Alternatives to rebels as a warmonger limiter - Any suggestions?

[Thanak]

Originally posted by Bossemanden
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

Well Napoleon did ran out of manpower in the end and was reduce to sending children to war.

The point is hitting the wallet won't stop the big boys and that exactly the one we want to stop.

When you have a Spain with a 20/20 monopoly in the Aztec and Inca center of trade, cash is not a problem.

As for the stab hit, I thing there are plenty of stab hit already. It's a nice idea but really would become cripling for ROTW country.

 

[unmerged(5120)]

Originally posted by Onslaught
* 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.

slightly OT but anyway:

1) the war reparations weren't due to France alone, but to all the Allies.

2) The French were especially adamant on those reparations because of those they had to and did pay to Prussia after 1871: in current money France paid about 5 trillion dollars/euros after that war.

It was considered extremely heavy at that time, but it still gives an idea of what nations could be expected to pay if they lost a war.

 

[SJG]

Originally posted by Onslaught
* 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.

I like the first one.

Unsure about the second one. I mean, I don't see why it couldn't be done in round thousands. Most countries have enough manpower (5000 for merely existing) that the rounding wouldn't be too inaccurate.

I'm afraid the third one gets a big thumbs down. There was a discussion a while back on this (before the upkeep expense change in 1.06) and the conclusion was that it costs about the same to pay an army for a couple of months as it does to equip it. This is in the early parts of the game, I would presume equipment costs go up as time progresses.

The cost of raising troops should be divided by 10 at least. This would make the cost of war more dependent on wages, the length of war more dependent on manpower and make peace resolutions more sensible. Does 'Woohoo! I got enough indemnities to raise a 1000 cavalry' sound familiar?

Using a price of 12 for 1000 infantry, a monthly upkeep cost of 0.05/month (roughly normal figures) it costs the same to pay 1000 infantry for 20 years as it does to raise them. This is massively inaccurate.

 

[Velociryx]

I like many of the ideas on display and up for discussion here! Especially the notion of less rebels but more powerful, # of rebels = -# of rebels from your manpower pool, rebels not vanishing if defeated (other armies get to retreat into neighboring provs, the rebel scots were made to retreat in a couple of instances, and they did....they did not simply vanish, tho I am sure England wished they had!), and % chance of rebels springing up in adjacent territories....all outstanding!

I also think (and a thing I have posted before) that different means of expressing rebellions would be an excellent consideration. For people with minimal cultural/religious differences (so long as there was no emnity--and lets face it, certain countries would have a good deal of that!--the rebellion would likely express itself as a morale hit in the army, lower taxes or trade, decreased production, etc.

If the *reasons* behind the rebellion were not addressed in some way, these could grow and eventually become armed and dangerous.

For occupied provinces of remarkably different culture/religion, the citizenry will likely not mess around with forms of civil disobedience, and go right for the jugular to throw off the foriegn oppressors.

Troops present should also impact the liklihood of rebellion. Too few or none, and rebels will feel daring.

Some middle-of-the-road value would be most effective.

Too many and the populace will feel oppressed, and at the first sign of weakness (stab event, war, etc), they will likely rebel.

Stuff like that.

-=Vel=-

 

[Zander]

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).

Slow manpower generation makes sense. But this is excessive. It doesn't take forty years for someone to grow into a good soldier...

 

[unmerged(15394)]

If I summarize the posts I have read correctly, I think everyone aggrees that rebels are a boring tedious part of the game. If I want to be kept busy with tedious work for an evening I will do house chores. Noone wants the game to be easier for WC, but rather replace rebellions with something that has the same effect.

I like the ideas regarding:
-increased army maintenance costs during war.
-decreased manpower

I dont like the stability hit ideas unless rebels are dramatically reduced.

I like shifting almost everything onto economy or manpower.

1)How about a Dis-Investment in Trade and Infrastructure for each month at war, to simulate virtual rebels attacking the system.

2)How about instead of a risk of revolt. You have a risk of having
-1 tax base in the province. Simulating the destruction caused by virtual rebels within the province.

3)How about. Rebels killed your tax collector in province XXX. Or rebel killed your mayor. Burned down factories, reduced fortress.

All kind of things that do not involve the player creating huge number of troops and marching them everywhere from 1 province to the next.

By reducing the number of actual rebels that appear, I believe it will also add to the relevence of rebels and make them more historical.

Maybe this can be done easily in the programming. Keep the system the same in calculating RR. But when a revolt is triggered, maybe you have only a 15% chance of an actual revolt, and a 10% chance of killing the TC, 50% chance of -1tax base, etc etc.

(just throwing some ideas out there).

 

[Dawkins]

Originally posted by Zander
Slow manpower generation makes sense. But this is excessive. It doesn't take forty years for someone to grow into a good soldier...

I think exact figures can only be determined by playtesting.

As a principle however, what worries me about using manpower decrease in proportion with WE is that high manpower countries are already considered overpowered. This would make them even more so. Using cash penalties instead would seem a better idea.

