-
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.
the whole idea is to also represent how the ebstablishment viewed those rebellions. they didnt see them as freedom fighters, but as rebel scum.
just like everyone not christian is a pagan.
it was an intolerant worl then, to change it would be wrong
just like everyone not christian is a pagan.
it was an intolerant worl then, to change it would be wrong
I agree with you Demetrios.Most European flags are very ugly and I think the lions look gay
I like the newest sheilds for the Asian countries in the lastest IGC version.
I like the newest sheilds for the Asian countries in the lastest IGC version.
This is why they countries in Europe generally don't use those symbols as flags. They're hard to make out on the battlefield or at a distance, so they use simple things like blue-cross-on-yellow-background. The complicated stuff with lions and eagles are coats of arms, not flags.
Originally posted by Jools
Nationalistic rebellion- flag of nation
Religious Rebellion-Cross, Crescent etc...
Peasant Uprest- Anarcho Syndicalism flag
Domestic Uprest(gentry, peasant and burgeios)-hmmm... red white and blue? - for 18th century?
Really like this idea. It gives an idea of the cause for the rebellion or unrest. We already have the black and white for native unrest, too.
Of course they didn't use elaborate symbols on flags...
In the 17th and 18th century battle flags in Europe were astonishingly ornate and often and often very similar in appearence. There are many stories of Saxons and Austrians for examplebeing confused for each other in this period. Every regiment had several different banners, every little state had to represent itself and often with the same symbols. Hmm does that eagle have two heads or one and which way is the eagles head pointing?
I also think you are over estimating the easy recognition of "simple" modern flags. The US national Anthem is all about not being able to tell if it was an American flag or British flag flying over Ft. McHenry in Baltimore. Francis Scott Key was writing about his relief and elation at the discovering it was his.
In the 17th and 18th century battle flags in Europe were astonishingly ornate and often and often very similar in appearence. There are many stories of Saxons and Austrians for examplebeing confused for each other in this period. Every regiment had several different banners, every little state had to represent itself and often with the same symbols. Hmm does that eagle have two heads or one and which way is the eagles head pointing?
I also think you are over estimating the easy recognition of "simple" modern flags. The US national Anthem is all about not being able to tell if it was an American flag or British flag flying over Ft. McHenry in Baltimore. Francis Scott Key was writing about his relief and elation at the discovering it was his.
Thank's for the complements, I appreciate it
I just thought that things like religious/hugenot civil war in France would be a wee bit longer than any rebellion EU can support. I once played France when my entire European army joined the rebels, that was ~200 000(only had troops in England and America).
I soon found out that more than half of them died of attrition (I grouped them and left them in Paris and the comp didn't split them), more during sieges and by the time my army from england came they were practically non existant. There, a huge rebellion dealt with in four months, so much for hugenots!
I would just like to see the revolters, once they conquer a province, to build troops like in real life (it also depends what sort of rebellion it is). It would be a full fledged civil war! It could even last for years!
I just thought that things like religious/hugenot civil war in France would be a wee bit longer than any rebellion EU can support. I once played France when my entire European army joined the rebels, that was ~200 000(only had troops in England and America).
I soon found out that more than half of them died of attrition (I grouped them and left them in Paris and the comp didn't split them), more during sieges and by the time my army from england came they were practically non existant. There, a huge rebellion dealt with in four months, so much for hugenots!
I would just like to see the revolters, once they conquer a province, to build troops like in real life (it also depends what sort of rebellion it is). It would be a full fledged civil war! It could even last for years!
This way civil wars and rebellions would be a thing most players would avoid, therefore they would be prone to a consensus at the very beginning than avoid internal instability.
I repeat, most rebellions in EU don't scare me at all, I squash them like a bug, and they suck since they are only peasants officially.
Someone posted that no one cared if they were religious or nationalistic revolters so they all were called rebel scum, so EU is fine...
