How to deal with an absurd number of rebels

[Big Blue Blob]

It is still true that trouble in conquered lands tends to actually stay in the conquered lands. In EU4, the aftermath of the 7 Years War could start rebellions in completely unrelated areas on the other side of the world, including GB itself, since the whole empire is "overextended", and not just the bit which has just been conquered. Furthermore, these revolts do not happen if the country has lost the war, even though it is just as likely, if not more so, that they will start, seeing that the empire is weak, being excessively taxed and so on. Rebels seem remarkably picky about this, rising a lot more in strong empires which have just conquered a lot of land than in weak ones which have just lost land, or signed a white peace. This just makes no sense at all.

 

[Pilot00]

Are you high or trolling? I responded to "EDIT: You dont know how vassals are counters to the rest of the mechanics? My dear for the last year the game should be named Vassal universalis instead" with my statement "No, sorry, but they have ALWAYS been part of the game." and your response to me is "if you think that vassals have been a core mechanic for only a year and not the entirety of the games life you are sorely mistaken"? Are you kidding me? It's like you read the first few words of a sentence or miss that a quote is someone else and not me or something. Seriously, give me a second look; I DO actually do the same courtesy for you.

I linked a handful of revolts. I linked the one in china as an example of a revolt having the POSSIBILITY of being massive and brutal without foreign support. This revolt was considered the second most devastating event in terms of human life in history, and happened in an insular country that was the most advanced in the world. I stand by it as a clear refutation of the poster I was responding to. I also posted a series of ottoman revolts. These were not meant to demonstrate revolt size, but rather the instability that results from overextension - Suleiman the magnificent was undeniably both legitimate and stable in his rule, yet faced revolt due to the hardships of his constant warfare and expansion, and the burden it placed on society as a result. The final link I posted was the seven years war. In this example, Great Britain carved out a massive swathe of territory and the result of it was hostility and revolt. The resulting tariffs and disputes over integration and conflicts between settlers and natives led directly to the thirteen colonies' rebellion and revolt and the formation of the USA. This was a refutation of the notion that overextension cannot cause revolt. There are plenty of examples, especially in the case of Great Britain, where foreign wars caused tension back home and not just in the conquered land.


For your response to ChildeR, what are you going on about? Is the problem that the backwards territory revolts with the home nation's units? This is just a predictable game limitation - rebels revolt according to type and owner. They don't know what units to use based on some other country. It may be modifiable to use the units of a country that still exists, but gets tricky when you want a revolt of a fully annexed nations to use the units of that nation that no longer has units. If, hypothetically, welsh patriots spawned in England near game start, what are they based on? Wales and Cornwall have never existed; they don't have tech/units. They have to base it off England's units. The same logic gets applied to unrealistic circumstances when England conquers and fully annexes Kongo, and they revolt with artillery. No, it's not logical, no, it's not historical, but yes, given purely the limitations of the game, it does fit. Consider alternatives - what happens if I start as Brandenburg, conquer Mecklenburg within a year, and they nationalist revolt 40 years later? Should they revolt with mil tech 3 units because that's what Mecklenburg had, or with current Brandenburg units? You either get severely crippled uprisings OR overpowered primitive ones. No, it's not historical in this small instance; it's a game limitation. Meanwhile, basically any other kind of revolt (peasants, pretenders, nobles, etc) seem to carry the composition and technology that seems appropriate to their situation. Peasant revolts do NOT bring a lot of artillery, while nobles and pretenders certainly should and do; they'd have military backing.

So just because I misread something I must be high or trolling eh? Well dont color me surprised, manners are not something this forum is fond of. Likewise dont expect me to take you seriously from now on. The only thing I Will tell you regarding Suleiman the Chinese and whatever you post about history is this: You better go read a book about history instead of what you read on the internet, after you become amassed at what you will learn compared to wikipedia you can PM to thank me.

Anyway this thing has been discussed to death and usual nobody in the internet is willing to accept the opinion of someone else. I will leave this here and perhaps those who have a bit of clarity:

Some of us happen to have a love for history and expect the game to offer us the chance to play and see some historical events happening if you pull them right.

Someone call Cortes or Pizarro and tell them they did it wrong historically. Somehow they happened to pull the blitzkrieg conquest of two native empire in months, and their annexation to the Spanish Crown didn't mean that suddenly the peasants went mad back at home revolting all the time like madmen because "spain had overextended".

I'm going to give you a pictorial showcase of what I mean.

Note the date. 1531

Now note the date in this one. 1534:

Try to do that live in the game. Good luck with everyone revolting in your empire. Funny enough doing this kind of stuff Spain didn't collapse because "overextension" but it turned from a more or less second rate european power into a world superpower for almost 150 years.

And certainly a lot of revolts happened in the meantime, from the comuneros to the many incan revolts. None of them involved 11 thousand arquebusiers in tercios spawning in Cajamarca, however. Just goes on to prove that revolts in EUIV many, many times go well over the top of what's believable.

 

[wolffrnd]

My only issue with the new Rebel system is the God-Generals that seem to form....way too often. A lot of times, I would LOVE it I could hire them to lead my armies. They are coming out of my lands after all. Why can't I hire Generals that good?

 

[Pilot00]

My only issue with the new Rebel system is the God-Generals that seem to form....way too often. A lot of times, I would LOVE it I could hire them to lead my armies. They are coming out of my lands after all. Why can't I hire Generals that good?

Because the game needs machine support to have a long shot against the player, so instead of focusing on solving that problem, most are eager to embrace the invisible wall solutions.

 

[Big Blue Blob]

Because the game needs machine support to have a long shot against the player, so instead of focusing on solving that problem, most are eager to embrace the invisible wall solutions.

And they should not be, because it is lazy and silly. I would make a joke here if I did not think I would be banned for it.