Rebels are ridiculously overpowered

[GeneralZaphod]

Let's look at this historically. How often in history do rebellions result in rebel armies larger than a strong countries standing army? How often are the rebels equally armed, equally trained, have equal moral, etc? Extremely rarely or debatable never. A civil war is one thing, but these random rebellions should be small and weak. This game seems to have this every couple of years in every country. Result? It pisses us off and it hurts the fun of the game. Please tame this, or give me the option of dialing down this curse.

 

[AliceK86]

I rather like the fact that rebels aren't pushovers anymore.

 

[Buckley]

Nope. Refine even further how integrated the events flow into the context or situation of your nation all you want, but please don't make rebels easier to manage (Except maybe for the AI, but only a little.)

 

[Beagá]

I´d cut rebel chances by at least 25%. They do happen too often.

 

[Cynical Dreamer]

Hello,

I disagree with you. Several historical examples : Sweden's war of independence, where the rebels had a larger force than the defending Danes. The Polish multiple civil wars, where the warlords each had large standing private armies. Dutch war of independence, where the rebels where capable of matching numerically the opposing forces that where thrown at them. The French Wars of Religion, where 10% of the population was able to muster nearly as many troops as the Royal Army. The War of the Rose, where both sides where more or less evenly matched. And the list goes on.

Simply put, the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries where periods during which the state was weak and incapable of fielding durable standing armies. Rebellions comparable in size to the royal armies was a very real possibility, simply because of the small size of governmental forces. That, coupled with increasing fiscal pressure, lead to multiple uprisings and civil wars in all of Europe's large nations, that only really stopped at the beginning of the 18th century.

I find the current system perfectly historical, working and fun. Sometimes, too many rebels might spawn at a strange place, yes, but nothing that really hurts the game overall.

 

[scarletrose]

Actually... every "rebellion" is a civil wars.
Rebellions that doesn't become civil wars are described by events with negative effects.
If they field an army is a civil war.

Also ... there shouldn't be too much rebellions... because there should not be massive conquests or too much religious diversity etc...
All the claims that rebellions are overpowered usually comes from players that feels you should steamroll a continent without consequences and that world conquest during the timeframe is a logical goal, not a massive almost impossible feat.

Always stay at +3 stability, always stay at 0 overextension (and core everything you conquer as soon as you take it, with an army ready to quench rebellions and harsh treatment to every region that risk revolts), never conquer any region you don't have a core or a claim on, don't take every decision that increases your rebellion chance and/or don't ignore every decision that lowers it.

Then you will see rebellions will not be a problem. Sure... that slows the creation of a huge empire. But that's the way it is.
Every time you don't follow those rules you get punished by rebels.
Mind you ... if you do that from time to time you can manage ... but that above should be the norm when leading your country.

actually, you are never really slowed in your conquest doing that... your manpower will rise, you will be full of money and will be in top shape for your conquests if you expand in a sensible pace.

 

[RAM]

Rebels are not overpowered, they're dangerous as heck and you really don't want them happenning - this is good.

HOWEVER - that said - there are some instances of rebel uprisings that are just, let's face it, retardedly powerful, absolutely unrealistic and impossible to believe. And some of them do truly make the game unplayable on the long run.


Case in point ,you're a colonial power. You set up a colony somewhere and it turns into a full fledged province. Then you core it. Then after maybe half a year you get a peasant rebel uprising there asking for lower taxes. Compositon: 4 regiments of the latest tech infantry you have, in a city that you founded maybe 3 years before. Heaven's sake - there's not even enough people in that city to form one regiment and I have to deal with FOUR?.

Better yet, they just popped up in puerto rico. Good luck with the naval disembark effects with the force you bring to beat them down, because unless is twice the size of those guys, chances are you're losing them in the try.


More case in point - let's say you go and conquer part of the Aztec Empire as Spain (the mere fact that you can't annex it the way it happened historically is bad enough - good luck doing so. I tried and the overextension killed me. But that's a whole different topic and belongs to an "historical colonization is impossible in this game"). So yeah let's say you rip two or three provinces off the Aztec empire and you turn them into your own. Of course you have to core them, but in the meantime a nationalist uprising happens. ELEVEN regiments of the latest tech you have suddenly popped up in a region you just conquered.

I'm okay with the numbers (after all you've conquered an already settled place). I'm not with the fact that those guys have muskets. If they're natives they'll have to make do with aztec maces, otherwise it makes no bloody sense at all. I mean, is not as if some eleven thousand aztecs just suddenly found a lot of arquebuses and pikes to turn themselves into Tercios. Right?....RIGHT?.

