• 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.

Battlecry

Field Marshal
16 Badges
Feb 22, 2007
2.530
4
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Semper Fi
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • 500k Club
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
Simply what the title says.
I'm considering upping the ruler popularity limit (to at least 70, rather than the current 50) so that rulers have to be more popular to prevent civil wars, but I wanted some opinions on this. The multiplayer crowd seems to think they're not common enough, but I haven't heard much from the SP crowd on the subject.

So, the question is posed; I await your feedback.
 
I'll admit, I'm not overly familiar with how civil wars are started as in the time I've played I haven't had even one. That said, I think it would be better to add event chains that lead to civil wars rather than just generically increase their frequency. Maybe the frequency could go up a bit if many people think it's too low, but I'd rather see civil wars start with solid reasons that maybe have some build up and so on instead of just because the ruler is unpopular.
 
Antimatter said:
I'll admit, I'm not overly familiar with how civil wars are started as in the time I've played I haven't had even one. That said, I think it would be better to add event chains that lead to civil wars rather than just generically increase their frequency. Maybe the frequency could go up a bit if many people think it's too low, but I'd rather see civil wars start with solid reasons that maybe have some build up and so on instead of just because the ruler is unpopular.

Fair enough. I think some of Jane's events could be used this way, and just altered to fire a civil war event at the end of the sequence (if it goes a certain way).
 
Hm... Well, my end-vision of my mod plans on increasing civil war frequency... But I don't really see it as an increase in frequency, so much as a potential consequence of mishandling internal politics.

Version .11, for instance, will have a few more possible consequences - as an example, if your ruler is too friendly towards a neighboring nation while militant, charismatic anti-(neighbor's culture) grow popular, an event chain will threaten a civil war, as he incites a civil war to save the nation. The peaceful, charismatic anti-(neighbor's culture), on the other hand, are triggered by wealth instead of popularity, and instead will seek to assassinate you or manufacture issues to harm your relations :) .

Also, my new events for dealing with disloyal subjects can spark a civil war if misused; if you're executing a subject who is too charismatic or popular, there's a minor chance that he begin a civil war, and a moderate chance that he can start a rebellion. Executing a group of conspirators carries a much higher chance of starting a civil war, depending on what point you intervene; starting too early, though, risks executing a group of perfectly safe characters (who, depending on how cruel I'm feeling, might have been working on something nice for you instead :) ... But I haven't coded that sequence yet, and may end up discarding it ^_^0 .). I thought it necessary to include more options to dispose of disloyal characters, since I've been decreasing the general loyalty levels, but I didn't think it ought be easy :) ... And, as usual, charisma and finesse are vital characteristics here; a low finesse score will leave your charges looking flimsy and ill-applied, while a low charisma score will leave you ill-able to sooth the concerns of other characters. What does that mean in game terms? Well, you'll find out :) ...
 
Speaking of that v.11 there Jane... ;)
 
When I'm back, I said V_V ! I am not yet back V_V !

(Grouse... Though I wish I had my files with me so I could get a bit of work done while certain people keep taking too long to get ready... Are you reading this? You know who you are. Get out of the shower already V_V !)

^_~ .
 
Jane_Doe said:
When I'm back, I said V_V ! I am not yet back V_V !

(Grouse... Though I wish I had my files with me so I could get a bit of work done while certain people keep taking too long to get ready... Are you reading this? You know who you are. Get out of the shower already V_V !)

^_~ .

Sorry thought you were back...what the hell is V_V anyway? Is that supposed to look like something?
Enjoy your vacation, we can launch v0.51 without your new stuff and add it in later.
 
battlecry said:
Sorry thought you were back...what the hell is V_V anyway? Is that supposed to look like something?
Enjoy your vacation, we can launch v0.51 without your new stuff and add it in later.

Oh, sorry, I did kind of give that impression, didn't I ^_^0 ? I'll be back in a couple of days, though, so keep an eye on my thread ^_~ ...

Hm... Well, I guess the best way to describe V_V is an emoticon conveying joking arrogance. Sort of imagine I said the sentences in a faux haughty tone :) . I suppose it could also be unfeigned arrogance, but who would seriously use the emoticon then? I can't imagine a situation where its earnest use wouldn't detract from the message.