Rebels are ridiculously overpowered

[Naltharial]

If you nerf OE and/or, you just bring back the map painting simulator that EUIII was. I still have my Hansa game where I control all of America in the first third of the game or so, it's ridiculous. It takes some effort to get there, sure, and there's where EUIII was fun, but as soon as you're past that hurdle, you're in home-free painting mode.

 

[Hector of Troy]

What is it they say about most empires? Something about how its not outside forces but those within that bring them down? It's true in history, and I think they've done a good job of portraying it in the game.

Completely inaccurate is to conquer two thirds of the map in 300 years, and then sustain your gigantic empire effortlessly, without a scratch. That´s historical inaccuracy!

No but it needs to be harder or you end up with EU3 snowballing stupidity.

Thats the same thing with overxtension. If we have to give up a bit of historical accuracy to have a game thats actually fun and doesn't get boring at the mid-way point because you've blobbed so large all your doing is bouncing around weak rebels waiting until you can conquer another nation that wont stand a chance against you, I am perfectly fine with that.

If I have to choose between fun gameplay and historical accuracy, I will go for fun gameplay any time, any day.

 

[SpartanV15]

only problem that i think is stupid regarding the rebels is that according to some people they break into your armory or something and take your weapons thus creating up to date units that can fight effectively against your units, so pretty much they get the same military tech as me and crush my armies , so you are saying that a native tribe somehow trained themselves to use muskets and act like a professional army when just being conquered by western powers , i do not recall in history native tribes uprising that quick and learning how to use western power tactics and weaponry in a short timespan im not saying it has to be 100% accurate but i still dont get how they supposedly learned new tactics within a few months , now i dont think it makes sense how when they revolt they automatically are trained up to date with the modern tactics unless for some reason they stole the weapons secretley and copied our army in the days leading to the revolt but how does a native revolt know how to fight with these weapons so damn quickly someone explain this to me, i know this sounds like a rant but its not and im not furious someone please indulge me on this matter and get me a better understanding on this

 

[unmerged(773375)]

Completely inaccurate is to conquer two thirds of the map in 300 years, and then sustain your gigantic empire effortlessly, without a scratch. That´s historical inaccuracy!



If I have to choose between fun gameplay and historical accuracy, I will go for fun gameplay any time, any day.

i have no problem with historical inaccuracy, it wont be accurate after all when you click play. however, do you think it make sense if a new colony turning into full province suddenly have rebels with more people than the colony? or if they keep popping in the same province after you kill so many of rebels from that province? where do they get the man power from? also a recently defeated rebellious province should less likely to rebel again. they might rebel again in time when they have recovered their man power but not right next day or next month...

 

[unmerged(463193)]

rebels should never be larger than your force limits. france and ottomans can troll rebels (haha infinite manpower and 100k stacks) but smaller nations cant.

 

[Captain Frye]

New mechanics for american uprisings would be a solution to this problem.

 

[Hector of Troy]

i have no problem with historical inaccuracy, it wont be accurate after all when you click play. however, do you think it make sense if a new colony turning into full province suddenly have rebels with more people than the colony? or if they keep popping in the same province after you kill so many of rebels from that province? where do they get the man power from? also a recently defeated rebellious province should less likely to rebel again. they might rebel again in time when they have recovered their man power but not right next day or next month...

Someone has already mentioned rebels could work as in Victoria 2. Once defeated, it would take them sometime to group together and revolt again. I am not against some fine-tuning and adjustments, as long as rebels keep posing a real threat against the player.

 

[unmerged(752132)]

Completely inaccurate is to conquer two thirds of the map in 300 years, and then sustain your gigantic empire effortlessly, without a scratch. That´s historical inaccuracy!



If I have to choose between fun gameplay and historical accuracy, I will go for fun gameplay any time, any day.

Yeah thats what I was saying. Im not sure if you're argueing with me or agreeing with me though.

 

[Felicity]

I think that vultures event fires too often, personally. Other than that, whatever.

