Really depends on how they ectually implement a civil war. In my mind it should be less about EU-style rebels and more about your empire splitting apeart in 2 factions and you have to defeat the other one. Cheesing out by choosing one site and let the other just win can easily be negated by making you go gameover when your side of a civil war looses.
So much is true. Very much will depend on they bring it about. Even a half-way crappy idea for a feature can be ok depending on how its brought into the game.
But while I can understand your argument for making civil wars more serious I think that it actually goes conter to the idea of playing a state. If we're playing, for example, the Arverni then it makes no sense to me that just because one cheiftain losses control of the state that I would lose since the state I'm playing is still there even if under a new leader. If we are playing a state then we should also be playing that state as long as the state endures.
On top of that there can be multiple nasty things get included that make sure that if you let it come to a civil war it's not gonna be just a matter of another general getting in charge, because it sets you back 50 years in your imperial march towards world domination: Decades of unrest and prosecutions in the aristocracy after the war (like after Sulla), they can implement that a year into the civil war some recently conquored area will go full rebel and declare independency (perhaps even allied to the other side of the civil war). Devestation throughout your empire should cost you lots of time, money and mana (if around) to restore just like after Ceasar's civil war the eastern provinces where virtually depleted of anything of value. It's just a matter of how they implement it but I really don't see how a system where you feel like 'herding a bunch of plotting, backstabbing, machiavellan cats' would inherrently lead to civil wars being just a speed bump, there are plenty of ways to make them really impactfull.
Now nasty side-effects from a civil war is certainly something that I can support. And in addition to this I would argue that the effects should be different depending on what kind of ideology that the winning side supported. A more reasonably penalty should also, in my opinion, be that if a rebellion succeeds then it undermines the legitimazy of the state's government. Meaning that the more rebellions that are successful the more the doors opens for new rebellions as people are disillusioned with the system and see the ones holding power as having no more right to it than anyone who can take that power for themselves.
I can't say I know Victoria 3 well enough to argue about this looking too much like the internal politics over there but as far as I know there isn't anything like the Roman Senate system from EU:Rome there right? with characters with family ties vying for positions in the government etc.? it seems a bit far fetched to compare these things one on one since it's not just a few pie charts with factions and pop's but more about real characters making the factions. Seems like a totally different thing that would really nicely fit right between the character based gameplay of CK2 and the Empire level gameplay of Victoria and EU.
Well, I'm not a pro Vicky player but I am somewhat involved in that discussion. But in regards to the Roman senate I must confess that I am kind of dismissive about it. Its a special snowflake mechanic for a single state, out of very many. But I agree that the Vicky games have a certain shallowness due to the lack of characters taking part in the politics and mechanics of the game. Making all of it kind of annonymous to the player. The only characters that I can recall who do show up are generals and admirals.
Pops is pretty much a fan favourite from the community but I feel they should leave that for Victoria, Culturals diversity in provinces should totally be a thing though considering this was quit important in how much manpower there was available for legions or greek phallanxes and how much for auxillary units.
I agree entirely with this.
And I'd throw in an idea I had for Vicky 3. That is that there could be a three way path for cultural conversion. Say that the Romans have conquered a province with Etruscan culture and then tries to make these people into Romans. What would then happen in this model is that the dominant culture will start out as Etruscan, then will turn into Romano-Etruscans and finally into Romans, rather than jumping straight from Etruscan to Roman. Or another example could be that a Celtic tribes migrate into a province with Greek culture. The province will then go from Greek to Celto-Greek and then finally, if the Celts would desire such, into Celtic culture.
I don't see any problem with running an RPG this way, where you play as a pater familias and spend most of your time managing your estate, building up your clients and pulling strings in the Senate. But there's no space for a grand strategy layer in that, because even a very successful official will only spend a fraction of his lifetime in a military office and will only be able to pass that office on in really exceptional cases.
Well, the idea is that not only will you be active when in office but also out of office. Its not like rich and influential men were politically mute when not holding a direct office. Rather you'd be using your family connections and influence to get the officials to conduct policies that favors your view of it.
The way I see it is that this way the game would be more about political intrigues than anything else.
On the Barcids note- they got to hold command in Spain almost on a hereditary basis, but multiple Carthaginian generals of the first Punic War were executed by the judges after defeat in battle. So that's a pretty massive generational change in how desirable it was to be a Carthaginian military officer.
Well, in my opinion this shows how much potential there is to play a character based game. For example you can strike out in a private enterprize to create your own semi-independent realm. And if you're serving, or "serving", the state and getting defeated and risk execution at your return. Well, your still a general with money for the war and an army right there with you. I believe Caesar showed us how that kind of situation can come down.
