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.
In essence you as the player could have avoided it but didn't. So the blame still rests for a large part with you not with the mechanics. It's like saying there is something wrong with the mechanics of ARMA cause you play it like COD.
And my 42 unit strong Swedish army has only 4200 men? Imagination does not effect game mechanics. The fact that I imagine my Swedish army as 42,000 but the rebel army as 4,200 does nothing to the effects in game, which is big, usually AI countries getting shredded by gigantic rebel armies that can be dismissed by sprinkling fairy dust on them and getting lower taxes for a few years.
As for the COD/Arma comparison, it was more like "You went on an acid trip and tried to play by the rules of basic sense. You lost."
A pretender rebelling and winning is a historically normal thing. Rebellions in excess of the nation's army size is also accurate. The force limit (supported standing army) or manpower (draftable young men) figures are not a good hard cap for a rebellion that can include all kinds of rabble, foreigners, etc. Rebellions multiplying with overextension is a balance equation to prevent swathes of land from being absorbed wholesale, and is therefore going to break the bounds of realism. If they want to put a ceiling on the rebel size from oe, they need to put a hard cap on how much coring you can do at once too!
The current biggest problem with rebellions is that you cannot negotiate, which is a HUGE historical reality and an important gameplay feature that we are senselessly now deprived of. Some rebellions, acceptance should still be brutal, pretenders definitely being a candidate for brutal terms (historic "accept demands" meant becoming co-rulers or outright abdication). The other big problem with them is they multiply - one province at 1 revolt risk is never going to revolt, while 10 provinces at 10 revolt risk is a hundred times the speed. Since revolts are so rare and small revolts so useless, a "buff" to revolt chance for the first/highest revolt province is in order.
The problem in this example? The player wants to win and can't handle losing. It's like we as players have this right to be able to expand without tedium, without limits, and especially without consequence. I don't have time to wait if I click autonomy up to 65/75% to lower revolt risk for the LA to tick back down! Not to mention if I vassalize, wait 10 years, and THEN get it at 75%! The truth is... yes I do. It's ok to lose. Even more, it's ok to just not win; to be only ok or mediocre and not the best. Expanding without immediate gain from the conquests, drawbacks to your wealth and power for always being at war, and especially what that implies for a tiny country ballooning to 10x or more your starting size and/or having powerful allies like Austria that put you ALWAYS at war... that's a great change. I like the idea that if I want to use a bunch of huge ai to fight my battles, and they drag me into constant wars, my LA doesn't move... making me want to avoid unnecessary allies. I like that being at peace is actually good for my country. I like 1.8 and the changes. Some of us don't want an easy game. This low-legitimacy 0-stability 13x-expanding revolt is hardly a problem. Expecting to do this without vassals, without stability, without legitimacy, and without consequence? THAT is a problem.
The current biggest problem with rebellions is that you cannot negotiate, which is a HUGE historical reality and an important gameplay feature that we are senselessly now deprived of. Some rebellions, acceptance should still be brutal, pretenders definitely being a candidate for brutal terms (historic "accept demands" meant becoming co-rulers or outright abdication). The other big problem with them is they multiply - one province at 1 revolt risk is never going to revolt, while 10 provinces at 10 revolt risk is a hundred times the speed. Since revolts are so rare and small revolts so useless, a "buff" to revolt chance for the first/highest revolt province is in order.
The problem in this example? The player wants to win and can't handle losing. It's like we as players have this right to be able to expand without tedium, without limits, and especially without consequence. I don't have time to wait if I click autonomy up to 65/75% to lower revolt risk for the LA to tick back down! Not to mention if I vassalize, wait 10 years, and THEN get it at 75%! The truth is... yes I do. It's ok to lose. Even more, it's ok to just not win; to be only ok or mediocre and not the best. Expanding without immediate gain from the conquests, drawbacks to your wealth and power for always being at war, and especially what that implies for a tiny country ballooning to 10x or more your starting size and/or having powerful allies like Austria that put you ALWAYS at war... that's a great change. I like the idea that if I want to use a bunch of huge ai to fight my battles, and they drag me into constant wars, my LA doesn't move... making me want to avoid unnecessary allies. I like that being at peace is actually good for my country. I like 1.8 and the changes. Some of us don't want an easy game. This low-legitimacy 0-stability 13x-expanding revolt is hardly a problem. Expecting to do this without vassals, without stability, without legitimacy, and without consequence? THAT is a problem.
