Can we take a minute to talk about the fact that Horde pretender events fire all of the time, like, incessantly?
If you haven't declared war in your first week, bam, pretender rebels within the first month.
You're barely out of a war and your armies are still reinforcing, bam, pretender rebels within three months of a war's end.
You've just engaged a bunch of pretender rebels that sprang up about a week ago, bam, two more rise up before you're even done killing the first.
Obviously the message here is that as a horde you should be at war whenever possible, but ignoring the fact that hordes were not always at war with everyone simultaneously, this system fails because it limits the amount of time I can possibly be at war.
Let me explain:
I'm just done with a war, and although I won, my manpower is seriously drained, and my units need reinforcing, so I decide to sit down and let my armies reinforce and my manpower regain. Big shocker, three months in, a rebel uprising occurs, and the newly reinforced army needs reinforcing again now, and I have ended up barely regaining any manpower at all since all of what I had regained I had to throw at stopping the rebellion. And then another one happens next month. And then another after that. Are you beginning to see the problem here? This doesn't even make sense from a realism standpoint, much less a gameplay standpoint, what kind of absolute dolt says "Our Xan is weak and peaceful, nevermind the fact that our nation is war-ravaged and still recovering from losses, I'm going to ravage and cause more losses because the Xan refuses to march our collapsing army towards a well-organised and prepared target! I'm sure that my efforts to overthrow him will result in our nation being far more war ready, what with the fact that I'll be killing the army that's already strained for recruits!" you know, maybe I'll march to war once in a while if these morons didn't keep killing my army all of the time?
There are really currently two solutions for a player:
1. Enter a war against a weaker opponent and just stand your armies at their borders until your manpowers is regained.
2. Get a far away ally who'll drag you into a war that you don't intend on really fighting in anyway.
Both of which are really contrary to the purpose of this mechanic and actively encourage players to join wars to not fight in them, rather than joining wars and fighting in them as they should.
The event already doesn't fire at low war exhaustion, but this just encourages horde players to do everything to increase war exhaustion so their manpower can recover, really these events are tied to the wrong variable.
If you haven't declared war in your first week, bam, pretender rebels within the first month.
You're barely out of a war and your armies are still reinforcing, bam, pretender rebels within three months of a war's end.
You've just engaged a bunch of pretender rebels that sprang up about a week ago, bam, two more rise up before you're even done killing the first.
Obviously the message here is that as a horde you should be at war whenever possible, but ignoring the fact that hordes were not always at war with everyone simultaneously, this system fails because it limits the amount of time I can possibly be at war.
Let me explain:
I'm just done with a war, and although I won, my manpower is seriously drained, and my units need reinforcing, so I decide to sit down and let my armies reinforce and my manpower regain. Big shocker, three months in, a rebel uprising occurs, and the newly reinforced army needs reinforcing again now, and I have ended up barely regaining any manpower at all since all of what I had regained I had to throw at stopping the rebellion. And then another one happens next month. And then another after that. Are you beginning to see the problem here? This doesn't even make sense from a realism standpoint, much less a gameplay standpoint, what kind of absolute dolt says "Our Xan is weak and peaceful, nevermind the fact that our nation is war-ravaged and still recovering from losses, I'm going to ravage and cause more losses because the Xan refuses to march our collapsing army towards a well-organised and prepared target! I'm sure that my efforts to overthrow him will result in our nation being far more war ready, what with the fact that I'll be killing the army that's already strained for recruits!" you know, maybe I'll march to war once in a while if these morons didn't keep killing my army all of the time?
There are really currently two solutions for a player:
1. Enter a war against a weaker opponent and just stand your armies at their borders until your manpowers is regained.
2. Get a far away ally who'll drag you into a war that you don't intend on really fighting in anyway.
Both of which are really contrary to the purpose of this mechanic and actively encourage players to join wars to not fight in them, rather than joining wars and fighting in them as they should.
The event already doesn't fire at low war exhaustion, but this just encourages horde players to do everything to increase war exhaustion so their manpower can recover, really these events are tied to the wrong variable.
- 3
Upvote
0
