Revolts

Severion · 08-07-2007, 22:10

Here's my idea for an inclusion into the game.

If you think about it, there are probably a great deal of rebellions that simply never occured due to the fact that those who could have partaken in those rebellions were convinced that they were doomed to failure, especially in the face of a large and powerful nation.

Therefore, if the nation presents itself as powerful, and in control of its own borders, rebellions are less likely to occur, generally because the are less likely to succeed. In a way, this is a reflection of our Stability indicator.

However, I think there should be a grave punishment for "successful" revolts. Say a rebel army somehow manages to capture a city. The word of that defeat/ineptitude would go out, and other groups who had considered rebellion would now seriously consider it, since they've seen the success of another rebel group.

Further, say a rebel army somehow manages to defeat an army sent against it. Even more would consider joining the rebellion.

I propose this - a rebel victory in capturing a city should vastly increase revolt risk, and a rebel defeat of a national army should increase revolt risk as well, until the point where the rebel army was defeated and/or the rebel city was reseized.

Top Gun · 09-07-2007, 01:23

But if rebels took a far away colony it would be umfair and if a revolt took place miles away why would your capital revolt?It just cant be worked into game mechanics.

NikkTheTrick · 09-07-2007, 02:51

Perhaps, neighbouring provinces should receive a MASSIVE revoltrisk increase (something like 70%). That way, colonial revolts won't hurt the mainland, but if rebels get control of a large portion of mainland, $#!^ hits the fan

08-07-2007, 22:10	#1
Severion Second Lieutenant Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 105	Revolts Here's my idea for an inclusion into the game. If you think about it, there are probably a great deal of rebellions that simply never occured due to the fact that those who could have partaken in those rebellions were convinced that they were doomed to failure, especially in the face of a large and powerful nation. Therefore, if the nation presents itself as powerful, and in control of its own borders, rebellions are less likely to occur, generally because the are less likely to succeed. In a way, this is a reflection of our Stability indicator. However, I think there should be a grave punishment for "successful" revolts. Say a rebel army somehow manages to capture a city. The word of that defeat/ineptitude would go out, and other groups who had considered rebellion would now seriously consider it, since they've seen the success of another rebel group. Further, say a rebel army somehow manages to defeat an army sent against it. Even more would consider joining the rebellion. I propose this - a rebel victory in capturing a city should vastly increase revolt risk, and a rebel defeat of a national army should increase revolt risk as well, until the point where the rebel army was defeated and/or the rebel city was reseized.

09-07-2007, 01:23	#2
Top Gun "Check My Sig" Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Drogheda,Ireland Posts: 1,582	But if rebels took a far away colony it would be umfair and if a revolt took place miles away why would your capital revolt?It just cant be worked into game mechanics. __________________ http://top-gun.mybrute.com Make your brute and fight me!

09-07-2007, 02:51	#3
NikkTheTrick Field Marshal Join Date: May 2004 Location: I really don't know Posts: 3,612	Perhaps, neighbouring provinces should receive a MASSIVE revoltrisk increase (something like 70%). That way, colonial revolts won't hurt the mainland, but if rebels get control of a large portion of mainland, $#!^ hits the fan __________________ If you have problems with getting into Personal Unions in EUIII, adopt "keep your %@#$ in your pants" policy with regards to Royal marriages.