What I hate is that rebels that force their demands somehow create a truce.
What I like is that if it's your vassal that lost the territory in such a way, this truce is not applicable to you, and neither is the nationalism when you retake it for them if they managed to core it first.
Anyway, rebellions are designed as an unrealistic screw you, so the way to "deal with" them is to not deal with them in most cases, simply avoiding rebellion. The other way is to deliberately separate rebellion types so that those that do rise become manageable.
What I like is that if it's your vassal that lost the territory in such a way, this truce is not applicable to you, and neither is the nationalism when you retake it for them if they managed to core it first.
Anyway, rebellions are designed as an unrealistic screw you, so the way to "deal with" them is to not deal with them in most cases, simply avoiding rebellion. The other way is to deliberately separate rebellion types so that those that do rise become manageable.
I've been practicing avoidance, and it works much better than it did in 1.6 and 1.7. I haven't gotten one of these massive rebel breakouts, but it doesn't look pretty in the screenshots I've seen.
If the rebels spawn in mountains though, let them siege the province and try to get them to move into you in mountains. Like any other army, you want them attacking you, even if you have to split up to a few provinces and merge when they pick a direction. For the pretender rebels, kill the pretender. That still ends the entire rebellion doesn't it? For the crazy number of stacks in Circassa, uh... yeah... (I'll hold off on my rant because I've posted plenty of rebel rants in the past)
If the rebels spawn in mountains though, let them siege the province and try to get them to move into you in mountains. Like any other army, you want them attacking you, even if you have to split up to a few provinces and merge when they pick a direction. For the pretender rebels, kill the pretender. That still ends the entire rebellion doesn't it? For the crazy number of stacks in Circassa, uh... yeah... (I'll hold off on my rant because I've posted plenty of rebel rants in the past)
But a ragtag force of rabble will usually rout when faced by well trained troops with cavalry and cannons, even if it is bigger. Revolts can be big, yes, but if they are peasants, they will have few horses, cannons or good generals, and what about when the harvest has to come in? At least some army defections are usually (not always) needed for the rebels to win overall. Pretenders were usually well supported, so their succeeding sometimes is fine. The same is not true of pop-up peasant, zealot or nationalist armies - most of the time. The total absence of proper negotiations makes things worse.
You must agree at least that "overextension" as it is is a load of rubbish. Conquering Mexico makes Ireland revolt, when there are 40,000 veteran troops in Scotland just waiting to come across and crush them...sounds about right. That empire is not really overextended, or not in Ireland, anyway. Real overextension is when there are not enough troops or administrators to run the empire. Rebels do not usually rise because of the conquest of a country they could not even locate on a map.
I only really half-agree with you.
Rebel forces simulate their vulnerabilities in-game by not coordinating (the various stacks are spread and can be picked off), by having inferior troop compositions (peasant rebels in particular are a joke come mil7) and would further be helped in this regard if they either lacked generals, or lacked high AT generals, who are often the real killer. You mention troop defections; I think that's a great idea - have your own soldiers at a massive morale penalty, or possibly swapping sides, when putting down rebels! Historically, rebels were often most successfully fought using foreign troops. The other problem here is credit for successful rebellions usually didn't go to the rebels but to the foreign supporters, but in-game supporting rebels is bland and often worthless. Perhaps if a revolt triggered support possibilities for anyone rivaled or in a coalition against you? In any case, I do NOT hold that current rebel mechanics are historical, but I do feel they are better than pre-AoW as far as history and easier as far as gameplay. The big problem with rebels 1.7 and before was either them spawning in a really crappy location (some indian ocean island for instance) or spawning like 4 times before you get there and having a 170 rebel stack or other such nonsense. That's gone; now it's just a lot of them, but with a clear warning/timer and a predictable limit, as big as the total looks.
