Actually 13 provinces in 30 years is quite a fast exchange of land in terms of real world.
How to deal with an absurd number of rebels
- Thread starter Autokrator48
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Yes. And anyway, at this speed of expansion - for a relatively small country -, rebels breaking amok is part of the expansionist game. Otherwise blobbing would be quite boring TBH.
I don't think the question posed here is: "Should I get rebels?" but "Should I get this many rebels?" I am a firm believer that Rebels should come in a wave like a tsunami and hit you while actually having a battlefield AI designed to defeat the nation they are revolting against just like other nations would. Rebels need to be adjusted in the quality of their nature; increasing quantity doesn't add to the game and takes away depth and strategy. How awesome would it be if you could coordinate attacks with the rebels in the nation you are attacking like you would with allies and subjects? While quantity might achieve the same goal of "punishing the player for expanding" it is a missed opportunity to add depth into the game.
That's a good idea !
Stopping blobbing countries with gruesome blobbed rebels isn't doing good.
In Art of War, they added the possibility to side with rebels already revolted, but launching an attack coordinated with rebels would be awesome !
Think Charles XII and Mazeppa at Poltava ! Sweden launch war against Russia, supporting the Hetman Mazeppa, who's
dreaming of independence ; eventualy the plot is discovered and it's just a terrible half assed revolt, so it's not the brightest example, but I get your point, and it would be truly brilliant.
Stopping blobbing countries with gruesome blobbed rebels isn't doing good.
In Art of War, they added the possibility to side with rebels already revolted, but launching an attack coordinated with rebels would be awesome !
Think Charles XII and Mazeppa at Poltava ! Sweden launch war against Russia, supporting the Hetman Mazeppa, who's
dreaming of independence ; eventualy the plot is discovered and it's just a terrible half assed revolt, so it's not the brightest example, but I get your point, and it would be truly brilliant.
No it is not. From 1453 to 1463 the Ottos took 3 Byz provinces, Athens, Naxos, 3 provinces from Serbia, and 2 provinces from Bosnia. You can make arguable claims about other provinces as well.
Of course there is the whole conquest of Levant and Egypt which was massively larger.
And that wasn't exactly rare. The Ottos took 13 provinces in Iraq & along the Persian Gulf in under 15 years just a few decades later.
Of course we can go far larger if you like - the Mughals, Manchu, and Russia (e.g. taking all of Finland in a single war) made these conquests look like peanuts.
But weren't those conquests contested by rebels tooth and nail? No. Generally large land grabs came because the military manpower to defend the region was killed or co-opted. There may be some example of a major land grab where rebels managed to break free, but everything that comes to mind is simply a foreign state contesting the land grab. Koxinga (a pretender to the Ming throne after Manchu conquest) had a huge rebel force, but still he fled to Taiwan because he couldn't muster anything near the Qing forces.
In AoW the rule of thump is: If you have rebels to large to handle, you played bad. Rebels are super easy to avoid (yes, even as small nations) and this is the way to go until you've reached the size were they seize to matter. But to be honest, once you've reached that point you won't need the income/manpower from new provinces that much either and are free to keep increasing autonomy to avoid having to deal with these kinds of problems all together.
Raising the question of the size is obviously relevant, but where would be the incentive of well done rebel management if the rebel uprising in question isn't dangerous? And to be fair, you don't stand to lose a lot. Pretender rebels don't do anything dangerous or damaging, especially since your Legitimacy is already bad. Let them siege your capitol and accept your new king.
Raising the question of the size is obviously relevant, but where would be the incentive of well done rebel management if the rebel uprising in question isn't dangerous? And to be fair, you don't stand to lose a lot. Pretender rebels don't do anything dangerous or damaging, especially since your Legitimacy is already bad. Let them siege your capitol and accept your new king.
ally timurids or mamluks and be at war constantly. The will use their armies to trash your rebels, especially if they gotta cross it to reach war participants.
If you blob, let allies trash rebels.
If you blob, let allies trash rebels.
Last edited:
How about this. For some reason peasants don't like it if you full annex a decently sized Punjab (220% OE)
(To that Ottoman screenshot) You deserve it though. Also peasant revolts can be resolved by accepting the demands. If you allow 220% OE to happen I don't think +20% LA is a huge concern.
