Negotiate with rebel scum?

[Owl]

Can't we do something a bit more subtle with the revolts /independence movements than the usual armed peasant uprising crushed by troops?

Like for example an "event" in which the people of Helvetia - or a large colony - demand freedom from whoever has owned them for the last 100 years but are prepared to negotiate instead of immediately starting a fight. The rebels (who might have a useful leader) would appear on screen as they do now, but you'd then get a choice such as:
1) crush the rebel scum
2) try to appease the rebels with offers of tax rebates and/or increased religious tolerance (i.e. deal with their concerns)
3) offer a "vassalisation" arrangement - freedom with strings; or
4) fine, off you go, establish diplomatic relations and start at +30 or thereabouts rather than -200.

Obviously your response would depend on your need for the province and whether you were actually capable of defeating them by force. And your response wouldn't necessarily be the end of the matter - they might not accept your terms, or they might be so upset at your decades of religious intolerance that they hang your bailliff and declare war anyway.

As a very poor historian - compared to some of these boards - I'm not attempting to justify this by reference to anything that actually happened in the EU period. On the other hand it might be a useful way of handling the 18th-century revolutions and it's not that incredible for earlier periods - is it?

 

[PatMaster]

Sounds good to me.
But it should also depend on the level of infrastructure if you could negotiate with rebels.

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by PatMaster
Sounds good to me.
But it should also depend on the level of infrastructure if you could negotiate with rebels.

I wasn't thinking of debating their demands in Parliament - more like "King rides out under white flag to parley with rebel leader" or something like that.
I suppose the degree of difficulty would be affected more by the distance from the capital, and whether they speak the same language.

 

[PatMaster]

What I was thinking about is that a king in the 15-16 century would be laughed at and regarded as a weak king if he negotiated with rebels.
It was not until much later that even was seen as an alternative for a leader to do.
The Infrastructure level would work as a 'timelock' so you can not choose to do that until the 18th or the 19th century.

 

[unmerged(4944)]

Aargh, this duplication of threads is a problem...is it etiquette to cut and paste interesting sections of previous threads into another thread on the same subject?

If so, then the person starting a thread could insert put date in subect(eg "Negotiate with Rebel Scum 15/7/01"), everyone could cut and paste their (and other interesting) contributions into that thread, and everyone would know they only have to read the most recently created thread on that subject. Avoid massive duplication.

 

[Owl]

I'd rather have the moderator merge the threads than lots of quotes.

But I thought this was a slightly different point to the other "rebel " discussions on rebel numbers, revolt risk etc.

 

[unmerged(4944)]

yeah, its a problem, oh well, for what its worth i posted this in a previous thread;

I quite like your idea of rebel demands, Carolus, it would add an extra 'decision' to be made, whether to accede or quell them, it would also make low maintenance more viable, as you could 'buy' rebels off.

Some demands might be:

Must pay 250 ducats to quell revolt (represents local nobility rebelling)

Must give greater say in national affairs effect: -1 stability (represents a great noble family rebelling)

Must abandon modern weapons -1 land tech (represents janissay revolts)

Must repress merchant class -1 trade tech (represents threatened nobility)

Must change national religion/fix tolerance at a certain level for 10 years (religious revolts)

Cannot quell revolt (represent peasant revolts)

Some of the more heavy demands might quell all revolts within the mother nation.

 

[Kedryn]

But if you give in to demands, it should increase the chance of other rebels and factions to demand things from you.

 

[Owl]

Originally posted by Kedryn
But if you give in to demands, it should increase the chance of other rebels and factions to demand things from you.

Fair enough - unless as Martinov suggested you give benefits that improve conditions for other potential rebels.

By the same token you could gain victory points if you successfully defuse a revolt, but run the risk of losing stability at home if your concessions make you look like a weak ruler.

Given that the object of the game is meant to be to do well in diplomacy and the economy, not just to dominate as much territory as possible, I think the possibility of dealing fairly with dissidents would improve the game quite a lot.

 

[Nikolai]

If I have understood your ideas right, it is in a way already in game. On this Paradox site, it is a picture of something similar(link found in the thread Weekly screenshots!. The pictures will maybe be replaced by new ones after one week. )

 

[unmerged(5229)]

Two thumbs up!!!

I mean who wants to have a huge garrison in every rebellious province when all u could do is negotiate.....
Even though personally... "If they rebel, they shall go back to their land... 6 feet under it.... hehe"

No but that would make the game so much more fun. IMHO of course.

"We dont negotiate with terrorists"
"Then why are we asking them to release the hostages?"