In fact an idea just hit me. People complain army maintenance is too low, which makes money less relevant to military power than it should be. However, increasing maintenance costs too much makes standing armies impossible to maintain (this is historically accurate, but constantly dispanding and hiring armies is tedious from a gameplay point of view). So, some sort of ongoing war cash penalty seems like a great way to model the cost of maintaining armies in war time, without overburdoning the player.

In any case, I think one thing everyone has agreed on so far is that less frequent, but more powerful rebelions would be a good thing. Appart from making it more fun for the player, I also suspect the AI might be able to handle these sort of rebelions a bit better than the 'little and often' rebelions we have currently.

What about increasing the proximity effect of rebels so that they are more likely to trigger nearby rebelions... would this be a good idea? Could the AI handle it?

 

[Velociryx]

Then we'd better make sure that the Knights of St. John actually deal with their rebels (they don't have any interest in ANY of the games I've played).....they'll forray into the OE area, snag a territory, let it rebel, and just....sit there. For decades.

If we *dramatically* increased the chance of rebels spawning neighboring rebels, then this could set off a nasty chain reaction in the ME (and other places), once again making rebels more feared than enemy armies, which I am guessing is NOT the goal....

-=Vel=-

 

[Judge]

I agree that the rebel feature has become to much and that you should not use rebels to increase the difficulty of the game as it is too ahistorical.

A lot of good ideas have been discussed and I would like to add that you should consider to limit the possibility to use diploannexing as well. That would make some difference

 

[Thanak]

I don't think money is the way to go. The goal is not only to find a way to decrease rebellions but also to find a suitable replacement in making WC difficult. Cash is only a problem in the begging of the game. Any increase in cost will alway hurt the smaller most.


This is nice.

Originally posted by Pan_Stretch
Maybe this can be done easily in the programming. Keep the system the same in calculating RR. But when a revolt is triggered, maybe you have only a 15% chance of an actual revolt, and a 10% chance of killing the TC, 50% chance of -1tax base, etc etc.

But -1 tax base is hard

possible outcome could be

actual revolt
destroying TC or mayor or governor
destroying factory/recruiting center/shipyard
refusing to pay tax this year (looting the province)
disrupting naval production
refusing draft (take manpower from this province of the manpowre pool)
...

 

[Stingray]

2) The French were especially adamant on those reparations because of those they had to and did pay to Prussia after 1871: in current money France paid about 5 trillion dollars/euros after that war.

Wasn't it also to cripple germany so that they would become less of a threat too ?? France lost several millions in WWI... While germany never got invaded...

 

[Zander]

Remember that anything that would require new events is a non-starter. So things like reduction in manpower pool or money are more practical than permanent province effects.

I think the manpower pool is the best suggestion so far, especially if it didn't restrict mercenaries.

 

[Dawkins]

Originally posted by Thanak
Cash is only a problem in the begging of the game. Any increase in cost will alway hurt the smaller most.
...

But it is in the later game that rebellions become really rampant. So having some sort of cash penalty instead of rebellions would help find a well needed sink for all that excess cash.

I agree if it what we were talking about was purely linked to WE then it would hurt the smaller countries most, but it isn't - it is linked to rebellion risk, which will 99/100 be lower for compact countries.

 

[unmerged(5822)]

Perhaps we could have some sort of "suppressometer", where we can allocate resources to preventing rebellions (i.e. it would basically be that we pay an amount of ducats in order to keep down unrest so that it never erupts into open rebellion). Or perhaps it could be a kind of taxation slider, where we could increase or decrease taxation levels (along with revolt risk; the slider could vary between -10 or -5 with minimal taxes and 0 at normal levels, and war taxes could then count as a temporary change in that slider, with the ability to bring the taxation level above 0 (how far depending on balance issues) for the duration of the war tax).

It would allow us to avoid unwanted masses of rebellions while not putting down the really ugly ones, and it would also give us something to do with all the money when we get stinking rich.

 

[unmerged(15394)]

Could a replacement restraint on WC be to simply only allow a maximum of 3 provinces to be transferred to any 1 country during peace negotiations.

This essentially puts a limit on growth rate due to conquest. Forcing empires to grow slowly.

 

[Johan]

I'm gonna test out a few options to reduce the "whack-a-mole-rebel" game that some players experience.

Revoltrisk going to give economical repercussions, and revolts will be much less frequent, but harder.

 

[N Katsyev]

Originally posted by Johan
I'm gonna test out a few options to reduce the "whack-a-mole-rebel" game that some players experience.

Revoltrisk going to give economical repercussions, and revolts will be much less frequent, but harder.

I like it!

 

[Velociryx]

YESSSS!

-=Vel=-
(who wonders if Johan knows just how much he ROCKS!)

 

[Zhengissimus...]

The cost of military maintenance was doubled during war in EU1.

Perhaps this feature could be re-introduced, so there would in effect be three levels of alert: reduced peacetime maintenance (slider at minimum), full peacetime maintenance (slider at maximum) for domestic operations such as crushing rebels and in preparation for war, and double maintenance when at war?

Perhaps morale could take a full three months to reach maximum after raising maintenance?

 

[SJG]

See? You harp on and on and on and on about something and sooner or later someone listens to you.