I think if you wish, you can ignore the fact that you might have a massive religious uprising on your hand, think of them of rebel scum, anything you want. Just imagine if your nation's religion is catholic and 50% provinces are catholic and the other half is protestant... and the protestants revolt. Imagine if all the other protestant provinces have a 60% chance of joining the rebellion and imagine that the rebels can train troops in protestant provinces. That would worry you, wouldn't it? And imagine that you're France and have a bunch of German states that are anti catholic protestants who supply your rebels with money???
And what do these rebels want "Increase of tolerance from 5 to 6". Wouldn't you want to destroy the problem at its roots and agree to their demand? You would think twice... at least...
I repeat, most rebellions in EU don't scare me at all, I squash them like a bug, and they suck since they are only peasants officially.
Someone posted that no one cared if they were religious or nationalistic revolters so they all were called rebel scum, so EU is fine...
I think if you wish, you can ignore the fact that you might have a massive religious uprising on your hand, think of them of rebel scum, anything you want. Just imagine if your nation's religion is catholic and 50% provinces are catholic and the other half is protestant... and the protestants revolt. Imagine if all the other protestant provinces have a 60% chance of joining the rebellion and imagine that the rebels can train troops in protestant provinces. That would worry you, wouldn't it? And imagine that you're France and have a bunch of German states that are anti catholic protestants who supply your rebels with money???
And what do these rebels want "Increase of tolerance from 5 to 6". Wouldn't you want to destroy the problem at its roots and agree to their demand? You would think twice... at least...
That's a very good argument for additional flags such as French Protestants or Royalists and Roundheads in England
Posted at the same time, mate
Anyway, if people are nationalistic revolters, they aim for independance. The problem in EU is that not all revolters aim for independance, understand me?
Anyway, if people are nationalistic revolters, they aim for independance. The problem in EU is that not all revolters aim for independance, understand me?
I think that revolts should be personalizable, even if I can't negotiate with them (which would be most cool, anyway!) I would like to read somethin more than the default revolt message. I mean, if if was a religious difference that triggered the revolt, I would like to read that the protestants in Bohemia are revolting, and if it is nationalistic, I'd like to read that the people in Hungary want to free their nation. And adding different flags for them would be PERFECT. Country flags for nationalistic (and keep the peasant sprite so it's clear than it's just a revolt yet, not an independent nation), and religious flags for religion wars.
If it's only caused by lack of stability the peasant message and flag is ok, methinks. But details and things that add flavour to a game are all for me. They are not a "waste of resources" as some people here likes to say.
If not, it all ends being a repetitious formula.
If it's only caused by lack of stability the peasant message and flag is ok, methinks. But details and things that add flavour to a game are all for me. They are not a "waste of resources" as some people here likes to say.
If not, it all ends being a repetitious formula.
The problem with that is most revolts have multiple causes and the triggering factor is often irrelevant by the time the revolt is resolved. Also How exactly can you tell the cause of a revolt? I think if one examined 50 historical revolts one would find the cause debatable in every case.
Well you can determine the factor taking into account which modifiers are present. The higher modifier can then be "elected" as the revolt trigger. In example, if in a province the revolt risk is +1 due to stab and +2 due to nationalism, then the revolt is a nationalistic one. If there would be a +3 due to religion then religion would be the cause.
And yeah, revolts were not much clear. Usually peasants either didn't know what they were fighting for, they just wanted to better they situation. But if you look at the "leaders" that supported or adopted them, they had clear agendas. Usually peasants were only tools. For example, the peasants in Catalonia revolted against the Spanish army abuses against their lands, but the leaders canalized it into an anti-spanish revolt and used it to fight for the Independence of Catalonia.
And yeah, revolts were not much clear. Usually peasants either didn't know what they were fighting for, they just wanted to better they situation. But if you look at the "leaders" that supported or adopted them, they had clear agendas. Usually peasants were only tools. For example, the peasants in Catalonia revolted against the Spanish army abuses against their lands, but the leaders canalized it into an anti-spanish revolt and used it to fight for the Independence of Catalonia.