Pfff, of course they don't want competetion to their grain production! Amateur mistake.How about this. For some reason peasants don't like it if you full annex a decently sized Punjab (220% OE)
It was just a test. Pre 1.8 I used to run constant 500% oe and no troubles. 136% was really easy in 1.8, but now I went too far. Lets see if I can get my empire back together XD
Oh please. The Ottomans did that 100 years prior to game start. The Mughals did something like a hundred fold growth in first 30 years of the sixteenth century (being sub-OPM and going to be masters of northern India). Akbar quadrupled it again in under 30 years. The Manchu handily more than quadrupled in size in this era. Similar conquests could be seen in the Beaver Wars and the like.
Large gains where quite historical.
Yeah it it kinda sad. A much better option would be that you only get revolt risk from overextention in UNCORED provinces, and then 4x as bad as normal. I only got Punjabi nationalists in 2 provinces. Two. Just fucking two. It makes NO sense whatoever that peasants object to your conquests in India. Not to speak of 'Haasa'nationalists' in all of the Arabian peninsula.
Actually, one thing I've found doing 2 1.8 games is that a good way of dealing with rebels is to simply let them happen and defeat them.
This reduces the unrest either by some large number or simply to 0. So I found that simply stationing my troops nearby then putting them on top of the provinces likely to revolt such that my units have the defensive advantages (terrain for instance) about the time the risk gets to 95% results in beating the rebels and keeping the autonomy numbers lower and thus taxes and such, higher.
If you are going to do things this way and want rebellions to rise so you can crush them and shut down the unrest in the area, be sure to *not* put troops on provinces with high unrest before getting to the 95% level as it will otherwise take longer to finally make it to 100% thus delaying you from using your armies elsewhere until you've gotten your rebel crushing out of the way
This reduces the unrest either by some large number or simply to 0. So I found that simply stationing my troops nearby then putting them on top of the provinces likely to revolt such that my units have the defensive advantages (terrain for instance) about the time the risk gets to 95% results in beating the rebels and keeping the autonomy numbers lower and thus taxes and such, higher.
If you are going to do things this way and want rebellions to rise so you can crush them and shut down the unrest in the area, be sure to *not* put troops on provinces with high unrest before getting to the 95% level as it will otherwise take longer to finally make it to 100% thus delaying you from using your armies elsewhere until you've gotten your rebel crushing out of the way
Honestly, I think overextension should give smaller base unrest, but a large overall multiplier. That way your core provinces wouldn't be affected much but already unstable regions would be exploding.
I like the new rebel system over the old one. Personally I haven't had any issues like this, and as long as you keep an eye on things it seems to be managable. For me that means responding to issues and deciding the course of the country on that. Similar with coalitions. One can't ignore things such as internal stability and diplomacy. For me that is part of the fun of the game, and where the challenge lies.
A small country expanding rapidly will have issues if there is instability and surrounding countries that do not agree with such noble goals.
The fact that rebels spawned in the mountains and with a good general, and you cannot beat them with a mercenary army. Well, that sounds more like a strategic loss of insight, nothing personal, happens to the best of us.
As a player you forgot to account for the fact that they could retreat to the mountains.
It sounds like you wanted to use the quick autonomy button like 'fix this problem' button? Well, there is something to be said for that, perhaps, if something is not clear about that process (e.g. there is a point/ circumstances won't care if autonomy is raised.)
That region is prone to rebels though (if not in Ottoman control)? Playing around that region one of my worst fears is rebels and unstability. Due to the religion tension, and surrounding countries ready to take over Constantinople for example.
A small country expanding rapidly will have issues if there is instability and surrounding countries that do not agree with such noble goals.
The fact that rebels spawned in the mountains and with a good general, and you cannot beat them with a mercenary army. Well, that sounds more like a strategic loss of insight, nothing personal, happens to the best of us.
As a player you forgot to account for the fact that they could retreat to the mountains.
It sounds like you wanted to use the quick autonomy button like 'fix this problem' button? Well, there is something to be said for that, perhaps, if something is not clear about that process (e.g. there is a point/ circumstances won't care if autonomy is raised.)
That region is prone to rebels though (if not in Ottoman control)? Playing around that region one of my worst fears is rebels and unstability. Due to the religion tension, and surrounding countries ready to take over Constantinople for example.