PLEASE don't kill me with a gazillion overpowered rebellions in this new version!
- Thread starter GeneralZaphod
- Start date
-
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.
in case that isn't descriptive enough, the issue at hand may simply be the pure random element calculated of some basic national fundamentals and some limited local. There is much more at hand that the game never considers.
Er, no. First off, the HRE was a collection of principalities for the entire period, it didn't suffer some grand, EU3 style collapse.
Second, historically sized Great Britain in EU3 can easily collapse into five or so states after one bad war, so saying no one historically got big enough is irrelevant.
Third, the Habsburg Empire was split because of it was too big to manage. Not because of rebels. So, how about making big states challenging to manage? Cuz "move army slider up, right click on province, move slider down" ain't challenging.
You've basically proved my point. This crap didn't happen in history, and stuff like the Dutch or Portuguese revolts don't happen in EU3 either. In EU3 there is no grand war of independence, there's rebels that pop up at regular intervals and get slaughtered until some war ties up the occupying country, and the player is close to immune to losing territory that way.
Really, though, history should be second to gameplay, and percent-based spawning rebel stacks have not been fun in any of the many games they've featured in. I've even been playing RTW again lately. That game has random little brigand stacks that pop up and will occupy watchtowers and stuff. It's not fun there either.
The only time I've felt Rebels were "unfair" was when playing as an OPM they spawned with a larger stack than my own force limits allowed 
Otherwise, to me rebels are legitamately part of the fun of the game. Balancing how quickly I can expand with the need to consolidate my gains.
So for EU4...
One of the recent Dev Diaries highlighted how you can now spend dip or admin points to control rebels as you please.
You can also spend points to core provinces and send missionaries to convert provinces.
And I'm certain they said most rebel stacks will disperse after a single lost battle.
That said, my bet is the OP will agressively expand until rebels are a problem.
So in the spirit of Fun. Perhaps base Revolt Risk should be tied to the difficulty level selected when you start the game?
That would make more sense to me than morale, gold, or fort defense.
Otherwise, to me rebels are legitamately part of the fun of the game. Balancing how quickly I can expand with the need to consolidate my gains.
So for EU4...
One of the recent Dev Diaries highlighted how you can now spend dip or admin points to control rebels as you please.
You can also spend points to core provinces and send missionaries to convert provinces.
And I'm certain they said most rebel stacks will disperse after a single lost battle.
That said, my bet is the OP will agressively expand until rebels are a problem.
So in the spirit of Fun. Perhaps base Revolt Risk should be tied to the difficulty level selected when you start the game?
That would make more sense to me than morale, gold, or fort defense.
The only time I've felt Rebels were "unfair" was when playing as an OPM they spawned with a larger stack than my own force limits allowed
Yeah, I mean I can understand if like your war exhaustion is through the roof and your maintenance sliders are low and inflation is climbing and you income and ruler are shit; then the rebels are some sort of large-scale revolution, or at least a big unavoidable mob in the capital demanding shit to change.
But when I'm running a stable little state and an enemy happens to succeed in inciting revolt...what the hell man.
There is no more population in the game. So this should probably solve the problem of people complaining about how they 8K rebels in 4K province.
Rebels should be looked at, as they do have faults in both underpowerment, and overpowerment.
For example, should nationalistic rebels really be able to create new cores in non-core provinces so easily? That said, I do also think that the way in EU3 how easy it is to remove enemy cores with the Promote Cultural Unity decision. This can mean that if you are a nation of 10 core provinces, and a rebellion from a one-province minor manages to succeed, it can potentially take 9 of those provinces, gain cores for them, and easily remove the original cores.
Rebels should still, though, still be a significant threat.
For example, should nationalistic rebels really be able to create new cores in non-core provinces so easily? That said, I do also think that the way in EU3 how easy it is to remove enemy cores with the Promote Cultural Unity decision. This can mean that if you are a nation of 10 core provinces, and a rebellion from a one-province minor manages to succeed, it can potentially take 9 of those provinces, gain cores for them, and easily remove the original cores.
Rebels should still, though, still be a significant threat.
Why is OP complaining that the game doesn't let him do a World Conquest without annoying rebels anymore? Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
Rebels in EU3 are an admittedly poor method of creating internal difficulties, but they have already been changed in EU4, as one of the dev diaries shows.
I guess I just take exception to the ridiculous idea that conquering the world as anyone should be a reasonable goal at all. But if it is going to be, It should only be the best players, and should be a extremely difficult achievement.
Rebels in EU3 are an admittedly poor method of creating internal difficulties, but they have already been changed in EU4, as one of the dev diaries shows.
I guess I just take exception to the ridiculous idea that conquering the world as anyone should be a reasonable goal at all. But if it is going to be, It should only be the best players, and should be a extremely difficult achievement.
Rebels are underpowered if anything, they are nothing more than a nuisance. What we need is an interesting way to deal with rebels, I found CK2 does this very well
IMO, rebels should be made more interesting. Currently there is too many revolts with very little consequences.
I would greatly prefer that low levels of revolt risk (need to change this term, though) would provide tax, production, manpower and other penalties. Rest of the revolts should be bit stronger, to compensate.
I would greatly prefer that low levels of revolt risk (need to change this term, though) would provide tax, production, manpower and other penalties. Rest of the revolts should be bit stronger, to compensate.
This sentence just cracks me up.
In "a quest to conquer the word", it is the amount of rebellions you refer to as "completely unrealistic"?
:laugh:
My suggestion would be to be inspired somewhat by Victoria II and have rarer but larger uprisings, perhaps occasionally armies rising in a single string of nearby provinces to represent the weaker communication; I'd imagine that more well funded rebel groups such as patriots would be able to have armies working together in synergy while peasants flail around with uncoordinated and ineffectual masses of units. Playing whack-a-mole with dozens of pathetically weak rebel armies is no fun, but pitting your own stacks against enemy stacks should make the battles more high priority.
In the game RISK there is no annoying rebels. There you can acchieve world domination alot faster then in EU3 too without alot of tedious micro management. Wouldn't it be cool if EU-series became more like RISK (RISK is a very popular game afterall)? Simpler, easier to understand, and less micro is always better you know (sarcasm of course).
Last edited: