Civil wars have changed in 2.0.4. I have seen very strong splits and some players are saying that now all civil wars are 50% of your country no matter how many characters are disloyal.
What is your experience with the new civil wars? Do you feel they are too strong now?
I don't know whether we need a whole separate thread for this considering people can see the simple disagreement/discussion/points on gradation of Civil War opposed to a flat always 50% of the country Civil War and simply 'react' to the comments but I haven't used the forum before so you might be right about the new thread thing.
Well I guess I will repost the things I wrote in the main thread so people can see them separated from the other bug reports/fix suggestions as I believe they summarised it well there.
[Begin Cut Comment 1]
2. I see that Civil Wars have been altered in the beta to prevent them being too small, but now they appear to always be massive (half the nation every time) even if only a small percentage of the powerbase is disloyal. I tested this in my Egypt Campaign by intentionally triggering a Civil War with a single disloyal character (the governor of Nubia with 2 provinces who was a family head) through a failed 'Bring to Trial' interaction. In this scenario he has 10% of the total powerbase, needing 14% to begin the Civil War countdown.
When Civil War errupts from the single disloyal character from a failed 'Bring to Trial' half of the Country revolts (with about 50% of the population). Trying this with random other governors that weren't Family Heads, with no other disloyal characters of governors, still causes a massive devastating Civil War that is always half the nation. I understand Civil Wars are not meant to be tiny revolts and sometimes be devastating but shouldn't the size of the Civil War side against the player be somewhat proportional to the amount of disloyal characters and the disloyal powerbase?
With high tyranny which often is used late game to keep aggressive expansion low as it becomes more managable, the threshold for Civil War can be very low, so it only takes one or two characters with a small powerbase to be disloyal to somehow convince half of the entire nation to join them and tear the country apart. This seems reasonable when the disloyal powerbase is 50% for a 50/50 civil war or perhaps even a 75/25 for a 75% disloyal powerbase, or for special event/mission Civil Wars like the Roman Eastern Dictatorship but having it always be massive even when the disloyal powerbase is more region or even province sized seems unreasonable and can completely derail a playthrough when the 'Egyptian/Armenian/Persian/etc Revolt' always starts with half the nation despite the disloyal powerbase being small and these can be far to frequent with high tyranny/poor conditions so one can spend decades at a time putting down a civil wars when they should have only taken a few years or even months if it was one angry governor.
Thank you for taking a look at Imperator: Rome for an 'Anniversary Maintenance Patch'. It is my favourite Paradox game and I love the Pop system and country building, unit types and military tactics, military traditions and the Era (among other things). Also the game just looks beautiful and has such an appropriate and grand Soundtrack.
[End Cut Comment 1]
[Begin Cut Comment 2]
I understand that it might be larger than the few initially disloyal characters and their powerbase, but always being 50% of the country no matter what seems to be far too much. Sometimes it should be bigger than 50% perhaps if the government/ruler is incredibly unpopular, but having one disloyal governor that is your rival refusing to be removed because of low loyalty while the rest of your nation and characters are both loyal and stable that you decide to use 'bring to trial' to remove (which is what it is for - removing characters that are a large problem from your court or provinces that have too much power/important position(s) to simply be thrown in jail with no consequences by trying to imprison them through a trial which can have multiple outcomes: success/failure with stab hit/failure with civil war) being able to convince half of the entire nation to rebel when they overall have few greivances with the administration is both unrealistic and not fun.
Engaging in a Civil War in this period was extremely dangerous (has been throughout history) and could result in complete confiscation of all property, loss of noble status, mass execution of leaders and nobles involved (and you have that option upon winning to 'forgive' or 'punish' the rebels) so convincing someone to commit treason was usually somewhat difficult, especially when the initial rebellion was small so had a small chance of success. Thus, when given the option of 'with or against me' for the rebellion of a single councilor, governor, or family head most people are going to respond with 'Certainly not, I like my head being attached to my shoulders and my skin not being flayed'. As per the rebellion expanding, that does happen when more provinces get occupied and immediately flip, so even a single governorship rebelling could become a massive problem if your forces are elsewhere and they carpet siege multiple regions, thus encouraging the player to be careful and proactive with dealing with dissent and rebellion.
Large Civil Wars that immediately start with 50% of the country, often half your capital region too, are a massive pain and can take decades to put down and completely wreck you, and if any other power decides to attack you the playthrough can effectively be over. Now, that should certainly be possible, that half the nation rises against you, but it should not be for every single civil war - there should certainly be gradations of Civil War from province-governorship(s)-quarter/half/more than half the country depending upon the circumstances, both within and without the player's control. The initial complaint about some of them being too small was perhaps warranted, and perhaps they should have been enlarged, but having every single one be 50% is too much. A 10% disloyal powerbase should not be able to 100% of the time get 50% of the nation to revolt - perhaps there should be a chance that it ends up larger, even significantly larger, than the initial disloyal powerbase, but it should not be the only option.
As for the historic precedent, many Civil Wars happened that were not half the population. A significantly powerful individual that has enough of a grudge, or was likely to lose everything anyway might, and did, go for a last resort 'all or nothing' and this is simulated through a single powerful individual/small group being threatened with complete imprisonment in the 'Bring to Trial' action. Having a low Civil War threshold from an unstable country also might prompt a smaller group to 'try their luck' and in game if you are stretched thin and weak, they might succeed too.
I have less of a problem with the strength of the rebellion's troops (a province levy will be able to pick up arms in the same way if their governor raises them) and a defecting legion will bring it's skills, but the sheer initial size being completely disproportional to those prompting the revolt I feel should be altered to more reasonable gradations.
An all-out Civil War can be fun and has it's place when your realm is very unstable and disloyal, or is shifiting governments, or going through a mission/event like the Roman Eastern Dictatorship, but it seems wrong for it to always be massive and half the country, because they often weren't and it allows one character to destroy your large loyal realm. The current state is so disruptive and would make using 'bring to trial' never usable because it now becomes 'roll for chance of 50% civil war to remove one disloyal governor' which is never worth it unless you are a tiny country, to the extent that I actually preferred the inital system as it did allow large ones too, even if some were perhaps too small.
[End Cut Comment 2]
Summarised: Civil Wars should be more in line with the amount of disloyal characters and their respective powerbase(s) rather than being about 50% of the country every single time. The beta patch changed Civil Wars to always be massive even when a single disloyal governor in a country, all other characters being loyal, with a small region was being 'Brought to Trial' and the trial failed and triggered a Civil War - before the beta change such a Revolt would have been small (compared to one where many prominent characters were disloyal so joined in with their large powerbases after the Countdown or a failed trial). This makes all Civil Wars far too big and essentially renders the 'Bring to Trial' character interaction useless, as removing anyone that is too disloyal to be removed from a government position (the purpose of the more risky 'Bring to Trial' that could give a Success+Imprison/Failure+Stab Loss/Failure+Civil War) always results in half of the entire country (by population) rebelling and half your characters joining the revolt even if they are loyal. Unless you are a small one region nation 'Bring to Trial' is far too dangerous to ever be worth using anymore.
Large Civil Wars should be possible as before with a large disloyal powerbase and characters, especially by the mission/event but one disloyal governor in Southern Hispania (for example) among a otherwise loyal realm (characters and powerbase) should not be able to split the Mediterranean-spanning Roman Empire entirely in half immediately rather than by occupying territories during the course of the Civil War.