Am I the only one who thinks it's rather funny that the Anarachist with no authority have a flag and a symbol? Isn't a flag and symbol the embodiment of some kind of centralized agreement?
If there is no centralized authority how can one exclude someone else from using something? You are a majority of one?
Also, what's up with everyone running around in black like it is a uniform? I guess it's the conformism of the non-conformists. Everyone wants to be different and therefore wears black to look the same like everyone else again.
Roger
JRM, what you're doing is looking for trouble
Cruisin' for bruisin', if you know what I mean . I agree that there were many rebellions that didn't have a clear cause but I can say that all the Polish uprisings all over central Europe in 19th and 20th century had one clear aim.I agree with you that some events triggered other events and those events triggered this one in history. But talking about historic accuracy is sometimes funny considering the main idea of EU2 will be replaying history your friggin' way
If you're a leader of a country than, most of the time, you want your people or at least yourself to be prosperous. So if people revolt, don't you want to know the source of the problem and fix it once and for all?
Having rebels have different flags, aims, and the ability to pertractate with them would be cool, would give more depth to the game considering that EU1 sitting around and babysitting your nation was boring. WAR! I say, WAR!
Besides, the computer will tell you the cause of the revolt and maybe it would be a good idea to have interlinked rebels or rebels allying with each other, like I mentioned before.
Danke Schon, ya ich bin auslander und ich spreche Deutsch gut.
That was perhaps EU1's biggest flaw. Ruling your country was so DAMN BORING. So what could you do? WAR. So all EU1 games inevitabily resorted to conquer everything mode, which is something that I am sure is not within the spirit of the game. Adding more trouble to the country everyday ruling is a way to go.
Ruling your nation was boring? haha. The only thing I ever do in EU is wage war! Limited resource management is good for me, I want to raise an army and march into France!
The one thing I hated about combat was the attrition system. I played as Russia and lost millions within completion of IGC, with only 200,000 killed in combat! Talk about craziness, build a nice sized army to take a province, you move in and siege for a few months, finally win province, but end up having to withdraw since you have virtually no army left since almost all died from attrition marching around and fighting in Poland. Such waste of troops, money, and time.
EU2 better be good, but so far I'm starting to get scared that it'll be so complex (down to the most minor detail) and be more a hassle and frustration than enjoyable.
Josef Weidt
The one thing I hated about combat was the attrition system. I played as Russia and lost millions within completion of IGC, with only 200,000 killed in combat! Talk about craziness, build a nice sized army to take a province, you move in and siege for a few months, finally win province, but end up having to withdraw since you have virtually no army left since almost all died from attrition marching around and fighting in Poland. Such waste of troops, money, and time.
EU2 better be good, but so far I'm starting to get scared that it'll be so complex (down to the most minor detail) and be more a hassle and frustration than enjoyable.
Josef Weidt
The attrition factor is quite realistic. Few soldiers actually died in a battle (I recall a battle between 5000 Austrians and 10000 hungarians ending with 115 total losses). Attrition (meaning supplies, diseases, deserting soldiers, etc...) was the highest casualty-maker factor. Long sustained wars were an army penetrated deeply inside enemy's territory were rare. That's because Napoleon comes as extraordinary.
And I think that reducing EU to just a "conquer everything" is bad. This game is much more richer. We have Civ for that.
And I think that reducing EU to just a "conquer everything" is bad. This game is much more richer. We have Civ for that.
I am with you on this one mate. The game shouldn't be too complicated, and we should have the chance to turn on/off micromanagement.
IMHO, there is nothing complicated about someone rebelling and telling you what he wants. It WILL enhance gameplay and definately NOT micromanagement. As a hardcore CIV 2 fan I know the pain of telling all 5000 of your units and 300 of your cities to do each turn
IMHO, there is nothing complicated about someone rebelling and telling you what he wants. It WILL enhance gameplay and definately NOT micromanagement. As a hardcore CIV 2 fan I know the pain of telling all 5000 of your units and 300 of your cities to do each turn