Paradox, don't ever tone down rebels

[IIWW]

Rebels that are only a nuisance are not worth representing in the game.

The game consisting only from major chalanges wouldn't be fun either. With this logic, OPM's with no or weak allies should automatically surrender, any ROTW country should just give stuff to Europeans "just because" etc.

 

[Dogukan91]

had a brandenburg to germany game, I am quiet powerfull and don't really remember caring too much about rebels.
I was actually kind of complaining that rebels are not as serious. I was thinking that external wars towards the later era should be less and internal civil problems more due to changing society. I know there is the "revolutionary period" but the struggles for constitutions etc and class-based conflict starts way earlier in serious ways. The Englsih civil war for instance should not be something that only happens in England but should have echoes in rest of the Europe triggering parliamentary or republicans from 16th century and onwards. There should in fact be generic event chains that occur under certain circumstances(most importantly depending on economic conditions).

 

[Pilot00]

Rebels that are only a nuisance are not worth representing in the game.

Therefore the current rebel system is not worth of existing as it has been established, an experienced player will only face revolts through events.

 

[SerFishy]

Also, weird rebels sometimes appear on the list: Syrian rebels for Karaman etc.