positive Effectes of rebel demands?

[unmerged(79411)]

Hi guys!

I was wondering, when you negotiate with rebells, could the effects of their demands sometimes be more positive?

In EU3 it's basically the last straw you have before you get overrun..
but wouldn't it be cool to make these negotiatins have a positive effect on your country, so it becomes a viable and vital part of the game?

Cheers!

 

[DanubianCossak]

Its more than possible, its perfectly doable. Just depends on what you wanna do.

 

[fanoI]

For example if you want to become a Republic being a Monarchy or viceversa should the only way in EU IV would be to accept their demands...

In this case it would be a positive effect :laugh:

 

[Zlefin]

while from a logical perspective; it could benefit a country to negotiate with rebels (could); from a gamist perspective it's going to make for poor or odd gameplay; with people intentionally letting rebels win in order to give in to beneficial demands when they could easily have crushed them.

 

[Andy_Dandy]

Hi guys!

I was wondering, when you negotiate with rebells, could the effects of their demands sometimes be more positive?

In EU3 it's basically the last straw you have before you get overrun..
but wouldn't it be cool to make these negotiatins have a positive effect on your country, so it becomes a viable and vital part of the game?

Cheers!

I have a feeling you have missed some of the game design point of rebells, correct me if I'm wrong. They are not there to reward you. One of the biggest reasons they are there is to give the player opportunity costs, consequences of strategical choices done ahead.

That said; rebells serve alot of game mechanic purposes in the game. For instance they make new nations to arise, or provinces to deflect to other nations.

 

[Schwungrad]

In some instances, the demands of the rebels might actually coincide with your goals. E.g. if your goal is to abolish serfdom, you might be more than willing to give in to the demands of rebelling peasants, even if it were feasible to crush their rebel army. However, I think giving in to a rebellion should come at such cost (e.g. loss of prestige and legitimacy) as to make these instances a rare occurrence.

 

[MrQwerty]

A bigger state isn't always better, so successful independence revolts could make your state more manageable.

 

[Duke of Awesome]

A bigger state isn't always better, so successful independence revolts could make your state more manageable.

It pretty much is in EU3

 

[Alerias]

I think that's an interesting idea worth exploring. Rebels sometimes being worth negociating with would certainly change the game quite a bit.

 

[brifbates]

I think that's an interesting idea worth exploring. Rebels sometimes being worth negociating with would certainly change the game quite a bit.

Not really, there are already cases where caving into rebel demands instead of squashing them is beneficial.

Like Schwungrad, I believe the downside of negotiating with rebels is not adequately punitive in EU 3 so I have a personal rule that I will never do so. Passively allowing independence movements success to allow infamy-free gains is also generally a no-no for me because again, the cost/benefit ratio is skewed too far towards benefit.

 

[Dichromate]

It pretty much is in EU3

Yeah, late game definitely. The only issue is if you have large numbers of poor quality provinces - cause of the effect it has on research.

 

[unmerged(80402)]

Well actualy in EU3 rebel demands can already be beneficial, IE, when you accept peasant demands you get +1 Free Subjects in the game.