Alternatives to rebels as a warmonger limiter - Any suggestions?

[Dawkins]

With the recent changes to WE and tax collectors (in the beta) etc, rebelions are now far more common. This is a direct attempt to make the blitzkrieg style of play impossible at harder difficulty levels - great stuff!

However, some people have suggested rebels are ahistorical. That's fair enough, but my main problem with them is that they are just so DAMN boring!!! The amount of micro management required to stamp them out is just incredible... and I think most people would agree micro management is always something that needs to be kept to a minimum in these styles of game.

So does anyone have any good suggestions for an alternative (obviously not to get rid of rebels, but just to limit their number while still keeping the same gameplay effect of long wars.)

I'll just throw in one simple idea that came to my mind. Why not reduce the chance of a province revolting, but increase the severity when it does occur by making the rebels more numerous and/or more competent fighters. As an added effect, it would be good to make the revolt risk increase of having "nearby rebels" MUCH higher. In this way, small rebelions would cause an instant panic in the player, requiring diversion of larger forces to stamp them out before they break into a full scale civil war. The threat of such large rebelions would also effect the playstlye of the player, making him keep a substantial home guard, rather than the 10k cavalry that just swoops around the empire anihilating the 5 little groups of rebels that spring up every month.

Edit: After reading the post by zBla, let me just clarify what I mean by micro management being a bad thing. By Micro management I mean the sort of "work" that doesn't require any significant higher brain decision making, but takes a lot of time. I would definitely class fighting rebels this category.

 

[swilhelm73]

Well, one way to REALLY make rebels more dangerous - have them reduce your manpower #s....

So, let's suppose you have 50 manpower. You get 10K rebels - now your manpower is 40.

It makes some sense in that these rebels fighters have to come from somewhere. Presumably they are coming from your young men in fighting condition.

 

[unmerged(11796)]

Originally posted by Dawkins
... and I think most people would agree micro management is always something that needs to be kept to a minimum in these styles of game.

I totaly disagree with you, micromanagement, and the diversity of options is what gives this game it's greateness. If you disabled all micromanagement, the game would lose lot of it's charms. Than you would only go to war, make peace, and expand your kingdom... sounds familliar, eh? Well, on the countrary, I think the game should have more micromanagement, with the abbility to cede control of some of it to the ai.


And the rebels are historical, and adequate, not everybody is set to rule a country, if you lead your country historically, and don't expand too much, you can get throuh the entire game with practicaly no revolts. I recently played a game with Helvetia, and by 1705 had conquered only 4 provinces, the result was that I had only, like 10 revolts in the entire game.

 

[Dawkins]

Re: Re: Alternatives to rebels as a warmonger limiter - Any suggestions?

Originally posted by zBla

And the rebels are historical, and adequate, not everybody is set to rule a country, if you lead your country historically, and don't expand too much, you can get throuh the entire game with practicaly no revolts. I recently played a game with Helvetia, and by 1705 had conquered only 4 provinces, the result was that I had only, like 10 revolts in the entire game.

This kinda proves my point... you gain a measly 4 provinces over 300 years and you get 10 revolts (i bet it was actually more than this, revolts don't tend to stick in the mind for long )

Now try playing as the ottomans and repeat what they did historically. You'll find you spend a huge amount of time killing rebel after rebel, never with any real feeling of exitement in the "arrrrrrrrg a reblion!!" sense, rather just a feeling of annoyance and occasional thoughts of "this is the 20th rebelion this year, why am I doing this".

These ingame problems are not the same as the real life problems that limited the Ottoman leaders in their quest for expansion, and as a result I find them uninteresting and worthy of considering changing.

 

[SJG]

Re: Re: Alternatives to rebels as a warmonger limiter - Any suggestions?

Originally posted by zBla
And the rebels are historical, and adequate, not everybody is set to rule a country, if you lead your country historically, and don't expand too much, you can get throuh the entire game with practicaly no revolts. I recently played a game with Helvetia, and by 1705 had conquered only 4 provinces, the result was that I had only, like 10 revolts in the entire game.

The rebels are historical? You think? You may be the only one.

Just 10 revolts one entire game. How many countries can you name that had 10 real revolts in the EU2 time-frame? I'd be suprised it if was more than a handful (I don't think Helvetia would be one of them), and as you say that is an exceedingly small number for a whole EU2 game.

 

[unmerged(11796)]

Re: Re: Re: Alternatives to rebels as a warmonger limiter - Any suggestions?

Originally posted by SJG
The rebels are historical? You think? You may be the only one.

Just 10 revolts one entire game. How many countries can you name that had 10 real revolts in the EU2 time-frame? I'd be suprised it if was more than a handful (I don't think Helvetia would be one of them), and as you say that is an exceedingly small number for a whole EU2 game.

Good point, maybe they are a bit exessive, but, you know, live with it, you send an army here and there, raise your stab, and you are fine, it can be boring, but sometimes in times of long-lasting peace, it's actually a refreshness.

