Game Design Flaw - CS and Westernization

[TheGrouch91]

If there's no fort in the province, it makes sense to me: the rebel army springs forth because the province itself is in rebellion. That means that the province itself should start rebel-occupied, unless you own a fort there.

If you don't want to suffer the on-siege-won effect, either build a fort next to it/on it, or use harsh treatment.

If armies are unable to deal with rebels then why do I get an -unrest bonus when I have an army there? Clearly they are useful for supressing rebels. No one can occupy a province while there is an army defending it but rebels can? Why?

And there are a ton of random events that spawn rebels that you cannot really foresee. I cant just build a fort there within 6 months. Theoretically from a design perspective you couldnt even wait and just unmothball forts while the event window is open. (doing things while there are serious events happening is arguebly a bit gamey) So you basically have to have your forts unmothballed unless you want some random event to convert your province and there is literally nothing you can do.

 

[zdlugasz]

The good thing about this new mechanics is that quite often you do want the rebels to take over. And manual control we now have over forts is great for that. So if made to choose between the two, I'd pick the current version.

The only "positive" rebels are
- rebels changing you into republic, but they were extremally rare in previous patches
- zealots if you want to change religion, and you do it once per every 10th or 20th game, and if they are wrong religion zealots (overwriting province you just converted) they are no fun at all
- pretenders, but unless you are playing horde I do not know if a mechanism to get them reliably exist (when you need them)

Probably the most common rebels are
- separatists - give you extra nationalism
- particularist and peasants - not good as well
- during westernization nothing good comes out rebels

 

[Alliegorical]

No one can occupy a province while there is an army defending it but rebels can? Why?

When the province rebels, the rebels are not "occupying" the province. The province is the rebellion. You must occupy it.

And there are a ton of random events that spawn rebels that you cannot really foresee. I cant just build a fort there within 6 months. Theoretically from a design perspective you couldnt even wait and just unmothball forts while the event window is open. (doing things while there are serious events happening is arguebly a bit gamey) So you basically have to have your forts unmothballed unless you want some random event to convert your province and there is literally nothing you can do.

Sometimes bad luck happens. None of the on-siege-won effects are as bad as a comet, but I can't remember the last time someone complained about those.

 

[Sir-Rogers]

The OP doesn't understand how to effectively utilize the new fort mechanic. That is the issue.

removed - Had a dad

I clearly stated that my post is only relevant for countries with an unfortunate position.

Not part of this discussion topic is the fact, as some people stated, that there may be some bugs with the new systems, rebel instataking provinces. I think I've seen that happen, but I can't confirm it at this moment.

 

[Aries666]

To expand on my previous (somewhat less than helpful remark), westernisation isn't broken for anyone you just need to prepare in advance. Westernisation causes +5 unrest so ideally you want your global unrest + true faith tolerance to be better than -5 (and have high religious unity). If you are only just better than this -5 to -10 you probably want to make sure you don't have too much wrong religion/culture and that you haven't conquered many provinces recently as these may rebel during westernisation. If you plan to westernise it can be a good idea during your preparation to create vassals to hold different wrong religion provinces. A well planned westernisation should result in no rebels and allow you to continue to expand, plan poorly and rebels will tear you up and then the AI will dogpile you.

 

[Had a dad]

I'd suggest taking a breath before posting.

 

[yerm]

Sometimes bad luck happens. None of the on-siege-won effects are as bad as a comet, but I can't remember the last time someone complained about those.

This is completely untrue. A comet is one point of stability. That's really not that bad. Sure, it's worse than 10 years of nationalism, but not all rebels are the same. Westernization is totally undone if rebels spawn without a carpet covering of forts, which, since you're obviously playing outside western Europe, is the norm. Religious rebels force-converting provinces they took in a month can be absolutely devastating. I'll take 6 comets over either of these in many cases.

I don't know if it's the actual siege timers that's the problem. Frankly, I rather like that rebels can now pop up and do economic damage before I can respond. That's fine. What I don't like is that the changes to fort mechanics did not have an accompanying change to on-siege effects, or a return of separated negotiation options for certain rebels, both of which are now really glaringly showing. I think the very simple solution is just to re-examine the siege-won rebellion effects and alter them where necessary to be appropriate with the new siege/fort setup.

