 
Imperial Triumphs

I also discovered that in the period of the Roman Empire, Triumphs were reserved for the Emperor and his family. So, I think that if you have the government type Imperium, the following requirements should be necessary:

[*]The victorious General must be part of the Ruling family.

I like most of your post except this. Because of ONE nation were, in a small period of time, reserving triumphs for the ruling family, doesn't mean that the rest of the world's empires did the same thing. Otherwise, great ideas and keep up the brainstorming.

Also: Perhaps making a counter for triumphs, public humiliations. If a general loses greatly in a battle, he should be able to be humiliated in public. This would basically be like the exact opposite of triumphs, but perhaps his loyalty and popularity drop should be more and the rivals would gain even more loyalty than they lost in triumphs. Also: Family and friends should also get some loyalty for triumphs(and loyalty loss for humiliations).
 
I like most of your post except this. Because of ONE nation were, in a small period of time, reserving triumphs for the ruling family, doesn't mean that the rest of the world's empires did the same thing. Otherwise, great ideas and keep up the brainstorming.

Thanks! :) I put up these ideas to be discussed, chopped and changed by everybody, so all ideas are welcome. I was thinking of ways that Tribes and a Monarchy could deal with Triumphs but, to be honest, I wasn't sure how Triumphs (or the equivalent) were handled in reality.

Perhaps Tribes could hold a non-restricted "Great Feast" which wouldn't differ from the current in-game Triumph. A Monarchy could stick with my proposed Triumph or have a similar "Royal Parade" or something (ideas from the top of my head, obviously! Haha!).

Just had a thought that the Triumphator should also gain an increase in Family Prestige.
 
Thanks! :) I put up these ideas to be discussed, chopped and changed by everybody, so all ideas are welcome. I was thinking of ways that Tribes and a Monarchy could deal with Triumphs but, to be honest, I wasn't sure how Triumphs (or the equivalent) were handled in reality.

Perhaps Tribes could hold a non-restricted "Great Feast" which wouldn't differ from the current in-game Triumph. A Monarchy could stick with my proposed Triumph or have a similar "Royal Parade" or something (ideas from the top of my head, obviously! Haha!).

Just had a thought that the Triumphator should also gain an increase in Family Prestige.

Good idea.

Also, I think that tribes triumphs should be something like ''Fighting tournament'' or ''Horse Race''. Just thought of something too, what if we have different sort of triumphs. Like tournament-esque, where the general and/or some other invited can raise their martial stats and health, but could also get wounded, become ill or even die. Also, in tournaments perhaps you can get new courtiers, like a minor noble showing themselves to be a master swordfighter. Then perhaps Feast-esque. These would have a rather high chance to reduce health and perhaps even create bastards. Also, there might be a chance that if a ruler has rivals and arranges a Feast that they will get assasinated (If the ruler is drunk: It would be harder to resist an asssasin, if the rival is drunk: Higher chance that they would send an assasin.)
 
A Triumph can only be offered if the following requirements are met:

  • The victory is against a foreign enemy in a declared war (i.e. no Barbarians, Rebels or Pirates).
  • The victory resulted in 5000 enemy casualties (or the loss of 5 enemy ships).
  • The victorious General must be located (or docked) at your Capital to recieve the Triumph.

In the Republic, the vir triumphalis had to be a praetor, consul or dictator. In game terms, that could be made less restrictive:

  • The victorious General must be ruler / former ruler / praetor / propraetor / governor / former governor.
  • The country must be at peace. (This is because, historically, triumphs would not have been approved by the senate if the army was still engaged in war.)

Idea for a new building:

Triumphal Arch:
  • Imperial triumphs can be held only in cities with a triumphal arch.
  • Temporary benefits if triumph is held in a city with triumphal arch: decreased revolt risk and temporary boost to omen success chance (triumphs had a religious meaning that associated the victorious General to mythical heroes and even the Gods).
 
In the Republic, the vir triumphalis had to be a praetor, consul or dictator. In game terms, that could be made less restrictive:

The victorious General must be ruler / former ruler / praetor / propraetor / governor / former governor.
The country must be at peace. (This is because, historically, triumphs would not have been approved by the senate if the army was still engaged in war.)

I was thinking about adding these restrictions, too, but thought it might make the requirements a little too harsh. The country being at peace isn't too much to ask of the player, though. The time limit to award the Triumph within a year would have to start from the day you make peace. If this is the case, maybe the Triumph can only be awarded if you won the war.

Idea for a new building:

Triumphal Arch:
Imperial triumphs can be held only in cities with a triumphal arch.
Temporary benefits if triumph is held in a city with triumphal arch: decreased revolt risk and temporary boost to omen success chance (triumphs had a religious meaning that associated the victorious General to mythical heroes and even the Gods).

This is a great idea. This would be handy if you have a large Empire. The Arch should be a late game invention.
 
I'd say triumphator should also lose some of personal wealth - after official ceremonials they used to fund a fest, providing food & wine (sometimes also distributing free grain) to the mob. Of course for popularity gain. :)

Would be also nice to have possibility to kill foreign prisoners on the day of triumph (Tullianum comes to mind) without infamy penalty (not to say without tyranny penalty - this absurd should be removed from EUR long time ago).

I really like these brainstorms, Emperor Leo. Many great ideas in them. I just wonder if anyone listens (from PI, of course). As I understand, many of this ideas can't be modded now and would need an overhaul of core game mechanics.
 
