30 years unrest for reducing autonomy is way overboard

[Kyoumen]

So let me get this straight: You support getting your game totally ruined by a chance event you have no control over. In a strategy game.

I have no words.

I support that you have choices and tradeoffs, and that taking an easy choice for profit risks you having some revolts if something unexpected happens. In a strategy game. Yes.

And if your game is "totally ruined" because you get some revolts in part of your territory, even if you can't beat the revolts, then you might as well just turn the difficulty down to easy or start using cheats. Bad things happen sometimes. You might even lose some territory. In a strategy game. OH NOES.

And apparently no one but rich European countries are supposed to use the decrease autonomy button, according to you, because they're the only ones who actually have the resources to deal with the ridiculous numbers of rebels that spawn when it does happen, and you'll have to deal with it several times since the "Recent Uprising" modifier lasts like 3 years. (I have in fact gone to pretending the decrease autonomy button doesn't exist - since I have zero control over heir claim strength or survival, then according to you there's never a safe time to use it, because 30 years is *longer than the expected duration of rule for a monarch*)

Yes, rich European countries like Inca. I don't even fricking play in Europe 19 out of 20 games, so don't push your silly caricature on me.

Harsh treatment was good in its previous form because it let you pay a price for increased predictability. That's a lot different than having a decision that will be safe most of the time, but there's a very small chance of a hugely swingy event occurring that will then punish you for 10-25 years, repeatedly, and beyond your capacity to handle even with your full army at FL (assuming you can afford it in the first place).

Yes, because there's totally nothing you can ever do to reduce revolt risk. Nothing. Ever. You can't raise stability or hire mercs or use Humanism or put your standing army on high revolt-risk provinces or use harsh treatment or just give up and accept the demands and work to come back from that. Definitely not.

It's a pity you play out of Europe, since you obviously couldn't handle Westernisation, where you will be dealing with this for decades.

 

[Elfryc]

Title says it all. This is just silly. At least let the player increase autonomy again without a 30 year cooldown. The tradeoff is already there with the high autonomy. Why stick the player with 30 years of +10 unrest with no way to do anything about it?

Yup. Interesting mechanism, that you didn't tried to learn to use.

Just as a reminder: most features in EU4 are not candies you receive freely. You have to pay the price and took your decisions according to the price to pay when compared to the benefits.

I swear I don't know how they come to decisions like this. Sometimes I wonder if there is some wacky tobaccy being passed around that office. Save it for after work guys.

I guess I'll go check the text files to see if I can mod this.

Typical primary school way of thinking. You don't understand how a new feature works and may be used, so you start insulting people being obviously less apathetic than you.

Go mod it if you want, dude. So that it may become a non-brainer decision.

 

[Knut Skallagrim]

Guys i like this new mechanic so much. Op please play a bit more and see by yourself, i can't believe you prefer the older system compared to this! When you take a new land you usually have between +25 or +30% max unrest, drop it by 10 % giving them autonomy, put your armies, core it, accept the culture or wait till you can convert it, same for the religion, and here we go you will have loooow unrest and never see a revolt at all! Autonomy does wonders! Think about italy, thanks to that we conquered an austrian land that they'll never get back, way moooore than 30 years have passed and tirol has always been (and will always be) an autonomous province but they never revolted at all. We can ski thanks to local autonomy.

 

[grumphie]

i like the mechanic, but i do think 30 years of unrest and cooldown is a tad much.

how about we cut the unrest in half but keep the 30 years cooldown?

 

[Vordeo]

One more thing I wish had happened is the ideas being changed more to reflect the new systems. I've heard that administrative ideas now come with an event that reduces autonomy, for instance, but it would have been nice if one of the ideas in that group was something like 'impact of lowered autonomy reduced by 10 years', or increased LA when at peace.

You don't get decay for raising it either.

Then that should be fixed too, IMO.

Lowered autonomy doesn't strike me as being in a bad place. Depending on how you use it, you can easily lower autonomy to a degree without getting revolts or using harsh treatment in some cases, and in others you can get manageable revolts depending on situation. In other words, it's something you use sometimes but not always and requires planning. This is not one of the bad design elements of 1.8.

Honestly, we're still in the early phase of learning the new mechanics, but I agree with that. I do like the new system well enough. I think it needs some adjustment in terms of both the scale of revolts being generated and (again) in terms of decay, but overall, I'd agree that the changes have been positive, and just need some tweaking.

 

[Neoton]

I don't really have a problem with it but I think it should decrease over time.

 

[Squirrelloid]

If you go directly from 100 to 0, then it's -6, but that rarely happens (weak claims are iirc anywhere in the 0-30 range), and otherwise you're exaggerating.