As for the whole OP is a noob style of coy and demeaning responses suggesting that a Najd jihad run should have forts blanketing every province... no. Stop, just no. This is an Arabian position that is necessarily going to cover garbage land; it is not reasonable to expect this MUST be blanketed in complete fort coverage 24/7.

 

[Zak Preston]

There is nothing wrong with how this is working. The OP doesn't understand how to effectively utilize the new fort mechanic. That is the issue. Westernization rebels (or any rebels) do not cause any effect until they take a province that is outside of a fort's zone of control or if they manage to take a fort. If you have 100 development, you can afford to have forts manned at all times, especially when you know rebels may appear. Having your forts spaced out so they cover all provinces is key to the new mechanic and gives your nation time to route rebellions or stall invaders.

I understand some players may not agree with the new fort mechanic, that is in another thread, but the OP just is currently playing the game wrong. It is just taking some players a bit of time to get used to the change and what they used to do. Either take my advice or just continue to fail...it isn't going to change because the design *is* working.

Wait a second! How about Separatists that take lands and add "separatism" modifier even if they didn't manage to take adjacent fort under their control?

Edit: same for religious zealots during "Religious Conflict" disaster.

 

[Monkbel]

According to the dev's that the affects should only kick in when the fort is taken.

The problem is that the effects kick in when they take a mothballed fort (which is a simple 30 day siege).

In my game, the rebels took a mothballed fort within 30 days, I got instant +15 years of separatism, and they restored the fort instantly - so it took me two years of siege to get it back.

 

[IHateThisCo]

You left a fort undefended, rebels took it and filled it, and then you had to take it back. That sounds both plausible and WAD.

 

[Sir-Rogers]

As for the whole OP is a noob style of coy and demeaning responses suggesting that a Najd jihad run should have forts blanketing every province... no. Stop, just no. This is an Arabian position that is necessarily going to cover garbage land; it is not reasonable to expect this MUST be blanketed in complete fort coverage 24/7.

Thank you. At least one person that appreciates the issue at hand. This is a game design issue for this certain case, someone would have to look over it.

One thing I could think of would be to make the fort cost relative to the wealth/development of the province? This would allow starts like Najid to have forts covering provinces without going bankrupt. Or maybe rebel mechanics need a lookover. Again it's really an issue for nations that want to/need to build wide and have to westernize, as all other rebels and events can be controlled well enough.

 

[Zak Preston]

One thing I could think of would be to make the fort cost relative to the wealth/development of the province? This would allow starts like Najid to have forts covering provinces without going bankrupt. Or maybe rebel mechanics need a lookover. Again it's really an issue for nations that want to/need to build wide and have to westernize, as all other rebels and events can be controlled well enough.

Same for Caucasus and Persia: dirt-poor mountain provinces with minimum slots for buildings. Covering those provinces with mothballed (!!!) forts will make you bankrupt already.

 

[kitemasaki]

Wait a second! How about Separatists that take lands and add "separatism" modifier even if they didn't manage to take adjacent fort under their control?

Edit: same for religious zealots during "Religious Conflict" disaster.

That doesn't happen. Hasn't in any of my games. If it did, it is likely you had a mothballed fort or a province outside of zoc. If it still happens in yours, bug report it with a save.

 

[Sir-Rogers]

Same for Caucasus and Persia: dirt-poor mountain provinces with minimum slots for buildings. Covering those provinces with mothballed (!!!) forts will make you bankrupt already.

I think the forts can add some nice gameplay changes though I have my doubts - will need more playtime to test and see.

The thing is they are very expensive to build, so making it mainly a game element for more developed nations. However with the new mechanics without every province now having a free fort and the rebel spawn mechanics from westernization ( I never have issues with religious or other rebels, since the patch that you can now control them for monarch points, and have an overview instead of them being MTTH events )

Either reworking the rebel spawns from westernization and the instant capture bugs and keeping forts as they are could do the trick, or making forts cheaper for poor regions.

 

[Zak Preston]

Here is my future colonial empire. I know that those forts are situated terribly, but I can't just remove 2 or 3 forts and build 1 or 2 instead since I have no money at all.

