Civil war vs secession?

[Falesz]

I'm wondering what's the difference. I haven't seen a Civil war since the upgraded politics got implemented into the game, only secessions.

[garravesh]

Technically those are the same thing. Every time the senate revolts one faction disappears with 3 territories and a full stack of praetorians....no idea how they fund a full death stack but i guess it is a cheap way to keep someone involved since they were unable to come up with anything else.

[Alwyn]

Yes, they're mostly the same thing.

There are small differences between a secession and a civil war. For example, when a secession happens, we're protected from further secessions for a limited number of turns. When a civil war starts, we're protected until the civil war ends. I found the discussion here useful in explaining the differences and what causes a civil war instead of a secession: https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?795273-Managing-Rival-Parties-or-Secessions-for-Fun-and-Profit. It seems that a civil war happens when more than one rival party breaks away, or possibly one rival party with a lot of influence (so it takes a majority of your regions with it) - as opposed to a secession, when one party breaks away.

In my experience, 'death stacks' appear when we haven't given the rival party enough armies to reflect their influence. When I appoint some rival party members as commanders, their armies break away in a secession and I don't get death stacks. Appointing rival party members as generals can reduce the chance of a secession, as there are bonuses to loyalty for 'general wins battle' and bonuses when a general is promoted. (However, if they are killed in battle, this reduces the party's loyalty).

[Falesz]

Originally posted by garravesh:

Technically those are the same thing. Every time the senate revolts one faction disappears with 3 territories and a full stack of praetorians....no idea how they fund a full death stack but i guess it is a cheap way to keep someone involved since they were unable to come up with anything else.

This is definitely wrong, the amount of territories lost to the rebels depends on how many territories they are the most influential party in (you can check this on the strategic map) and all the armies that generals from that party command will rebel. Last night I had a secession, a completely uninfluential party seceded: I lost no territory at all and only 1 army went to them.

Originally posted by Alwyn:

https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?795273-Managing-Rival-Parties-or-Secessions-for-Fun-and-Profit. It seems that a civil war happens when more than one rival party breaks away, or possibly one rival party with a lot of influence (so it takes a majority of your regions with it) - as opposed to a secession, when one party breaks away.

This is interesting though. I did think a civil war might happen your influence is too low, since I think the feature was advertised like that at some point in the game's history: balance your influence so it's not too high, but not too low either cause that would cause problems. I didn't think the "secession" of more that 1 party at the same time would also count as a civil war.

[Alwyn]

Originally posted by Bonus:

This is interesting though. I did think a civil war might happen your influence is too low, since I think the feature was advertised like that at some point in the game's history: balance your influence so it's not too high, but not too low either cause that would cause problems. I didn't think the "secession" of more that 1 party at the same time would also count as a civil war.

You may be right, that what makes it a civil war is the influence of those who break away. In other words, if a small part of your empire breaks away, that's a secession. If your empire divides into two roughly equal halves, that's a civil war.

Perhaps when two parties break away at the same time, this doesn't automatically make it a civil war, this simply means your empire is more likely to divided into two roughly equal halves?