It's even funnier if what happens is yet another "peasant revolt". REally, those peasants must be growing muskets on trees. Otherwise someone tell me where did they find the weapons to form those arquebus based formations.




So yeah, let's say that in most cases rebels are not overpowered. In some other cases, however, they're utterly ridiculous and downright OP to the extreme. It is not normal that to ensure rebels not making my life impossible in my recently founded caribbean colonies I have to keep a 15 regimental force permanently there (with the associated naval transport), of course 15 regiments that count against my force limit, and of course having around 20% of your overall force doing guard against ridiculous rebel uprisings in the colonies means that I have France next door with 88.000 troops and 75000 manpower blobbing half of europe and I can't do crap against them. And that's happened for the fourth consecutive time. Yeah, is my fourth game as Spain. Learning the hard way and I'm not one to go back to a savegame, I start from scratch using what I learned in the previous fiasco. Three previous games ended as soon as France proved an unbeatable thing to deal with. This is well into the way to be a fourth same-case-scenario because, simply said, I can't colonize AND keep those guys at check at the same time. Is materially impossible.

They should make rebel composition depending on the nature of the rebellion. If it's a peasant rebellion, for sure they won't have enough muskets to form tercios or later infantry. If it's a native uprising, same story, limited to the tech the natives had when you conquered them. And in some cases they simply should NOT happen or happen with much lesser numbers of regiments spawned, if it happens in a newly established colony.


And now while we're at it please whoever made the conditions to the foundation of spain must be kidding us with an useless option. Diplomatic foundation?. Give me a break. Aragon will NEVER marry anyone with the castilians as since the very beginning they make you their rivals and refuse any offer you make no matter how hard you invest in increasing relations with them. But then again, that's another totally different topic.

 

[iShurik]

Sometimes I think the rebels are too easy to handle, especially the ones that fight for independance or nationalism. In case you can't wipe them out, just give them what they want, like local autonomy. Okay 20 years no taxes for me from one province and a prestige hit..... This doesn't really hurt me. I would like them to only be happy if they get their full independance.

 

[unmerged(752132)]

They don't happen unless you're playing to dangerously. They should be difficult. It makes expansion harder, it makes the game harder. Adress the problems of your nation and you wont have to deal with so many. Don't overtextend, get low revolt risk modifiers, stablize, promote religious unity. Really whatever direction you want to go with. Can also spend a bit of military power to crack down on a province if its giving you that much of a hard time.

 

[Beagá]

The problem isn´t how the players handle them, but the AI. It is swarming with rebels.

So, just reduce overall rebel chances a bit, a 2% decrease would do wonders.

 

[Joe_Chip]

The main problem with rebellions is that they happen very often (I am talking about the reformation in particular, it's a nightmare), and once you beat them they come back stronger. Anyway you look at it, it's illogical. The more you fight them the more likely the chances they'll happen. I am okay with strong, dangerous rebellion, but once you beat the shit out of them they shouldn't come back within months. In CK2 you had that nice positive modifier when you crushed a rebellion. In EUIV more rebels just spawn out of no where, careless of the fact that you probably wiped out two times the population of that region. And after a while a rebellion spawns every month and you are swimming in them.
This problem is evident with AI. Most countries get swarmed by rebels.

 

[RAM]

It makes expansion harder, it makes the game harder.

Harder doesn't equal better.

Some of us happen to have a love for history and expect the game to offer us the chance to play and see some historical events happening if you pull them right.

Don't overtextend

Someone call Cortes or Pizarro and tell them they did it wrong historically. Somehow they happened to pull the blitzkrieg conquest of two native empire in months, and their annexation to the Spanish Crown didn't mean that suddenly the peasants went mad back at home revolting all the time like madmen because "spain had overextended".

I'm going to give you a pictorial showcase of what I mean.

Note the date. 1531

Now note the date in this one. 1534:

Try to do that live in the game. Good luck with everyone revolting in your empire. Funny enough doing this kind of stuff Spain didn't collapse because "overextension" but it turned from a more or less second rate european power into a world superpower for almost 150 years.

And certainly a lot of revolts happened in the meantime, from the comuneros to the many incan revolts. None of them involved 11 thousand arquebusiers in tercios spawning in Cajamarca, however. Just goes on to prove that revolts in EUIV many, many times go well over the top of what's believable.