I disagree that overextension is a load of rubbish. Foreign conquest can and did devastate the homeland and cause revolt. This isn't even time-specific, the idea of going to or ending war because of its impact on home is something you can track from ancient Greece to accusations against the current USA. This is BETTER modeled in war exhaustion, which unfortunately lacks an opposite mechanic to allow wars FOR reducing unrest, but it's not as though overextension is irrelevant. Overextension due to taking foreign land is very real; it means that these home/core provinces are sending supplies and young men to foreign territory to support the ambitions of the monarch. My ideal solution is to tie the OE penalties much heavier to the coring process rather than raw ownership. Uncored land should simply be autonomous, while coring land upsets your current cores and hits your wallet.
Basically, a lot of these mechanics (rebellions, overextension, and others) are attempts to simulate things beyond the scope of what the current game can handle, so there's balance applied.
War exhaustion does not equal "overextension". War exhaustion makes sense - no one likes seeing her son some home in a box, or spending millions of currency units on it. But "overextension" only happens when the country wins the war! Foreign wars can be unpopular, but when the war ends, dissent at home would usually lower, not rise. Under this system, there is a sudden increase in unrelated revolts when the war ends and distant land is conquered with almost no further bloodshed - except for the 60,000 rebels, of course.
You would also have to admit that thousands of cavalry and cannons rising in the colonial Americas is somewhat unlikely.
You would also have to admit that thousands of cavalry and cannons rising in the colonial Americas is somewhat unlikely.
Actually I was sarcastic towards the people who said its your fault like this one:
Because lets face it, its not a mechanic problem that there is no actual solution to it, like for example concede/return the land or turn it independent etc etc......
Sigh, double sigh.....
Only if COD gave a perma jam to your gun if you burst fired 2 times emptying two clips in succession, then you could correlate it. And even then it would be a game design problem too.
Most people in this thread ignore the forest while they concentrate on the bush.
Overextension is the game's mechanic for simulating the effects that it cannot do perfectly. It is mopping up the dissidents, genocide, rape, pillaging, government replacement, bribery, simony, vassalizing, you name it that happens when the literal war ends but the army can't leave yet. This is, as I said, better handled by war exhaustion but it can't do everything. Perhaps altering WE slightly and having OE do nothing but add WE might work?
The problem is that realistically/historically, overextension involved states of constant warfare or at least open hostility that this game simply can NOT reproduce. Historically, plenty of regions were taken, and then a later peace confirmed this and made it a "core" at last, but what's missing in-game is that there was open hostility frequently through this time, and of course truces were not often kept or 15 damned years long! The game represents this historical reality of conquered land having resistance and not being accepted with nationalism, war exhaustion, and overextension. Without a good way of simulating border skirmishes, ignored treaties, tenuous claims and annexations, and all the other historic realities this game lacks... we have what we have. I don't think it's perfect, not at all, but it serves a purpose that this game lacks a simple means of bettering without altering core game mechanics. At best, you make OE just increase the effects of nationalism and maybe add to war exhaustion, and increase the time to core.
Thousands of cavalry and cannons rising in the colonial Americas was NOT unlikely. Those forces actually being from the colonies and not France (or Spain, Holland, etc) is what is unlikely. The problem here is that rebellions are an almost entirely internal mechanic instead of being heavily influenced and supported by foreign powers. If you want to heavily nerf rebel sizes across the board into nothing, I am actually ok with that so long as you make supporting rebels give them absolutely massive (hundreds of %) increase to rebel size. As it stands, rebels are "realistic" insofar as OE doesn't go over 100% and you assume rebellions are foreign supported.
What? Every rebellion has a solution. Is there such a thing as a rebellion that, by itself, ends the game? You'd need, what, nationalist rebels on ALL your land? I mean, the solution may be a new leader with a different dynasty (pretender) or it may be a new religion, or a despotic monarchy, or you might just have to lose a lot of the land you conquered... but there is a solution. You may not like the solution. You may, like the OP, feel your game is over if you have to accept this solution, but it's there.
Sometimes things go badly. Good games do that. You should NOT always win.
