PLEASE don't kill me with a gazillion overpowered rebellions in this new version!

[GeneralZaphod]

This was not an issue in early versions of EU3. However I bought all the expansions last year and played another 100 hours or so and was very frustrated by the fact that in my quest to conquer the world, I was utterly swamped by a ridiculous and completely unrealistic and seriously annoying amount of rebellions in countries I conquered. Where as one would expect the occasional rebellions, when they occur several times a year, and the sum total of troops over the course of a few years by far outnumbers the total sum population of all the territories combined, I seem to feel something was SERIOUSLY broken! If you mount a rebellion and eliminate a ton of men, one would think that they are not capable of mounting another one for many years. No, not in EU3, they will rebel randomly again within a few months. They also can sometimes number like 40% of the total sum of people, which is completely unrealistic. I find myself killing say 1 million people over several years when the population may only be a few hundred k. What it does is piss me off that I have to keep huge armies around to deal with this for 50 years before they integrate. It ruins the game, and that is why I stopped playing. I play to have fun, and I have fun by kicking the crap out of the whole world. Please don't make the game suck-butt again by doing this to me. Make sure that it is actually possible for a country to mount a rebellion, not just a blind 14% chance when they just list 20% of their population a year back. Also, when you conquer by war, it is pretty hard for them mount a rebellion of any magnitude for many years. Also, indians should be able to be squashed by a force a fraction of their size. They shouldn't automatically have my muskets and power until they integrate.

Thanks!

 

[Samwell]

in my quest to conquer the world

You understand now why nobody ever succeed to do that in real life

To be honest I always felt that the rebels wasn't powerful enough. There is reason why there is no global empire in the timeframe

 

[L'Afrique]

You understand now why nobody ever succeed to do that in real life

To be honest I always felt that the rebels wasn't powerful enough. There is reason why there is no global empire in the timeframe

And it's not "a million stateless rebel armies and pirate fleets kept the great powers in check."

How many major european powers were collapsed into small principalities by rebels between 1444 and 1800?

 

[I genocide for fun]

This was not an issue in early versions of EU3. However I bought all the expansions last year and played another 100 hours or so and was very frustrated by the fact that in my quest to conquer the world, I was utterly swamped by a ridiculous and completely unrealistic and seriously annoying amount of rebellions in countries I conquered.
Where as one would expect the occasional rebellions, when they occur several times a year, and the sum total of troops over the course of a few years by far outnumbers the total sum population of all the territories combined, I seem to feel something was SERIOUSLY broken!
If you mount a rebellion and eliminate a ton of men, one would think that they are not capable of mounting another one for many years. No, not in EU3, they will rebel randomly again within a few months.
They also can sometimes number like 40% of the total sum of people, which is completely unrealistic.
I find myself killing say 1 million people over several years when the population may only be a few hundred k. What it does is piss me off that I have to keep huge armies around to deal with this for 50 years before they integrate. It ruins the game, and that is why I stopped playing.
I play to have fun, and I have fun by kicking the crap out of the whole world. Please don't make the game suck-butt again by doing this to me. Make sure that it is actually possible for a country to mount a rebellion, not just a blind 14% chance when they just list 20% of their population a year back.
Also, when you conquer by war, it is pretty hard for them mount a rebellion of any magnitude for many years. Also, indians should be able to be squashed by a force a fraction of their size. They shouldn't automatically have my muskets and power until they integrate.

Thanks!

Sorry, that was hard to read
Yeah rebbels should have lower tech, be onorganized and there should be a "fear factor", so they dont start a rebellion every year

 

[Jomini]

Of course the rebels are completely unrealistic, far worse would befall any real life world conqueror.

For starters, all those armies you have, well expect the majority of them rebel if you never send the brigade home. Your monarch? Killed by religious zealots on a regular basis (when not killed by power climbers). Your succession? An endless stream of pretenders and fratricides. Your navy? A vast sinkhole of waste and corruption ... and huge portions of it turning to piracy and petty state formation. Your generals? An alternating mass of indolent careerists and potential despots who will carve out their own petty empires.

Without peer competitors, just about every major empire in history has turned to inward in self-immolation. Fear of the other side was in many case the single biggest thing holding empires together. Look at say the Ottomans, they controlled half the Mediterranean and all of the the historic Islamic heartland at their height ... and the Janissaries decided they needed more power and privilege and began offing Sultans they didn't like. Backwater provinces on the North African coast decided they could do without the "protection" of the Porte. China, Rome, the early Islamic Caliphate ... frankly I would be shocked if a globe spanning empire in the seventeenth century didn't spend 7/8ths of their manpower fighting rebels. You just have too many single points of failure where one viceroy, general, etc. can set up his petty fiefdom to make it not happen all the time. Even if you could stop outright rebellion, can you imagine how bad your finances are going to be when you need another 4 tiers of government officials and each one is going to lop 20% off the top for their own pocket in some places?

