Ave,
A few strange "ends of Civil wars" with Vae Victis 2.2:
1. Carthage goes to civil war, with only a few Algerian provinces on the rebel side. My Egyptians immediately invade the loyalists and take their capital to get better peace terms. However, the loyalists continue to destroy the rebels and when this insignificant power that I have no contact with loses its last province, I suddenly own all the provinces I controlled, including their capital - and I'm still at war with them, getting even more provinces from the peace terms.
2. In my game as Parthia, I remember this previous scenario. When Egypt goes to a civil war, I invade the loyalists, hoping to annex Alexandria to connect my Cyrenaican provinces to my capital. However, I get too greedy and beat up the loyalists too much. Instead of loyalists winning, the rebels now control three provinces while I control the rest, including Alexandria. I choose to keep up the occupation for six years, after which, for some reason, the /rebels/ give up. However, instead of now owning all provinces minus 3, I only gain what I can ask from the unified side with my 100% warscore. D'oh.
3. I was not monitoring the situation closely, but I suppose this happened: A civil war in Illyria ends when some provinces are controlled by barbarians. As a result, they are now controlled by a nation called Barbarians, and no diplomacy actions (including war) are available. I chose to roleplay the situation as the provinces getting completely and barbarically destroyed (like what Romans did to Carthage in the real world.) However, would there been a way to get the provinces back somehow?
The end of the civil war event is certainly flawed in some way. Why did I get the provinces in case 1 and did not get them in case 2? Perhaps I should forget (or even disable) the whole feature, and just try to get 100% from the loyalists plus 100% from the rebels. How do you prefer to use civil wars to your benefit? Any opinions?
A few strange "ends of Civil wars" with Vae Victis 2.2:
1. Carthage goes to civil war, with only a few Algerian provinces on the rebel side. My Egyptians immediately invade the loyalists and take their capital to get better peace terms. However, the loyalists continue to destroy the rebels and when this insignificant power that I have no contact with loses its last province, I suddenly own all the provinces I controlled, including their capital - and I'm still at war with them, getting even more provinces from the peace terms.
2. In my game as Parthia, I remember this previous scenario. When Egypt goes to a civil war, I invade the loyalists, hoping to annex Alexandria to connect my Cyrenaican provinces to my capital. However, I get too greedy and beat up the loyalists too much. Instead of loyalists winning, the rebels now control three provinces while I control the rest, including Alexandria. I choose to keep up the occupation for six years, after which, for some reason, the /rebels/ give up. However, instead of now owning all provinces minus 3, I only gain what I can ask from the unified side with my 100% warscore. D'oh.
3. I was not monitoring the situation closely, but I suppose this happened: A civil war in Illyria ends when some provinces are controlled by barbarians. As a result, they are now controlled by a nation called Barbarians, and no diplomacy actions (including war) are available. I chose to roleplay the situation as the provinces getting completely and barbarically destroyed (like what Romans did to Carthage in the real world.) However, would there been a way to get the provinces back somehow?
The end of the civil war event is certainly flawed in some way. Why did I get the provinces in case 1 and did not get them in case 2? Perhaps I should forget (or even disable) the whole feature, and just try to get 100% from the loyalists plus 100% from the rebels. How do you prefer to use civil wars to your benefit? Any opinions?