The important point is whether things go badly because of player mistakes, or punishments at random. Rebels despite their absurdity have shifted away from the latter in 1.8. Rebels in enemy countries still shouldn't necessarily be hostile though, especially with the huge support cost in some cases, because getting telefragged by a mechanic intended to punish a different nation for doing poorly and instead rewarding it *is* random bullcrap.
In contrast, situations where your options devolve into false choice aren't random screw-yous, just a design element that could be improved.
Bah scratch it not worth it. There isnt a point that hasn't been raised already even on this thread I am tired of this charade with the rebels since the first patches. Either you people get it, or dont.
Paradox is like the Pope, they do no mistakes.
Paradox is like the Pope, they do no mistakes.
How about this. For some reason peasants don't like it if you full annex a decently sized Punjab (220% OE)
What mod is that nice looking map?
That is not the point; it is not about winning or losing at least not for me; having said that I don´t mind losing a game for the right reasons like being outsmarted by my opponent but rebels are neither smart nor a challenge. For those that understand them too well, not well enough or/and have no tolerance for needless fantasy (or have less than a vivid imagination)/micromanagement they are only a mind-boggling annoyance. Making them at the very least plausible is the least that PDS can do.
What are you talking about?A rebellious island colony in the middle of the pacific that can muster 10 times its population and also spotting top notch artillery and guns with a 5 stat general is completely plausible.
Mind you, I only have one province left to core ; and I raised LA on ALL the provinces I conquered. Moroever, if I recall, coring is still a method of expansion, and I cored mostly turkish sunni provinces except for 2 provinces, both of which are greek, and one of which is sunni : why doesn't it work? Some starts are advantaged by vassals, others are not. If I played with vassals on my start, I probably would not have done so well because I would not have been able to get as a big of a fleet to keep the Ottomans in check.
Besides, vassals are a poor method of expansion because they take just so long to annex, and when you finally do, you just get their lands with 50 LA, which means their lands aren't even immediately useful - which you need to blob out - when you get it directly under your control. And, because it takes a long time to annex vassals, for me at least, it takes a very long to pass all that time on speed 5 since my computer handles EUIV less well since the new patch.
Thanks for assuming stuff about me.
So if I wait 50 years I get all the glory? Last I checked, this game is about expansion, territorial expansion ; and there's barely anything other than that to do in the game. Am I just supposed to let time pass for fun? Doesn't hugely fun, sorry. Besides, what's wrong with expanding as a minor power? I only play as them, because the huge starts are just plain boring ; and I am punished for it because of randomness (I could deal with the usual peasants revolt 5-10 years each, which is annoying mind you and stupid, but I still could do it), but simply my King dying without an heir and causing me to have low legitimacy and therefore 4 rebel stacks in mountains, with better equipment and leaders than me, is hardly what I would call fairness : there's no way that I can defeat those rebels, even with my allies' help, and if I lose to them, I get a leader whose name is not Karamanogly, despite my nation being called Karaman, which simply ruins the game completely.
How do I will to gain legitimacy? I can't sorry. Did I use the AIs to win my wars? Maybe in part, and what's wrong with that? Is peace good? That's nice, except that the game is only about war, there's nothing in it for peace, I'm not playing Victoria 2 or CKII. Could I have raised stability? Yeah, sure, still would have gotten that revolt ; and it would have slowed me down on getting my ideas, and would have prevented me from coring stuff. Moreover, my leader had 0 admin, I can't just spend admin points here and there. Why vassals? Why absolutely vassals? That is stupid : they take a ridiculously long time to annex, do not allow for me to get efficient - FL, income, etc. - territorial gains, especially on anatolian low BT lands, don't listen well to orders, which in turn means that if I must expand quickly to prevent dying from enemies, I cannot use those. And besides, I thought coring was a method of expansion : why doesn't it work well, even on same culture, same religion land? Is that mechanic superfluous, a sort of bad joke played on players?
They actually annex and give you lands with 75 LA, not 50. With that said, if you can't handle the rebels, I'd actually create the vassals anyways and then use the combined might of your vassals and yourself to take land for yourself. That's what I did in my Nepal game with Jaunpur very early on; they remained a vassal for nearly 200 years while I got a lot of other land using their help.
How is it unfair? This isn't some "player handicap", this happens to the AI as well if it does something stupid.