Last edited:
I'd say triumphator should also lose some of personal wealth - after official ceremonials they used to fund a fest, providing food & wine (sometimes also distributing free grain) to the mob. Of course for popularity gain.

Yeah, good idea. I was thinking this myself, but wasn't sure if the Triumphator used his own wealth to celebrate. Thanks for clearing it up! :)

Would be also nice to have possibility to kill foreign prisoners on the day of triumph (Tullianum comes to mind) without infamy penalty

This is a good idea, too. Maybe the Triumph action could throw up an Event, allowing you to choose the prisoner of choice, rather than performing the execution manually.

(not to say without tyranny penalty - this absurd should be removed from EUR long time ago).

To me, this has been an irritating part of imprisonment for a while. If someone attmepts to murder my child or I capture my most hated foreign General, why am I punished as being the "bad guy". I would understand if this was a feature in a modern day simulation, but executions and imprisonment were used in lots of ways in the Classical Era (e.g. Spartacus' followers crucified along the Appian way, Vercingetorix's execution after Caesar's Triumph, etc.)

In the past, I have suggested a Casus Belli system for characters. I may do a future Brainstorm for prisoners, executions, banishing, etc. sometime soon.

I really like these brainstorms, Emperor Leo. Many great ideas in them. I just wonder if anyone listens (form PI, of course). As I understand, many of this ideas can't be modded now and would need an overhaul of core game mechanics.

Thank you very much! :) I like to try and keep the forum active to an extent and found that fellow Rome players responded well to ideas in my "Rome Expansion" thread, so decided to make it a regular thing. I really hope Paradox reads these things, just to see what sort of things players would like to see in expansions or even just future patches. I feel like us Rome players are all slowly chipping away at the rockface to get to the vein of solid gold underneath! :)
 
Actually I wouldn't restrict the possibility of declaring a Triumph as being only against foreigners...allow the Triumph for civil wars and what-not, but incur a popularity hit equal to the rise in prominence, and add an additional enemy.

As I recall there was at least one, if not more, Roman triumphs that were given (demanded actually) in such circumstances, which were allowed but reflected negatively on those receiving it.

In fact, there should even be an event where a powerful general (many loyal units, if not a majority of loyal units as relating to overall held by the state) may even *demand* he be given the triumph he is eligible for...to accept would be to feed his Ambition even more...to decline could risk civil war.
 
Triumphs

I like all the ideas in these brainstorms. One minor disagreement is that I do not like excluding pirates and barbarians from the list eligible for triumphs. Some of the barbarian hords are quite large with excellent generals. I think the 5000 casualties caused would limit most minor triumphs from being blown out of proportion. NOt so sure about pirates though.
 
I like the idea but I found some problems..

If you have a friggin' big country, for example Seleucids where your capital is in east, even ruled by Emperor (over 50 provinces) and you have übershiteleventy victory in italy, gallia or iberia you have to drag the general to seleucia to hold the triumph. Okay it's easy to do by resigning the general and adding to army in seleucia BUT in case you can't detach the general it's long walk.. I guess you understand what i mean :p

After this, you've got victory where you have caused over 5000 men casualties (which is pretty much, almost every time morale runs out before 5000 men ;)) to your enemy, got your general to capital, held the triumph but what then? You don't really got so big boost to anything that it's worth doing all this..(?) with smaller countries it probably wouldn't be problem.

Also I'd like to add something

* The generals army would got some boost from triumph, like discipline/defence/morale bonus, and maybe become loyal to general

* General would got some trait, f.e victorious or conqueror, if we're going hard core then maybe some new trait: "tactical mastermind" or something to give bonus to martial or even all traits


--

If you need a brainstorm mate I have a few ideas under developement, bit like your brainstorm #7 I'm "creating" new GUIs with gimp to show what i mean :)
 
I like most of your post except this. Because of ONE nation were, in a small period of time, reserving triumphs for the ruling family, doesn't mean that the rest of the world's empires did the same thing. Otherwise, great ideas and keep up the brainstorming.
I agree. I always thought Triumph should have more bonus (just like you propose) but also cause a significant loyalty LOSS. This way, on large empire, players would tend to avoid offering too much triumphs to generals, and it would be close to history "naturally".
To make triumph rarer, you might limit them to when you CAPTURE the enemy general, maybe (and make such a capture very important when an enemy army is wiped out )?

Also: Perhaps making a counter for triumphs, public humiliations. If a general loses greatly in a battle, he should be able to be humiliated in public. This would basically be like the exact opposite of triumphs, but perhaps his loyalty and popularity drop should be more and the rivals would gain even more loyalty than they lost in triumphs. Also: Family and friends should also get some loyalty for triumphs(and loyalty loss for humiliations).
Was it historical ? Didn't they just execute the humiliated general ?
 
Was it historical ? Didn't they just execute the humiliated general ?

Seems to me the other side usual took care of that...the notable exception in my mind being Pompey Magnus.

Thus it would seem that imprisonment may not be beyond the realm of possibility, especially by the enemy and very likely accompanied by a ransom demand -- absolutely at home a prestige/prominence hit and a loss of unit loyalty at the very least, with the possibility of exile or imprisonment without having to take the faction hit for doing so.

In that latter context you could even work in the RL Pompey event - that the Republican Romans "exiled" Pompey for his Anti-triumphal loss, and of course he went his own way into exile and met his fate at his "new court" in Egypt.

Which begs another point...if one country executes a very prominent member of another country...the second country should acquire a cassus belli against the first.