Loyalty

[Gordonthinker]

If soldiers can be loyal to a general, would that loyalty still be there if that general was dismissed? Or would it just disappear? Is there a system where generals are recruited from legions? I think that would work great with this loyalty system. A veteran soldier has the respect of his peers for his ability on the battlefield he should be promoted. If you need a general that is! EUs 4 version of just spending 50 military points to pull someone out of thin air just won't cut it here.

If you think that general is getting too powerful, you could try to betray him. But he might not be forgiving along with his legions. Losing veteran legions should impact the strength and effectiveness of your miliary. Legions that fight under generals that they don't know or trust and new units with no battle experience makes them a less effective unit. To make them more effective that's achieved through keeping them supplied, rested and general that makes good decisions.

Cities seem to play a more important role in this game. I just think it would be a nice touch to give cities titles. If a city has repelled attacks it should be known as a well defened city that would receive defensive bonuses. Other rulers might know this and try to conquer it. Giving them a title of conquering that city and giving them a boost in popularity. That's one example of how cities can play more of a role other than just being there.

Just some thoughts on my end. I have to look more into this game, it's on my radar.

 

[Denkt]

They said you can not separate a general from loyal cohorts so that may mean you can not replace a general who have loyal cohorts in his army. In EU: Rome cohorts would stay loyal to the specific character even if he is replaced as general and loyalty could be inherited by his child on his death.

 

[cristofolmc]

They said you can not separate a general from loyal cohorts so that may mean you can not replace a general who have loyal cohorts in his army. In EU: Rome cohorts would stay loyal to the specific character even if he is replaced as general and loyalty could be inherited by his child on his death.

Isuppose you can still separate the ones that are not loyal to create a new unit from it? In case you see too many units becoming loyal to an increasingly unloyal character, for instance.

 

[Denkt]

Isuppose you can still separate the ones that are not loyal to create a new unit from it? In case you see too many units becoming loyal to an increasingly unloyal character, for instance.

Yes, but I think in EU: Rome you may be blocked from removing cohorts if your general is disloyal.

Losing veteran legions should impact the strength and effectiveness of your miliary. Legions that fight under generals that they don't know or trust and new units with no battle experience makes them a less effective unit. To make them more effective that's achieved through keeping them supplied, rested and general that makes good decisions.

Cohorts gain experience which reduce the damage they take in battle. At 100% the bonus seems to be -30% damage taken which is the largest single bonus to cohorts.

 

[Gordonthinker]

Thank you! I believe I saw in a 30 min play through a general had a few loyal to him. To stop him from getting too powerful that general was just dismissed. I think that should impact the unit.

Just to add on more to the city idea. Take Rome, what the city is known for might be different on each play through. If you have to battle back and forth to keep Rome it would be a rather broken and deserted city, but it will change overtime. It might later be known for it's ports and get trade bonuses, or wine and luxury attracting high society from around the world. Most major cities are known for something. Some might give bonuses and others might be a thorn in your side.

 

[Denkt]

Cities are sacked and population are enslaved on capture so Rome may end up empty or large depending on the situation.

 

[Gordonthinker]

That seems like such a limited system, it could be much better. I think I saw there were about 7000 cities. Why so many if there's not going to be a system that allows the city to really impact the game? People were loyal to the city not to the empire. Cities in that timeframe had much more importance than they do today. Maybe it's not that simple, but city loyalty was important. I would like to see that in game somehow.

 

[Thure]

That seems like such a limited system, it could be much better. I think I saw there were about 7000 cities. Why so many if there's not going to be a system that allows the city to really impact the game? People were loyal to the city not to the empire. Cities in that timeframe had much more importance than they do today. Maybe it's not that simple, but city loyalty was important. I would like to see that in game somehow.

Because city = provinces in other paradox games.

 

[Gordonthinker]

How much of an impact will provinces have in this game beyond zone control and trading power (wealth)? I still think a city and a province could play a bigger role besides just gaining more to be top .

They should have a history (titles) and that history will shape how it devolops based on what happens to it. You may not want to take a city/province that's known for it's fierce independence. You may want to let go of that province where that general you killed is from. You may want to take that city that's known for it's quality soldiers.

So the player and anything else that happens to it will shape what it becomes. It could become full of greatness and wealth or death and desese, but of course that could all change in time.

I know EU 4 had a history of the province, but it didn't change anything.

Just my opinion.

 

[Denkt]

How much of an impact will provinces have in this game beyond zone control and trading power (wealth)? I still think a city and a province could play a bigger role besides just gaining more to be top .

Goods and trade work on the province level. Pops can be moved between cities within a province even if the cities are not neighbours. Policies work on the province level. Also control of 20 provinces will make you a great power.

 

[Gordonthinker]

The characters seem to be in a good place. I had a lot of fun with the them in CK2. Vicy 2 didn't apeal to me so I don't know much about that, or what this game takes from it.
I look forward to having political battles internally as much as externally (including wars).
I wonder how deep the policies go on the province level? 20 provinces makes you a great power no matter what?
I think this game takes steps in the right direction. Trading war elephants from Carthage is good, moving pops and policies are great, but does it go deeper? What makes a province unique? What gives it a character? They should change superficiality overtime!
The plague DLC from CK2 gave the provinces some life, in my opinion. That's what I want to see more of.