In any event, historically repetitive rebellions were quite common. While massacres happened, normally the rebels broke and might well be back at it within a year.

 

[L'Afrique]

Of course the rebels are completely unrealistic, far worse would befall any real life world conqueror.

For starters, all those armies you have, well expect the majority of them rebel if you never send the brigade home. Your monarch? Killed by religious zealots on a regular basis (when not killed by power climbers). Your succession? An endless stream of pretenders and fratricides. Your navy? A vast sinkhole of waste and corruption ... and huge portions of it turning to piracy and petty state formation. Your generals? An alternating mass of indolent careerists and potential despots who will carve out their own petty empires.

Without peer competitors, just about every major empire in history has turned to inward in self-immolation. Fear of the other side was in many case the single biggest thing holding empires together. Look at say the Ottomans, they controlled half the Mediterranean and all of the the historic Islamic heartland at their height ... and the Janissaries decided they needed more power and privilege and began offing Sultans they didn't like. Backwater provinces on the North African coast decided they could do without the "protection" of the Porte. China, Rome, the early Islamic Caliphate ... frankly I would be shocked if a globe spanning empire in the seventeenth century didn't spend 7/8ths of their manpower fighting rebels. You just have too many single points of failure where one viceroy, general, etc. can set up his petty fiefdom to make it not happen all the time. Even if you could stop outright rebellion, can you imagine how bad your finances are going to be when you need another 4 tiers of government officials and each one is going to lop 20% off the top for their own pocket in some places?

In any event, historically repetitive rebellions were quite common. While massacres happened, normally the rebels broke and might well be back at it within a year.

While you're right, running a big empire should be tough, it should also be interesting, not tedious, because we are playing a video game for fun, not running a nation. Represent normal stagnation with interesting internal management, not endless, easily-stomped rebellions. The EU3 system is way better than what came before, but it's still dull, and it screws over the AI without being particularly difficult for the player to manage. Only significant conflicts like France's religious wars or the English Civil War should require the player jack up national military maintenance and begin fighting reguar, full-scale battles with opposing rebels, but on the other hand, those crises should be a serious threat.

In short: rebels in EU3 were easy to fight and there were no major decisions to be made about them. They pop up, you crush them, and spend the between time waiting for the risk to go down. Only the AI was threatened, and more often than not, it was threatened in ridiculous ways- you're less likely to see a Cromwell or a protestant France and more likely to see France and England implode into 11th-century feudal statelets.

 

[Wowwars]

France, france is why you cant do this quest

 

[tuareg109]

What I don't like is when a province that has a population of 5,000 spawns an 8,000 rebel stack.
[foul language redacted]

 

[Alerias]

What I don't like is when a province that has a population of 5,000 spawns an 8,000 rebel stack.
[foul language redacted]

I'm sure the US in Afghanistan, the Russians in Chechenia and the French in Mali don't think it's fair either, but sometimes a hotspot gets alot of support from external actors who share the same values as your opponent. If I want to riot, but my neighbors aren't up for it, and I hear there's a big riot downtown, well duh. Likewise I tend to interpret an unplausibly large revolt in a province as something that's been brewing for some time and brought in every malcontent from the neighborhood in one convenient place for my cavalry to 'work out terms'.

Unless its on an island. Then the suspension of disbelief sure takes a solid hit.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

I'm sure the US in Afghanistan, the Russians in Chechenia and the French in Mali don't think it's fair either, but sometimes a hotspot gets alot of support from external actors who share the same values as your opponent. If I want to riot, but my neighbors aren't up for it, and I hear there's a big riot downtown, well duh. Likewise I tend to interpret an unplausibly large revolt in a province as something that's been brewing for some time and brought in every malcontent from the neighborhood in one convenient place for my cavalry to 'work out terms'.

Unless its on an island. Then the suspension of disbelief sure takes a solid hit.

Doesn't really work for this timeframe. The only real traveling warriors were mercenaries and they fought for coin not causes.

Now it would make sense if the rebels had like patrons who supported them but otherwise on their own? no that doesn't make sense... At least not to me.

 

[Vishaing]

Also I'm pretty sure the "Population" in the province has always been pretty consistently regarded as representing the population of the largest city in the province, not the entire province itself.

 

[grommile]

Also I'm pretty sure the "Population" in the province has always been pretty consistently regarded as representing the population of the largest city in the province, not the entire province itself.

This. The population of the county of Yorkshire in 1399 was not 9000.

 

[Seli]

Luckily they removed population figures IIRC, so that irritant in gone

 

[Closet Skeleton]

And it's not "a million stateless rebel armies and pirate fleets kept the great powers in check."

How many major european powers were collapsed into small principalities by rebels between 1444 and 1800?

