I am playing as an insignificant island nation on the edge of the map trying to conquer the world.
I have learned so much about the usefulness of rebels and their management. So far I have collapsed to rebels twice and had also enjoyed the peasant war. Next to use to my advantage was the civil war.
So here is a long story of my civil war, which unfortunately did not work out 100% as planned.
Now civil war starts ticking when you have below 50 legitimacy (playing long periods at -3 stab reduces this 0 for all practical purposes) and some local autonomy, which you easily get for conquering nearby provinces.
It keeps ticking if you have above 10% overextension.
So with the approach I have chosen it was kind of bound to happen.
Two choices, let the pretender win or try to religitimize the king. I like the pretender, so the plan is to embrace the disaster, kill all horrible rebels (separatists) keep the useful ones (pretenders, peasants...) and let the rebels win. All is going swimmingly until the king dies. This let's the queen take over:
Firstly, this does not actually quite look like the end. Otherwise those 48k pretender dudes should be heading home by now mumbling "Jolly good show" or something.
Secondly, this ends the disaster, because the high legitimicy queen takes the throne for four years? While they would have totally hated it if my heir had taken over?
Really, that is ok for you? Civil war ending because of a queen regency?
It is definitely working as designed, as it does exactly what the game told me it would do. Which it sometimes does not. However is the design also the intent?
For me unfortunately this has massive drawbacks. I immediately get +3 stab for the end of the civil war, which I wanted when the rebels take over. Plus there will be no more new rebels spawning preventing them from taking more than 50% of my provinces.
For the rebels to take over I would now have to wait (the horror!!!) 19 month. Luckily the queen is a crafty one and decides to move things forward:"Here Mutapa, you can have your worthless dirt back."
The second useless province pushes the rebels to above 50% and I finally get my wish:
Woaah! So what happened?
Our nation collapsed, good.
We get a new 5 6 2 ruler, excellent. Finally someone with admin.
Resetting our stab to 0, bad. (That's why I did not want the civil war to end earlier)
The previous heir died, expected.
We get a new heir 3 1 3, not so good.
He immediately dies, well that's how the kids party in 1505 I guess.
We get reconquest on some dudes? But why? I thoroughly killed all separatist, just how?
Ah, I see it now...
I only killed all separatists in MY country and destroyed their army. They did occupy a province that no one can reach in another country and thereby managed to enforce their demands. Seems legit.
Now the only way for me to prevent this would have been a no-CB trucebreak war against those guys. Which would have been totally justified as stab and war exhaustion would have been reset anyway.
Was all this necessary? Not really, I could have thrown mil points at the problem.
Was it useful? Maybe, now I never have to worry about civil war anymore, it effectively cost me no stab and I got rid of all separatist rebels for the time being.
Now I can focus on beating up some minors for their luchmoney and then go back to expanding like a madman.
However for me, another lesson learned and entertaining enough that I actually wanted to share.
I have learned so much about the usefulness of rebels and their management. So far I have collapsed to rebels twice and had also enjoyed the peasant war. Next to use to my advantage was the civil war.
So here is a long story of my civil war, which unfortunately did not work out 100% as planned.
Now civil war starts ticking when you have below 50 legitimacy (playing long periods at -3 stab reduces this 0 for all practical purposes) and some local autonomy, which you easily get for conquering nearby provinces.
It keeps ticking if you have above 10% overextension.
So with the approach I have chosen it was kind of bound to happen.
Two choices, let the pretender win or try to religitimize the king. I like the pretender, so the plan is to embrace the disaster, kill all horrible rebels (separatists) keep the useful ones (pretenders, peasants...) and let the rebels win. All is going swimmingly until the king dies. This let's the queen take over:
Firstly, this does not actually quite look like the end. Otherwise those 48k pretender dudes should be heading home by now mumbling "Jolly good show" or something.
Secondly, this ends the disaster, because the high legitimicy queen takes the throne for four years? While they would have totally hated it if my heir had taken over?
Really, that is ok for you? Civil war ending because of a queen regency?
It is definitely working as designed, as it does exactly what the game told me it would do. Which it sometimes does not. However is the design also the intent?
For me unfortunately this has massive drawbacks. I immediately get +3 stab for the end of the civil war, which I wanted when the rebels take over. Plus there will be no more new rebels spawning preventing them from taking more than 50% of my provinces.
For the rebels to take over I would now have to wait (the horror!!!) 19 month. Luckily the queen is a crafty one and decides to move things forward:"Here Mutapa, you can have your worthless dirt back."
The second useless province pushes the rebels to above 50% and I finally get my wish:
Woaah! So what happened?
Our nation collapsed, good.
We get a new 5 6 2 ruler, excellent. Finally someone with admin.
Resetting our stab to 0, bad. (That's why I did not want the civil war to end earlier)
The previous heir died, expected.
We get a new heir 3 1 3, not so good.
He immediately dies, well that's how the kids party in 1505 I guess.
We get reconquest on some dudes? But why? I thoroughly killed all separatist, just how?
Ah, I see it now...
I only killed all separatists in MY country and destroyed their army. They did occupy a province that no one can reach in another country and thereby managed to enforce their demands. Seems legit.
Now the only way for me to prevent this would have been a no-CB trucebreak war against those guys. Which would have been totally justified as stab and war exhaustion would have been reset anyway.
Was all this necessary? Not really, I could have thrown mil points at the problem.
Was it useful? Maybe, now I never have to worry about civil war anymore, it effectively cost me no stab and I got rid of all separatist rebels for the time being.
Now I can focus on beating up some minors for their luchmoney and then go back to expanding like a madman.
However for me, another lesson learned and entertaining enough that I actually wanted to share.