 

[Diavolo1988]

In my opinion, rebels would be more realistic if they had crappier tech units and worse morale than the army of the country. However, they should be bigger in manpower.

 

[unmerged(779207)]

I've seen 8000 musketeers rise up against me once. Before I had musketeers myself. In a colony of well under 8000 people. So, yes, I agree rebels are ridiculous.

 

[RAM]

However, they should be bigger in manpower.

In some cases (peasant revolts), sure. Limited tech but big numbers make sense.

But just imagine that peasant revolt happens in a territory you just finished colonizing maybe 6 months before. It's bad enough with 4-5 regimen rebellions because noone explains me where those 4-5000 came from. Now make it 8-10000 and I'm going to laugh quite a bit.

Extension and numbers of rebels should be A LOT more limited in some instances. And yeah, military tech of the units spawned should vary depending on the nature of the rebellion. I can buy a pretender uprising with full ranks of musketeers, but I don't buy a peasant revolt of anything higher tech than some pikes, or a mayan uprising of 11000 soldiers with tercios.

 

[unmerged(779207)]

In some cases (peasant revolts), sure. Limited tech but big numbers make sense.

But just imagine that peasant revolt happens in a territory you just finished colonizing maybe 6 months before. It's bad enough with 4-5 regimen rebellions because noone explains me where those 4-5000 came from. Now make it 8-10000 and I'm going to laugh quite a bit.

Extension and numbers of rebels should be A LOT more limited in some instances. And yeah, military tech of the units spawned should vary depending on the nature of the rebellion. I can buy a pretender uprising with full ranks of musketeers, but I don't buy a peasant revolt of anything higher tech than some pikes, or a mayan uprising of 11000 soldiers with tercios.

That should be easy to fix. Just setting the max uprising as the local population (divided by a certain amount to eliminate women/children/elderly), and have the technology be based on the revolt.

Peasants get one or two units behind, Nobles, Pretenders and Paticularists current tech, Patriots the nation's tech level units, and Nationalists random or a mixture. Heretics I'm unsure about.

 

[Theta!]

The main problem with rebellions is that they happen very often (I am talking about the reformation in particular, it's a nightmare, and once you beat them they come back stronger.

I noticed this is usually the problem why most of Europe stays Catholic. OPM don't face rebel problems, because when they get the spread of reformation in their province they switch their state religion and immidiately have 100% religious unity. Larger countries with several provinces get many large stacks of Catholic rebels, so they give up and surrender to the rebels and stay/return to Catholic. Especially if the emperor stays Catholic the rest of the HRE gets 'cleansed of heresy'.

 

[Rambo]

sounds like a broken mechanic to me. If native rebels are getting musketeers, 9000 in a colony? that's just so retarded beyond ridiculousness.

 

[Smitzer]

And certainly a lot of revolts happened in the meantime, from the comuneros to the many incan revolts. None of them involved 11 thousand arquebusiers in tercios spawning in Cajamarca, however. Just goes on to prove that revolts in EUIV many, many times go well over the top of what's believable.

I am just playing as Portugal and one think I don´t understand from what you saying is: that before you core your American provinces you get rebels with your Tech?Or its after?Because I am playing as Portugal and I indeed get my-tech rebels but only after I core the province(I also change religion,culture sometimes) then I get Portugese particularists or Aztec nationalist from my core with my tech rebels.But I never ever get my-tech rebels before I core the province It´s always just native whack a mole rebels.

 

[Captain Frye]

harder doesn't equal better.

Some of us happen to have a love for history and expect the game to offer us the chance to play and see some historical events happening if you pull them right.




Someone call cortes or pizarro and tell them they did it wrong historically. Somehow they happened to pull the blitzkrieg conquest of two native empire in months, and their annexation to the spanish crown didn't mean that suddenly the peasants went mad back at home revolting all the time like madmen because "spain had overextended".

I'm going to give you a pictorial showcase of what i mean.

note the date. 1531

now note the date in this one. 1534:

try to do that live in the game. Good luck with everyone revolting in your empire. Funny enough doing this kind of stuff spain didn't collapse because "overextension" but it turned from a more or less second rate european power into a world superpower for almost 150 years.

And certainly a lot of revolts happened in the meantime, from the comuneros to the many incan revolts. None of them involved 11 thousand arquebusiers in tercios spawning in cajamarca, however. Just goes on to prove that revolts in euiv many, many times go well over the top of what's believable.

This