Harsh Treatment feels useless again, with the changes to rebels in 1.9

[jmbostwick]

Between the change to how rebel progress works (jumping by increments of 10-20% at a time now, instead of 5%) and to harsh treatment (pushing the progress back by 30% instead of 25%), this option has once again become a complete waste of military power, as you're essentially buying two "ticks" worth of reprieve at best, whereas before you were pushing the revolt back five "ticks". Being able to suppress rebels is a great mechanic, but only if the option is meaningful, and the changes in 1.9 hurt that.

And why, exactly, was the system changed to be less refined? Jumping by increments of 10 or 20% each month takes all of the planning out of dealing with rebels, and reverts the game back to where it was a few patches ago, before AoW, when massive rebels spawned at-will without warning. They've essentially halved the precision of the scale, and for no discernible reason as far as I'm aware. Was there some outcry against the system that I missed, or some exploit that warranted the change?

 

[Viperswhip]

Between the change to how rebel progress works (jumping by increments of 10-20% at a time now, instead of 5%) and to harsh treatment (pushing the progress back by 30% instead of 25%), this option has once again become a complete waste of military power, as you're essentially buying two "ticks" worth of reprieve at best, whereas before you were pushing the revolt back five "ticks". Being able to suppress rebels is a great mechanic, but only if the option is meaningful, and the changes in 1.9 hurt that.

And why, exactly, was the system changed to be less refined? Jumping by increments of 10 or 20% each month takes all of the planning out of dealing with rebels, and reverts the game back to where it was a few patches ago, before AoW, when massive rebels spawned at-will without warning. They've essentially halved the precision of the scale, and for no discernible reason as far as I'm aware. Was there some outcry against the system that I missed, or some exploit that warranted the change?

I also wonder why it was changed, was anyone complaining about it? I don't think so. I guess they thought revolts were too easy to avoid...yay, the least pleasurable part of the game for me rears its ugly head once again.

 

[StatikShocker]

I think its ok, If you know you can't handle a revolt (maybe you have no manpower or a small force limit) and you only have the unrest from war exhaustion, over extension, and wrong religion. basically if you see that you can get the unrest below 0 in a few years than delaying the revolt with harsh treatment is viable.

 

[jmbostwick]

I think its ok, If you know you can't handle a revolt (maybe you have no manpower or a small force limit) and you only have the unrest from war exhaustion, over extension, and wrong religion. basically if you see that you can get the unrest below 0 in a few years than delaying the revolt with harsh treatment is viable.

That's what I used to use Harsh Treatment for, but now it only delays the revolt one or two ticks, instead of five... that's often not enough time to make a difference.

 

[uwor]

As soon as PDS fixes the revolt bug, it will be as viable as in 1.8. The revolt will tick half as often, but with twice the increase per tick. I really don't see a huge difference.

Normally I wait until the alert shows, move my army to the province and spend the MP. The progress will only be a little bit more random. So not a big change here.

 

[Orosius]

"Rebel factions now progress 10% towards a revolt each tick instead of 5%, but have only half the previous chance of progressing."

Harsh treatment is 30% now, then 5% better than previously.

 

[jazzroen]

I feel that in the end the amount of time it takes for a rebel faction to revolt hasn't changed at all. or at least that's how it felt for me in 1.9

Don't really understand why this has been changed but it doesn't seem like its a bad thing.

 

[BaZERGer]

"Rebel factions now progress 10% towards a revolt each tick instead of 5%, but have only half the previous chance of progressing."

Harsh treatment is 30% now, then 5% better than previously.

Harsh treatment was for 5 ticks previously, it's for 3 now. Plus that half chance of progressing mentioned, it's not working properly.

 

[Orosius]

Harsh treatment was for 5 ticks previously, it's for 3 now. Plus that half chance of progressing mentioned, it's not working properly.

But the tick now value 2 previous tick. Then Harsh treatment is now 6 old tick.

 

[ChildeR]

The cost of harsh treatment is significantly less now, whenever you have a significant amount of unrest. For example, I have 48 unrest, which would have meant HT cost of 240 MIL in 1.8, but now it only costs 78. Even if you *did* need to do it twice to get the same effect, it would be cheaper.

That's what I used to use Harsh Treatment for, but now it only delays the revolt one or two ticks, instead of five... that's often not enough time to make a difference.