I can't help it, I symphatize with rebels, must be becouse of that damn George Lucas.

 

[Mowers]

Excellent Idea Dawkins.

 

[SJG]

If managing rebels is micro-management that doesn't require any significant higher brain decision making, how come the AI is so bad at it?

Saying that, I don't I disagree with any of the points you have made.

 

[Dawkins]

Hehe Well maybe you need the higher brain in your first game or two to work out how to handle them... after that you can switch to auto-pilot

Actually, thats a good point - why is the AI so bad at handling them? Maybe its because they weren't so common when the AI was coded? All it needs to do is learn to split its armies and have smaller armies clear out rebelions. Having said that, I wouldn't like to have to code that

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Drastically decrease the number of rebellions but make them more dangerous by:

- not having them automatically vanish when they're defeated. Instead give them a chance to survive.

- Let them get experience as time passes and battles are fought, ie slowly increase their morale and tech.

- The more experience they get, the less likely it gets they won't retreat but vanish instead.

- give them the odd leader

- when two rebel armies merge, the merged force gets the better morale & tech

- when rebels appear, decrease their province's pop. When they vanish, increase it again (by, say, 10% of the rebel force).

- give provinces through which rebels pass a net revolt risk > 0%

 

[unmerged(11486)]

I think rebels should be decreased in quantity, but not necessairily increased in quality. I think a better approximation of increased revolt risk would be decreased incomes, manpower values, and supply limits in rebellious provinces. They wouldn't revolt as ridicoulously often as they do now, nor would they be terribly difficult to deal with. Instead, the provinces they come from would suffer from poor economic development. This would be easier (I think) to code then some of the other ideas, as well as being (again, I think) more historical.

Steele

PS: Different rebels should come from different countries, with different tech levels.

 

[Bossemanden]

Another way of making WE actually be exhaustion rather than extra rebels could be to over wartime decrease the available manpower.
The reasoning behind this is that in the beginning it is easy to call up forces, but as time progresses and more and more troops are recruited, the available reserve dwindles. Also a long time under warconditions will tend to disrupt economy and therefore ability to upkeep the troops.
The main effect is not lessened ability to actually recruit new troops, but the increased cost of maintaining those you have as the max. supportable amount of troops falls.
In effect you could let each WE point count as a 5 or 10% penalty on manpower for purposes of upkeep.

Edit: this should be instead of WE meaning extra RR

 

[ForzaA]

the point is to make it more difficult to get a larger empire right??
maybe costs for tech, stab increase more drastically (and perhaps increase costs for improvements, ships and troops) when your empire grows (dont have historical arguments for that )

 

[RedPhoenix]

the point is to not have 100000 small revolts allways, but perhaps a few bigger once.

which would be great.

 

[Thanak]

Originally posted by swilhelm73
Well, one way to REALLY make rebels more dangerous - have them reduce your manpower #s....

So, let's suppose you have 50 manpower. You get 10K rebels - now your manpower is 40.

It makes some sense in that these rebels fighters have to come from somewhere. Presumably they are coming from your young men in fighting condition.

That I like very much.

Rebel are boring micro management no matter how you put it. Reducing their number is a good thing.

Another solution would be to model WE as a direct drop in manpower.

- 1 WE = -10% manpower regeneration, -10% size of mercenary available
-10 WE = 100% everywhere (that is you no longuer gain anymore manpower and you can't recruit mercenary, you have to finish the war with what you have left.

I can understand revolt for different religion and low stab, but a stable country should not revolt no matter how long it fight. If you have loyal citizen, you might run out of people for your war (hense my manpower sugestion) but they wont rebel against you.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

I agree that there should be fewer rebels in the game, but that it should really matter when they do appear. "Less quantity, more quality" so to speak. A benefit of having fewer rebellions is that the AI would fare better, considering its poor ability at handling them effectively. In other words, having less rebellions take place could very well make the game more challenging, since the "average strength" of the AI would increase (since of the weaknesses is diminished in importance).


If we look at history, the big problems of warfare were mainly a matter of money and manpower. If every tenth able man was recruited, it would have a significant impact on (food) production and growth of the country. Essentially, there was a limit on how many men you could recruit, and the numbers would grow back very slowly. The wars were also often very costly for the royal coffers, and many countries usually ended up with large debts following them (which, in EU2, would make peace deals involve more money - the winner would like to finance the war, no?). And, let's not forget one of the worst aspects of war, namely when it occurs on your soil and it is your provinces that are being pillaged, raped, looted and burned.