 

[Crazy_Ivan80]

people need to differentiate between de New World and the Old World.
Old World conquest should present a massive problem if you overextend too much.
New World conquests (and specifically the Aztec and Inca Empires, beyond that conquest was far slower) should be swift. So yes, it should very much be possible to take those two empires in one fell swoop (if you can call a decade difference a "fell swoop") and not have it affect your income or overextention negatively. But only if you attack them swiftly after discovering them. So no waiting a century and then waltzing in, no. Discovery of the Aztecs/Incas and invading within a decade or so. After that a miodifier should disappear that returns the overextention you get from these provinces to half or normal levels.
This would open up 3 scenarios:
- exploring but not caring to take them
- exploring but coming prepared (using "hindsight")
- exploring and mounting a quick, haphazard campaign (more or less mimicking reality where those campaigns were rather haphazard iirc)

 

[Jazumir]

How about basing the over-extension not only on the base tax of the province, but also on the tech-group difference? Say you rank the tech groups:
- Western European, Eastern European, Middle easten...
And then halfed/doubled the OE for each level difference

Say you are WE and conquer a base tax 4 province (16 overextension) from a member of the middle eastern tech group: (16 / 2) / 2 ) = 4. If that nation had won this war against you and tried to take the same province from you, it´d be: 16 * 2 *2 = 64 OE.
Halfing and doubling might be a bit extreme, but you get the idea: It would still be hard to go on a conquering spree in europe for a western european nation, but less hard to do (and keep) colonial conquests ; and almost prohibitive for any native nation to take something from europeans, they dont have a core on.

 

[unmerged(752132)]

How about basing the over-extension not only on the base tax of the province, but also on the tech-group difference? Say you rank the tech groups:
- Western European, Eastern European, Middle easten...
And then halfed/doubled the OE for each level difference

Say you are WE and conquer a base tax 4 province (16 overextension) from a member of the middle eastern tech group: (16 / 2) / 2 ) = 4. If that nation had won this war against you and tried to take the same province from you, it´d be: 16 * 2 *2 = 64 OE.
Halfing and doubling might be a bit extreme, but you get the idea: It would still be hard to go on a conquering spree in europe for a western european nation, but less hard to do (and keep) colonial conquests ; and almost prohibitive for any native nation to take something from europeans, they dont have a core on.

Coring on colonial provinces is already incredibly cheap though? overseas provinces are already very very cheap to core.

oh wait you were talking about overextension. Really I dont see the problem with what its at now. Every few years you snatch up a bunch of overseas provinces and the only expense is you have to wait a couple more or risk overextending. It's not that big a deal and really limits snowballing. if you want all that native land for yourself, just cut the coast of from other european powers. It might be difficult. But thats the point.

 

[Bill1221]

Yup, its just stupid

Unless an army is being led by William Wallace or something, I just don't see how groups of ragtag rebels should be able to overpower great nations. Maybe if several rebel armies came together and formed a really huge army, then I could see them being a challenge, but I don't see how they should be as good or superior to regular trained troops. Especially if they are coming out of areas with non-western tech groups and forming non-western nations when successful, I just don't see how they can dominate, its ridiculous and highly irritating.

 

[Pilot00]

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.

I am bookmarking this post. It seems that for 2 years in that endless shitstorm of a topic someone made a reasonable argument.

Hello,

Your example is an excellent one. After the "Blitzkrieg" conquest, Spain was plagued with a series of uprisings, despite the massive losses due to sickness suffered by the local populations.

Quote : It took almost 60 years of wars for the Spaniards to suppress the resistance of the Indian population of Mesoamerica.

After the Spanish conquest of central Mexico, expeditions were sent further northward in Mesoamerica, to the region known as La Gran Chichimeca. The expeditions under Nuño Beltrán de Guzmán were particularly harsh on the Chichimeca population, causing them to rebel under the leadership of Tenamaxtli and thus launch the Mixton War. (end quote) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanis...ec_Empire#Integration_into_the_Spanish_Empire


If you actually read about the history of South America beyond the initial conquest, you would learn to much astonishment I am sure that the continent was rocked by Indian rebellions, and abortive wars of independence for most of it's history. And therefore, Spanish colonization of the Americas is a great example of how rebellions in game are generally well managed.

And how many of these rebells had state of the art equipment and better generals than the Spaniards if I may ask?
I already know the answer without reading something off wikipedia but I am just asking all the same.

And how many did rebel in Spain itself due to the rebellions in the Americas?