 

[Sir-Rogers]

Here is my future colonial empire. I know that those forts are situated terribly, but I can't just remove 2 or 3 forts and build 1 or 2 instead since I have no money at all.

Honestly the way I deal with that is by razing forts in my developed regions and keeping the ones in newly conquered regions that have predictable rebels. Mothballing the fort only reduced the cost by 50%, that's still 50% too much for a dirt poor region. I also reduce army morale to nothing whilst not at war or having to fight imminant rebels, and then ramp it up to full just before I do.

With 8.50 in mothballed forts you're in way over your head. I really only use forts against rebel spawns, as your armies will be in the direction of your war oponent, as coalitions aren't that much of a problem in the arab world as they would be in the richer regions, so you generally have a war facing one way only. The 5 you got facing Persia you can remove the front two forts. Then I'd remove your central region ones and the ones facing the Ottomans unless you're planning on engaging them, which I don't think you do. Or unless you have rebels here, etc etc. You know your game better than anyone else. I'd just say get rid of forts where you don't have rebels or where they aren't facing an agressor that is likely to wardec you on their own terms.

 

[Siffi]

You left a fort undefended, rebels took it and filled it, and then you had to take it back. That sounds both plausible and WAD.

Totally plausible that rebels in 1600 could brainwash an entire province into coverting to another religion just in a month.

 

[IHateThisCo]

Totally plausible that rebels in 1600 could brainwash an entire province into coverting to another religion just in a month.

My expansionist religious Japanese Shinto empire is converting Sunni to Shinto in the heart of Africa in 11 months. This is after I was at 28% religious unity because I got locked into the christian rebel events trying to convert, until I had to finally look up the fact that it is impossible for a united Japan to convert. At one point, only 3 or so provinces on mainland Japan followed Shinto, but I could not change religion cause reasons. Now I convert anywhere in the world with ease. An issue with religious conversion modeled by the game should not be conflated with the fort mechanics, or with how rebels interact with the new mechanics.

Also, westernization rebels only dropped it by 10 upon seizing a province outside of a fort. I never let them take a fort so I don't know how much that would have done. It was very annoying. But I acknowledge the lack of planning for it on my part. I could have had another fort or so, and waited to westernize a few years. I didn't want to wait, and did not plan accordingly. That is not a fault of the game.

 

[Zak Preston]

Honestly the way I deal with that is by razing forts in my developed regions and keeping the ones in newly conquered regions that have predictable rebels. Mothballing the fort only reduced the cost by 50%, that's still 50% too much for a dirt poor region. I also reduce army morale to nothing whilst not at war or having to fight imminant rebels, and then ramp it up to full just before I do.

With 8.50 in mothballed forts you're in way over your head. I really only use forts against rebel spawns, as your armies will be in the direction of your war oponent, as coalitions aren't that much of a problem in the arab world as they would be in the richer regions, so you generally have a war facing one way only. The 5 you got facing Persia you can remove the front two forts. Then I'd remove your central region ones and the ones facing the Ottomans unless you're planning on engaging them, which I don't think you do. Or unless you have rebels here, etc etc. You know your game better than anyone else. I'd just say get rid of forts where you don't have rebels or where they aren't facing an agressor that is likely to wardec you on their own terms.

I'd gladly remove at least 4 forts, but those Mashqiri, Kurdish, and Persian separatists will tear me apart in no-time. Also Ottomans are still very strong, and those forts are meant to slow them down while Lithuania and Poland (they are separate) are running to help me. This is not the first war I won this way in my 1.12 Georgian campaign.

 

[tjayharvey]

Totally plausible that rebels in 1600 could brainwash an entire province into coverting to another religion just in a month.

Totally plausible that the "official" religion of the province in no way reflects the beliefs of the majority of the population, and the rebellion represents getting rid of the official authorities and people who converted only because of political expediency backsliding. Even if the province was never the religion of the rebellion, it's likely to at least be close to a province that was (otherwise how did the rebels get there so fast?), so I could totally believe a significant proportion of people had already converted and were just repressed.

EU4 doesn't attempt to model population or population changes - it's all abstracted. The cultural and religious values for a province are purely an "official" or "de facto" state, and one that should be expected to change significantly at arbitrary times.