So, some basic ideas on what we could replace the current war exhaustion model with:
* Looted provinces stay looted for at least twice as long, and the effects on growth and income are doubled as well. War is supposed to hurt, after all, and you should do your best to keep it on foreign soil rather than your own. The British empire expanded by conquering areas often unable to strike back at the heart of the Britain, and it was the strong British navy that helped protect the British soil from foreign invasion (and the economical damage that would result). Perhaps we could also allow navies to "loot" provinces if the technology and fleet size is big enough, in order to further promote the naval aspect of the game.
* Manpower regeneration should be reduced to 2.5% of the manpower maximum per year (as new generations grow up and become ready for military service). In order to fully support this change, the manpower should not be measured and regenerated in thousands (lower numbers should be allowed, such as +532/year or +1,967/year). If units are disbanded, however, the manpower pool would be replenished by the same amount. This would have the effect that the player may have to rely more on mercenaries in the early game when manpower is relatively low, while the focus will gradually shift more and more towards "modern armies" as the countries grow and gain more manpower. I think the Prussian "military state" would be much easier to promote under this model, as well.
* The base cost of land army units should perhaps be increased a little bit, in order to promote a greater economical strain on a warfaring country.


An additional point of related nature (if wars become more expensive):
* In peace treaties, we should be able to ask for more gold than is currently found in the coffers of the opponent; the amount above that limit would instead come as a loan with standard interest rate, where the defeated owes the defeater the remaining amount. One (in)famous historical example of such behaviour is the large "war reparations" debt to France that was forced upon Germany following world war I.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Originally posted by Sire Enaique
- not having them automatically vanish when they're defeated.

- give them the odd leader

- give provinces through which rebels pass a net revolt risk > 0%

These things I agree with (though I'm a bit hesitant about the last part). As for the rest, though, I think it would be more work than value in having differentiated rebel units (I'm not even sure if the engine could handle it very well). I also think that the province becoming pillaged is a better representation of rebels appearing than a population change would be.

One thing I'd like to add is that rebel-controlled provinces should spawn more rebels, as well.

 

[Bossemanden]

Originally posted by Thanak
Another solution would be to model WE as a direct drop in manpower.

- 1 WE = -10% manpower regeneration, -10% size of mercenary available
-10 WE = 100% everywhere (that is you no longuer gain anymore manpower and you can't recruit mercenary, you have to finish the war with what you have left.

I can understand revolt for different religion and low stab, but a stable country should not revolt no matter how long it fight. If you have loyal citizen, you might run out of people for your war (hense my manpower sugestion) but they wont rebel against you.

Well IIRC not very many countries actually ran out of manpower during wars in this period (Maybe Sweden around 1720 with the warcrazed Carl XII). Hit them in the wallet instead. Reduce manpower for purposes of upkeep. In that way it is reasonable to have
10 WE = 0% manpower (makes ALL troops pay 3x usual upkeep)

Otherwise you would be crippling the with WE=8 for extended periods for some of the more agressive countries.

Another thing: let WE include stab hits at very high values (note: this is if WE does not contribute directly to RR). Example:
WE=6: Stab=Stab-1
WE=10: Stab=Stab-1
WE=14: Stab=Stab-1
This could simulate the increasing chaos as a country looses its grip on itself during loong wars.

Edit: Added Sweden-comment

 

[unmerged(15867)]

Excellent points, Onslaught.

However, there were accidents where rebel were common; just not as common as in EU2. Ukraine was sore point in P-L, with rebellion every ten or twenty years. Then Poland also rebelled at least once a generation when conquered.

Some my points to make blitzkrieg harder:

* AI. In history when one state started to expand, almost immedietely other states started to forming alliances to counting it. Forgive for examples from Poland history again, but that's what I know best: When Poland was too powerful, it faced allied armies, or her enemies (like 1634 Russia) by other neighbours. When she got too weak, (like in 1655s) Russia stopped war with her so Poland got chance to finish Swedes, and was helped by Denmark and Austria. So AI just should seek actively allies when its neighbour became too big and aggressive, and forming temporal alliances against; so too aggressive player should face war on all borders. Breaking alliances with too agressive players and isntead forming new with goal of stopping him should be common.
* War should lower trade and production incomes in provinces directly affected - merchants are avoiding unstabilised territories, less people will produce, less will have money to buy etc etc
* War losses should limit increasing in manpower. I mean, all those young men who died are unable to have children, right?
* Pillaging can have even more disastrous effects on manpower. I mean, 30y-war in Germany caused drastic lowering in population - it effectively kicked out Bohemia from history for centuries to come. Or Deluge in Poland, 30% of losses in total, 50% in some provinces.

And points about rebels:
* The higher serfdom, the bigger should be chance that rebels invading another province should be get new allies there.
* OTOH not too big rebel armies: I find it ridiculous that small province as Ruthenia was able to muste 10k armies 3 times a year, when in reality my army would burn, pillage and kill. I mean, where do they came from? From moon?
* when succesful enough, they could they support from our neighbours: I mean, there are enough accidents of financial supporting of rebels by enemies of one's state. This could be modeled by higher tech of rebels with time evolving, especially if we border with state with very bad relationship to us.

 

[RedPhoenix]

why shouldn't rebels vanish when they are defeated? I don't think in reality it took annihilation of all rebels for them to return to their farms?