1, the Holy Roman Empire. Its just that those rebels are also countries in EU terms. But how many Major European powers were there? France, Poland-Lithuania, Britain, Russia, Spain, Ottoman Empire, Austra/HRE. So That's 1 out of 8. If you lessen the 'small principalities' bit then you have Portugal and the United Provinces breaking free from Habsburg Spain.

But that's still irrelevant to the world conquest issue since the only real world European power that came close to a EU3 blob was Charles V's Austria-Spain union that split between family members because one ruler couldn't rule it effectively because it was too big.

 

[Chamoisking]

I think OP went over the infamy limit and triggered a thousand "That i hear..." events.

 

[anubisfike]

What I don't like is when a province that has a population of 5,000 spawns an 8,000 rebel stack.
[foul language redacted]

The population number only represents the main city in the region. There's a vast countryside and other smaller or even larger cities around the province.

edit: I should have finished reading the entire thread before posting but oh well.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

You never get killed by rebellions if you not ruin your own country. If you do; blame yourself.

 

[StephenT]

Doesn't really work for this timeframe. The only real traveling warriors were mercenaries and they fought for coin not causes.

No, it works perfectly for this timeframe. Mercenaries fought for coin not causes, so they were perfectly willing to hire on with a rebel leader as long as he could pay them.

When the Dutch rebelled against their Spanish overlords, most of the rebel army was of mercenary origin. (A lot of Scots fought for them, in particular).

 

[GeneralZaphod]

While you're right, running a big empire should be tough, it should also be interesting, not tedious, because we are playing a video game for fun, not running a nation. Represent normal stagnation with interesting internal management, not endless, easily-stomped rebellions. The EU3 system is way better than what came before, but it's still dull, and it screws over the AI without being particularly difficult for the player to manage. Only significant conflicts like France's religious wars or the English Civil War should require the player jack up national military maintenance and begin fighting reguar, full-scale battles with opposing rebels, but on the other hand, those crises should be a serious threat.

Yes, rebellions are real, but we, America, rebelled one time in our entire history and won. Not every couple years. Sure, we were not conquered, but colonies. American Indians never mounted a successful rebellion and it certainly didn't take much to quell them. Large ones also were never very often, and typically only occurred once at which time we dismantled them.

In short: rebels in EU3 were easy to fight and there were no major decisions to be made about them. They pop up, you crush them, and spend the between time waiting for the risk to go down. Only the AI was threatened, and more often than not, it was threatened in ridiculous ways- you're less likely to see a Cromwell or a protestant France and more likely to see France and England implode into 11th-century feudal statelets.

FUN! See this is what it is about. In this particular case for my last game, I was playing as Spain, and I had only conquered the SW American Indians and the Congo/Mali region of Africa. That was it. Once done (and trust me I know how to play the Economics well) I had to basically split my entire army between them to quell the rebellions, probably about 80k troops (early game) between the two leaving not enough for defense or additional offense. Contrast this with my first experience with EU3 where as France I was literally able to conquer the entire earth (probably 95%) before time ran out which was FUN FUN FUN!!! One of my favorite gaming experiences of all time.

I entirely agree that realistically an empire is very difficult to control. But how about if England would have really taken "good care" of America and not pinned them under thumb and denied representation? Would we have rebelled? I think likely not. People can be made happy, and the game really didn't realistically allow for this other than through tax controls and the building of buildings.

At the end of the day, we do play for fun. An empire that dominates completely economically (i.e. I colonize the bulk of the world before others, stay ahead in tech, etc, etc) should be allowed a more easy domination. I would rather see a more expansive supply problem than a rebellion problem. It was always pretty amazing that I was always in supply as I was walking into middle Asia and kicking Mongolia's butt. It should be possible to create an intense supply chain, but at great, but achievable cost. This game has never really been super realistic in many ways, but my point is please don't cripple me by making one thing crippling where many things could cripple you.

 

[tuareg109]

I'm sure the US in Afghanistan, the Russians in Chechenia and the French in Mali don't think it's fair either, but sometimes a hotspot gets alot of support from external actors who share the same values as your opponent. If I want to riot, but my neighbors aren't up for it, and I hear there's a big riot downtown, well duh. Likewise I tend to interpret an unplausibly large revolt in a province as something that's been brewing for some time and brought in every malcontent from the neighborhood in one convenient place for my cavalry to 'work out terms'.

Ah of course, forgive me, forgive me.
I was thinking of the way I play the game ("realistic", beautiful borders, slow conquest, etc.), and the (in my eyes) undeserved rebellions that pop up--like 10,000 nationalists rising in Orthodox Messana, with me playing Byzantium. I'm not overextended, not in a war, I have +2 stability, I have plenty of cash, no inflation, a 10,000-man army under a great general stationed in Palermo (the province next to it). What the hell is going on.