It normally delays it for a minimum of three, but 100% progress chance is now pretty far fetched – even with 48 unrest I only got a 25% chance. Meaning on average it will likely delay for a year or so.

 

[ChildeR]

Harsh treatment was for 5 ticks previously, it's for 3 now. Plus that half chance of progressing mentioned, it's not working properly.

It's only approximately half. If you have very little unrest, the progress chance is only a bit lower than it used to, meaning rebellions will happen more often. However, if you have a lot, it's about halved, like my numbers show above.

This is probably WAD, as it was stated in the patch notes:
"- Chance of rebels making progress towards a revolt is now less linear, small factions will progress faster but large factions will progress a bit slower."

 

[BaZERGer]

It's only approximately half. If you have very little unrest, the progress chance is only a bit lower than it used to, meaning rebellions will happen more often. However, if you have a lot, it's about halved, like my numbers show above.

This is probably WAD, as it was stated in the patch notes:
"- Chance of rebels making progress towards a revolt is now less linear, small factions will progress faster but large factions will progress a bit slower."

That also means you're not getting half though, to get half, you'd have to have 50 revolt risk in a faction. I don't know about others, but i NEVER went that high to begin with, so to me, it's far from halved for me.

I think right now, it just gives the faction's total revolt risk in reduction, capped at 75%.

 

[uwor]

This is probably WAD, as it was stated in the patch notes:
"- Chance of rebels making progress towards a revolt is now less linear, small factions will progress faster but large factions will progress a bit slower."

Sorry, I totally forgot this.

I guess rebel progress needs some fine tuning then. I still like the general idea, to give small groups a faster progress. I only think they went a bit too far.

 

[Atheen]

The problem with the current system is that by making the probability to progress by 10% toward revolt more non-linear, small factions are buffed significantly.

I have 3 provinces with 7.3% unrest. In 1.8, this would make 21.9% chance to progress 5%. But in 1.9 my "Stability and Expansion" tab says "17.2% chance of increasing the progress by 10%" and the revolt will be about 4.8 years, where as in 1.8 it would be close to 10 years I guess.

Basically, if you have a few types of different unrest (zealots, patriots, peasants etc.), which is usually the case in the early game both for player and the fast expanding AIs, you're screwed. But having the same amount of unrest consolidated for only one rebel faction will result in much more infrequent rebels.

For example having 30 total unrest from zealots is much better than having 10 zealots + 10 patriots + 10 peasant unrest. which may or may not make sense IRL depending on whether different rebel factions would coordinate their efforts or not I also think they went a bit too far eccpecially for small factions.

I also noticed that whenever a rebellion reached 100% progress in 1.9, rebels spawns on all affected provinces, where as in 1.8 they would only spawn in some of the affected provinces but I 'm not sure about this. Does anyone else noticed this?

 

[ChildeR]

That also means you're not getting half though, to get half, you'd have to have 50 revolt risk in a faction. I don't know about others, but i NEVER went that high to begin with, so to me, it's far from halved for me.

Yeah, well, if you have a lot less than 50 unrest while coring, you probably won't get a revolt anyway.

 

[ChildeR]

Basically, if you have a few types of different unrest (zealots, patriots, peasants etc.), which is usually the case in the early game both for player and the fast expanding AIs, you're screwed. But having the same amount of unrest consolidated for only one rebel faction will result in much more infrequent rebels.

For example having 30 total unrest from zealots is much better than having 10 zealots + 10 patriots + 10 peasant unrest. which may or may not make sense IRL depending on whether different rebel factions would coordinate their efforts or not I also think they went a bit too far eccpecially for small factions.

It depends on whether you are trying to avoid the revolts or just kick them down as they come. Three separate factions with 10 unrest is easy to avoid, but if you don't you'll face more rebellions. Seems like a decent trade off, although I haven't played enough to tell whether the numbers work.

Also, doesn't rebellion size depend on number of provinces in the faction?

 

[Atheen]

It depends on whether you are trying to avoid the revolts or just kick them down as they come. Three separate factions with 10 unrest is easy to avoid, but if you don't you'll face more rebellions. Seems like a decent trade off, although I haven't played enough to tell whether the numbers work.

Also, doesn't rebellion size depend on number of provinces in the faction?

Rebellion size is depends on base tax, manpower and unrest but (I don't know the exact formula). which is a further buff to small rebellions. Because large factions' unrest is discounted more than small factions, having frequent but small rebellions will always result in more rebel troops in total given that manpower and tax base is same.