Rebellions are broken
- Thread starter seriously pissed
- 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.
- Status
One gripe I do have with rebellions is discontent rises a little too quickly to take certain types of corrective action.
Like, you should be trying to nip factions in the bud anyway, but it's not uncommon for a faction to both form AND hit the military power threshold right after succession. Once that happens, vassals can no longer be terrified into leaving via dread (Because they've banded together to the point they're not afraid anymore, as they think they have enough supporters to beat you in a rebellion) and discontent starts rising.
Most factions reach 100% and fire their demand within under a year, IIRC. That gives you little time to try to sway or assassinate.
Like, you should be trying to nip factions in the bud anyway, but it's not uncommon for a faction to both form AND hit the military power threshold right after succession. Once that happens, vassals can no longer be terrified into leaving via dread (Because they've banded together to the point they're not afraid anymore, as they think they have enough supporters to beat you in a rebellion) and discontent starts rising.
Most factions reach 100% and fire their demand within under a year, IIRC. That gives you little time to try to sway or assassinate.
Their feudal contract with their vassals may differ compared to yours, they may have more buildings and more development, they may be hiring mercs, and so on and so on
- 1
I think the concept is okay. It is like you are a duke of your land, not the security guard of an emperor. Your main job is to rule your land and give your liege some money, safeguarding his empire is not your main job. So there is no need to pour all of your army to protect your emperor unless you promised it, like swearing an oath in front of a priest or something, which in game, presented as feudal contract. So the game would collect all the loyal contributors of their levies and send it into your army pool. The loyal subjects fulfilled their obligation and no one could blame them if their emperor lost the war.
Meanwhile the rebels are not giving you any levies and work as independent rulers. They fought for their independent treacherously, so there are no contract to bind them, they can call up every single peasant in their realm to fight you. These rulers broke their promise, so it would make sense if your army is severely weakened the moment they announced the war on you.
The thing is you can call up your peasant as well. They bring their levies, you bring your levies. Let's say, you are an emperor with 12 counties and 20 vassals under your direct control and 3 kings with 8 counties each and 5 dukes with 6 counties each rebelled against you. That would be (12 counties + 20 loyal subjects' obligatory levies) vs (54 counties + their loyal subjects). The number can be very one-sided if you look it in this way. The only advantage you had is money since you collected tax from all vassals before they rebelled. So use your money to either buy mercenaries or building stronger realm as preventive method.
Maybe all you felt was like "the war came to me and I'm in shock, there's nothing I can do." Of course you are expecting more soldiers come under your banner during crisis, but the army sent from your vassals are actually under their respective rulers' command instead of you. You order your vassals, your vassals order their armies. But then the game could be improved, anything that can make use of current systems (i.e. relationship, scheme, contract, realm management) and intertwining them with war would be very interesting.
The not so excessive style we had is quite okay atm, a percentage of levis from vassals that could be modified by your control. Not too deep, not too shallow, playable but undeniably plain. That's quite fine by me if they were to add more flavor. Yet, i'm afraid if too many systems stacked together with future dlcs, it might become a number stacking game (EU4), which then can be bad.
Meanwhile the rebels are not giving you any levies and work as independent rulers. They fought for their independent treacherously, so there are no contract to bind them, they can call up every single peasant in their realm to fight you. These rulers broke their promise, so it would make sense if your army is severely weakened the moment they announced the war on you.
The thing is you can call up your peasant as well. They bring their levies, you bring your levies. Let's say, you are an emperor with 12 counties and 20 vassals under your direct control and 3 kings with 8 counties each and 5 dukes with 6 counties each rebelled against you. That would be (12 counties + 20 loyal subjects' obligatory levies) vs (54 counties + their loyal subjects). The number can be very one-sided if you look it in this way. The only advantage you had is money since you collected tax from all vassals before they rebelled. So use your money to either buy mercenaries or building stronger realm as preventive method.
Maybe all you felt was like "the war came to me and I'm in shock, there's nothing I can do." Of course you are expecting more soldiers come under your banner during crisis, but the army sent from your vassals are actually under their respective rulers' command instead of you. You order your vassals, your vassals order their armies. But then the game could be improved, anything that can make use of current systems (i.e. relationship, scheme, contract, realm management) and intertwining them with war would be very interesting.
The not so excessive style we had is quite okay atm, a percentage of levis from vassals that could be modified by your control. Not too deep, not too shallow, playable but undeniably plain. That's quite fine by me if they were to add more flavor. Yet, i'm afraid if too many systems stacked together with future dlcs, it might become a number stacking game (EU4), which then can be bad.
- 1
“The rebels work as independent rulers” why don’t the other 33 rebel then? They get to be independent what’s the point of me? Let’s say I’m an emperor with 33 vassals and 6 kings compared to 3 kings with 22 vassals. War came to me and shock, no there’s a rebellion every succession. Started 867 it’s 1162. Well versed in fighting rebels . Again I have no problem with the rebellion mechanics, I want to know where 2/5 of my empire pulls 30000 troops out of their butts when I can scrape together 18000 united
- 2
no. they're not rebelling. that's it. they're not 'on your side.' they're your vassals.
your rebels' vassals also are not 'on their side.' they're their vassals.
there seems to be something you're not getting about vassalage. maybe this might help. your vassals' vassals are their vassals. not yours. your rebels are just using their own troops and getting a portion of their vassals' troops.
if you have a king vassal that loves you and a duke vassal that hates you by -100, then, if you make that duke the king's vassal, the duke is unable to rebel against you because you're not their liege.
you'll get the hang of it, i'm sure
- 4
- 1
when you say this what do you mean? presumably you're an emperor with king vassals, so are there 6 rebels? 39?
- 1
not sure what you mean here, but are you overlooking that once a king, say, rebels against you, then you of course don't get their tax and levy contribution? that reduces your total troop count straight away.
- 1
another thing that might help you understand is, if you have a king vassal rebel against you, it's possible that one of their dukes might then seize the opportunity to rebel against them.
so, the same thing would apply. that duke uses their own MAA's, plus levies from their count vassals.
so, the same thing would apply. that duke uses their own MAA's, plus levies from their count vassals.
- 2
I understand that whole levy/tax system for my vassals. I understand that my levies provide a % of gold/ troops to my overall empire. Why does every rebel vassals not play by the same rules. Ex the king of Mali rebels against me. Every one of his vassals joins, to a count, every single rebellion against me. My king of Sahara stays loyal to me, has more troops then the king of Mali yet doesn’t join with me.
- 2
no. they're not rebelling against you. if they're the king's vassals they can't rebel against you.
- 3
yes.
a count can be a vassal of a duke who's the vassal of a king who's the vassal of an emperor.
the count can only rebel against his liege, the duke.
the duke can only rebel against his liege, the king.
and the king can only rebel against his liege, the emperor.
...so, if you the emperor have duke and count vassals who hate you, you can shove them underneath a king that loves you. they then become his problem, not yours.
Last edited:
- 2
Yes I understand. What I don’t understand is how 2/5 of my empire can pull 30000 troops out of their butts, and where are my loyal vassals? Nobody has answered why this happens. 33 vassals who didn’t join the rebellion. 33 vassals who decided it was better to decide with me.
- 2
again, they're all cheating on their wives, hunting, drinking, going to brothels, and maybe redecorating. they're providing you what their contract requires and nothing more.
- 1
I get they hate me. I get it they want to rebel. Where are all theses excess troops coming from? 30000 to my 11000.
This is not true.
If you try as example to imprison the duke, the game clearly tells you, if you are not successful, the duke will rise up in rebellion against you.
- 1
can you remember what your troop count was before the rebellion?
- Status