You don't need to lower autonomy manually ever, and when you do choose to do it, you have to calculate your risk. Humanist, Religious and Plutocratic all help.

100 to 20 : -5
1 stab hit : -1 to 2, depending on if it puts you negative or not.

Yes, you can potentially fix the stab hit, but its still an immediate 6 to 7 pt RR swing.

 

[Deuterium Dawn]

If you go directly from 100 to 0, then it's -6, but that rarely happens (weak claims are iirc anywhere in the 0-30 range), and otherwise you're exaggerating.

You don't need to lower autonomy manually ever, and when you do choose to do it, you have to calculate your risk. Humanist, Religious and Plutocratic all help.

You do if you're starting out small and poor and can't afford to carry a dead weight province for three to six decades. Not sure how religious would help with that?

 

[Squirrelloid]

I support that you have choices and tradeoffs, and that taking an easy choice for profit risks you having some revolts if something unexpected happens. In a strategy game. Yes.

And if your game is "totally ruined" because you get some revolts in part of your territory, even if you can't beat the revolts, then you might as well just turn the difficulty down to easy or start using cheats. Bad things happen sometimes. You might even lose some territory. In a strategy game. OH NOES.

You're right, losing half my territory to nationalist rebels in the first 100 years, while I have 0 OE and am not at war, taking way more territory than the nation they're nationalists for ever had, because of a fluke ruler death is a completely sensible risk-reward balance.



It's 1537, and you can see literally everything I've conquered. I'm about to lose that combat too, because they spawned with a 2/4 general on jungle, and 1/2 or 0/3 is the best I can roll since you can't get above 20AT going to war every 15-30 years. And yes, 17 was my FL almost 100 years in. That one rebel stack is the size of my FL, and it's not the only stack.

Yes, rich European countries like Inca. I don't even fricking play in Europe 19 out of 20 games, so don't push your silly caricature on me.

And you didn't experience your monarch dying unusually young and without an heir while decreasing autonomy, so let's not pretend you would have survived the similar situation as Inca either? I guarantee, only a rich european country could have actually put the rebels down in any reasonable fashion every 5 years for 20 years.

Yes, because there's totally nothing you can ever do to reduce revolt risk. Nothing. Ever. You can't raise stability or hire mercs or use Humanism or put your standing army on high revolt-risk provinces or use harsh treatment or just give up and accept the demands and work to come back from that. Definitely not.

I was using Humanism. It's pretty much required if you want to do anything now.

Harsh treatment. Lol. Can spend several hundred military to delay the revolt by 5 months. What a waste. Let's be generous and call it 6 months - at 20 years x 2/year, that's 40 x ballpark 2-300 military power, or 8000-12000 military power.

I did end up almost bankrupting myself hiring mercenaries, and still almost couldn't clear them. But I shouldn't have to ever accept rebel demands or hire mercs if my full FL army is standing by ready to swat rebels. Rebels should be dangerous if you're otherwise distracted, not the hardest military challenge in the game. They're somehow clandestinely supporting the biggest army in Africa out of 12 BT of provinces - that's arcade game logic.

It's a pity you play out of Europe, since you obviously couldn't handle Westernisation, where you will be dealing with this for decades.

Westernization was less of an RR swing *and* didn't last as long. (The one revolt I got during westernization was still ridiculous, but only because colonies can't have their autonomy increased, because reasons? I wasn't about to go island hopping to swat them all, so I waited for westernization to finish, and then 'agreed' to their demands that i stop xP)

 

[ChildeR]

It's not gone after a few years. It lasts 30 years. That's the whole point of this thread.

Let's assume unrest was -5 or below before you pressed it. Otherwise you probably shouldn't. You now have +5 unrest (or less) for 30 years. That's an average of 90% progress to the rebel faction. I.e. even at -5 you probably won't get rebels during the 30 years the modifier is active, and then the faction disappears. Add a couple more -1s and it's going to hit 50% if that (meaning you can have two at the cost of maybe one harsh treatment).

You need to manage the factions, making sure only 1-2 provinces give progress to each, but getting some rebel factions is not a problem if you keep them contained.

(BTW, I would drop the time to 25 years, but only because a quarter of a century is a nicer number.)

 

[Osman Pasha]

Yeah, and it takes hundreds of years for the autonomy to reach 0% I like the old revolt risk system! This game is getting too difficult...

 

[Hawkiee]

Autonomy negative sides are manpower, money and recruitment speed. What you have to do before you lower it is simply to calculate if the gain from lowering it by 25% actually pays off in terms of potential rebels and unrest. If it doesn't you simply don't do it.

Nobody forces you to push said button, except your greed. If you can't handle losing king, heir, whatever or don't have the army or money to handle the revolts you don't push the button. Simple as that.

