In Europa Universalis 4, taking any and all land makes one’s country stronger. The reason for this is, in game design terms, that rebel whack-a-mole just isn’t fun. This in turn fuels the problem that decent players experience negligible challenge in the second half of the game time, no matter the start, as their countries have reached too-big-to fail size.
This is a rebel rework proposal that would (hopefully) solve these problems, at least partially.
Rather than having a simple progress towards firing, all rebels bar pretender, noble and revolutionary would begin as guerrillas. When conditions are met, provinces gain such a modifier of the type(s) of rebels that would spawn there. The number of guerrillas would be indicated, and the more guerrillas, the more devastation would occur in the province. As numbers pile up, the guerrilla would spread to suitable neighboring provinces. When numbers would reach a certain proportion of development, the province would become rebel occupied, and when rebels gained sufficient strength, they would spawn a stack which would function as a conventional rebel army.
The standard way to stop guerrillas would be with a maintained army on the afflicted province. This would suffer casualties; almost always fewer than the guerrillas, and proportionally fewer the fewer guerrillas there are. The insurgency could also be halted or lessened by harsh treatment or raising autonomy – any way you’d deal with an oncoming rebellion foreseen with the magic clairvoyance screen.
Guerrillas in high development areas move swiftly towards uprising, with the opposite being the case in lower dev areas. (Yes, in your most valuable land, you want the traitors purged pronto to stop terrible things from happening.) The other side of the coin is, that your men take far fewer casualties per dead/retired guerrilla in farmland, and more in plains, more still in hills, etcetera. Should Ming have a guerrilla break out in the jungles of Annam, it will probably take A LOT of time, money or political capital to keep control of the area.
Why not just move the men out and let the traitors enter the open? Simple: crushing the revolt only causes regular army casualties to the rebels, while the rest will resume their asymmetric war. This means it is sometimes worth provoking an open battle, but usually not; the player must make a judgement call.
Such a system could theoretically remove the need for many of this game’s exceedingly gamey mechanics, such as overextention, the 100 warscore peace deal limit, and of course the psychic part of the Stability and Expansion tab. I’m not advocating any of these, but I do believe that guerrillas have the potential to fundamentally improve both the fun and realism of the game.
This is a rebel rework proposal that would (hopefully) solve these problems, at least partially.
Rather than having a simple progress towards firing, all rebels bar pretender, noble and revolutionary would begin as guerrillas. When conditions are met, provinces gain such a modifier of the type(s) of rebels that would spawn there. The number of guerrillas would be indicated, and the more guerrillas, the more devastation would occur in the province. As numbers pile up, the guerrilla would spread to suitable neighboring provinces. When numbers would reach a certain proportion of development, the province would become rebel occupied, and when rebels gained sufficient strength, they would spawn a stack which would function as a conventional rebel army.
The standard way to stop guerrillas would be with a maintained army on the afflicted province. This would suffer casualties; almost always fewer than the guerrillas, and proportionally fewer the fewer guerrillas there are. The insurgency could also be halted or lessened by harsh treatment or raising autonomy – any way you’d deal with an oncoming rebellion foreseen with the magic clairvoyance screen.
Guerrillas in high development areas move swiftly towards uprising, with the opposite being the case in lower dev areas. (Yes, in your most valuable land, you want the traitors purged pronto to stop terrible things from happening.) The other side of the coin is, that your men take far fewer casualties per dead/retired guerrilla in farmland, and more in plains, more still in hills, etcetera. Should Ming have a guerrilla break out in the jungles of Annam, it will probably take A LOT of time, money or political capital to keep control of the area.
Why not just move the men out and let the traitors enter the open? Simple: crushing the revolt only causes regular army casualties to the rebels, while the rest will resume their asymmetric war. This means it is sometimes worth provoking an open battle, but usually not; the player must make a judgement call.
Such a system could theoretically remove the need for many of this game’s exceedingly gamey mechanics, such as overextention, the 100 warscore peace deal limit, and of course the psychic part of the Stability and Expansion tab. I’m not advocating any of these, but I do believe that guerrillas have the potential to fundamentally improve both the fun and realism of the game.
- 1
Upvote
0