 

[nicechinos]

Guys i like this new mechanic so much. Op please play a bit more and see by yourself, i can't believe you prefer the older system compared to this! When you take a new land you usually have between +25 or +30% max unrest, drop it by 10 % giving them autonomy, put your armies, core it, accept the culture or wait till you can convert it, same for the religion, and here we go you will have loooow unrest and never see a revolt at all! Autonomy does wonders! Think about italy, thanks to that we conquered an austrian land that they'll never get back, way moooore than 30 years have passed and tirol has always been (and will always be) an autonomous province but they never revolted at all. We can ski thanks to local autonomy.

That, it's totally historical and logical. Qazan khanate was incorporated in Russia not in a day. A degree of local autonomy was there war quite a long time before it was fully integrated in Russia.

 

[nicechinos]

Yeah, and it takes hundreds of years for the autonomy to reach 0% I like the old revolt risk system! This game is getting too difficult...

Ahem, the game is getting much easier and the old revolt system was awful (no logic behind it). It doesn't take hundreds of years to reach zero. It decreases by 1.2% percent a year. Up to 3.6% and 4.8% if you have advanced government forms.

 

[Thrake]

I understand nobody is forcing me to push that button. You're missing the point. What the hell is it there for if it's going to be such a massive malus? +10 for 30 years is too much. The only reason I clicked it to begin with is to check it out for the first time. I can't think of a single circumstance where I will ever hit that button again. If it's useless it's a dumb design.

As I understand it, you should only use it in a few rich provinces you've conquered. It's a soft cap to conquest and a real deterant to blobbing. I really like that new mechanic. In the other hand, I'm given other peace deal options to claim for something else than lands. I've had troubles with rebelions myself in my 1st AoW game, but now I know I haven't been picky enough with the button. You just can't get full benefit of newly conquered provinces from day 1 and it makes sense.

 

[nicechinos]

As I understand it, you should only use it in a few rich provinces you've conquered. It's a soft cap to conquest and a real deterant to blobbing. I really like that new mechanic. In the other hand, I'm given other peace deal options to claim for something else than lands. I've had troubles with rebelions myself in my 1st AoW game, but now I know I haven't been picky enough with the button. You just can't get full benefit of newly conquered provinces from day 1 and it makes sense.

I don't think I quite agree that autonomy is real deterrent to conquest. It made my conquest easier. RR is finally under control at the expense of ducats and manpower. I didn't have a single revolt as Novgorod, Muscovy and GH until westernisation which I got trough with -3 stab.

 

[Thrake]

I don't think I quite agree that autonomy is real deterrent to conquest. It made my conquest easier. RR is finally under control at the expense of ducats and manpower. I didn't have a single revolt as Novgorod, Muscovy and GH until westernisation which I got trough with -3 stab.

Then you get less money and manpower, which reduces the efficiency of your conquest. As horde, new provinces start with 50% autonomy which isn't that awesome in itself; you just can't conquer your way from OPM to local power in a couple of years. Earlier, revolts were insignificant anyway. It might not be perfect but it's a step in the good direction to me.

It's 1537, and you can see literally everything I've conquered. I'm about to lose that combat too, because they spawned with a 2/4 general on jungle, and 1/2 or 0/3 is the best I can roll since you can't get above 20AT going to war every 15-30 years. And yes, 17 was my FL almost 100 years in. That one rebel stack is the size of my FL, and it's not the only stack.

In this situation, beat the weaker stacks, let the strong one besiege and defend in the province where it will move. Then you can turn its +1 or +2 roll to +1 or +2 for you. Then just siege back the provinces. A minor setback isn't the end of your playthrough.

 

[ChildeR]

I don't think I quite agree that autonomy is real deterrent to conquest. It made my conquest easier. RR is finally under control at the expense of ducats and manpower. I didn't have a single revolt as Novgorod, Muscovy and GH until westernisation which I got trough with -3 stab.

Agreed, it's not a deterrent. However, it does slow down snowballing. Provinces you've recently taken are likely to be significantly less valuable than they used to be, for a longer time.

 

[nicechinos]

Then you get less money and manpower, which reduces the efficiency of your conquest. Earlier, revolts were insignificant anyway. It might not be perfect but it's a step in the good direction to me.

It's the matter of perspective I assume. You get tons of ducats by looting, manpower by building armories and conquered province do come to the senses eventually. I really find conquest much easier in AOW especially since autonomy is incorporate into WS needed to vassalise or conquer.

 

[the cool guy]

It really just needs to go down over time like nationalism, then it would be fine.

But it does?



Suggestion. Allow increasing autonomy at all points in time.