Rebels keep invading over borders

[unmerged(31117)]

It really annoys me that rebels keep crossing borders. On what basis historical or otherwise did the makers of Europa think that up. They seem to cross borders without any sort of logic either. They take a province after a long siege and then go on to cross the border leaving their own territory to be retaken. What's the sense in that?

It really annoys me that after so many patches this hasn't been fixed. Why should I suffer just beacause my neighbor can't keep his people happy. It's just stupid. Why can't someone fix this?

 

[ASAD]

Yessss,it's really annoying.
Try to conquer your neigbhours,to stop rebels crossing your borders. :rofl:
Build up fortress,good not only for rebels.

 

[unmerged(31117)]

Yes but I'd rather they were killing off the people they were rebelling against so I wouldn't have to conquer them. I prefer flag collecting as a measure of success and well, the more countries the more flags.

 

[unmerged(5205)]

Yes but I'd rather they were killing off the people they were rebelling against so I wouldn't have to conquer them. I prefer flag collecting as a measure of success and well, the more countries the more flags.

I say annexation is a measure of success Just invade and annex, then you'll be able to deal with rebels in that territory yourself

 

[unmerged(33638)]

I think that once rebels manage to capture a territory they should get a morale boost and/or reinforcements, to show that the movement is growing.
And they should move to a province of the same culture, preferably from the province that they have rebelled from.

 

[unmerged(7784)]

It's all up to our imaginations as to what the rebels actually are, or what are they actually rebelling against. (Their own lords? Their nation? Everyone in general?)
Gameplay wise, we should be glad that they'll move away from the province. It makes AI nations that're supposed to collapse (Golden Horde, China) do so faster, for example.
I suppose you've not yet had to pluck 15K or more rebels off a mountain island. (Crete, Rhodes, Corsica) Those are the real pain.

 

[unmerged(28030)]

Laws are paper. They are only respected by lawful people. Rebels are by definition outlaws; they're not concerned over the sanctity of your border. So this makes sense.

Outlaws must have the law forced on them -- that's where your army comes in.

Rebels get reinforcements already, if a second revolt triggers in a province where rebels alrerady are. If I'm correct the presence of rebels in a province already increases the chance of a second revolt in that province.

I agree that it makes sense that for instance Italian rebels should seek to liberate Italian provinces, but I don't think the game can track the culture of the rebels. This is really not needed however, because if one province with Italian culture has a high revolt risk, chances are every province with Italian culture will have a high revolt risk. (Unless the risk is due to religion.)

I also thought that rebels were already inclined to attack provinces of the same culture. This is because as I said, revolts are likely to occur in many provinces of the same culture at the same time, and the AI prefers one victorious rebel force to reinforce another, besieging rebel force.

 

[unmerged(7784)]

I'm not sure about guidelines for rebel movement. Always thought it was random, except that there's this tendency to go for unoccupied provs.

 

[AndrewT]

Why can't someone fix this?

Because it is not considered a bug.

 

[wryun]

I like to imagine them as this group of angry peasants who run around trashing the place. When the fort is taken, the place they're currently trashing is trashed out, so that they decide (fairly arbitrarily, since they're a bit of a drunken mob) to go and trash some place else.

Historical verisimilitude? Who needs it... it's a game, right?

[PS Nearby provinces are more likely to revolt. Often the original province is less likely, due to the war exhaustion disappearing, although oddly I think it sometimes goes up due to religious sliders. I also think rebels are more likely to stay within borders as long as they're not moving into a province with an army]

 

[AndrewT]

Presumably the goal of the revolters is to set up their own state, as that's what they will do if successful. The fact that part of their intended state happens to be over a current border is irrelevant to them.

 

[unmerged(33638)]

I understand that the rebels maybe drunk on vodka, mead or rancid yak milk depending on where they are.
I just think that if they are attempting to create a break away country then they should go for a province of the same culture.
Then you might get a strong new nation, rather than a one province minor who gets its ass whooped straight after declaring independence.

Like Curman in the AGCEEP, moves around a liberates a lot of muslim mongol provinces and sometimes does quite well within the confines of the AI.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

Rebels get reinforcements already, if a second revolt triggers in a province where rebels alrerady are. If I'm correct the presence of rebels in a province already increases the chance of a second revolt in that province.

A rebel-controlled province increases RR in neighbouring provinces by 2%.

But in the revolting province, once the rebels get the control of it, RR generally goes at 0%, so they won't get reinforcements from that province.

 

[unmerged(5361)]

This isn't a bug, rebels go where they wants to.

If anything rebellions on your border are mostly positive, giving you a chance the province might defect to you nation. Granted, this does not happen as much as in earlier patches, but still.

You just have to keep an eye on you borders and make sure your armies are in a position to krush the rebel scum as soon as they move into your territory.

 

[billiard]

You can actually use the rebel movement to your advantage. Oftentimes I end up in peace treaties with unconnected provinces that have a different religion and culture, which revolt often and many times in huge numbers (e.g., "Religious Turmoil" event, which may be exclusive to AGCEEP). So let them take your puny fortress (I tend to build only the minimal fortresses in each province, as I hate having to seige my own large fortresses back from rebels). Once they have your fortress, they'll move on (if you have connected territories, block straits with even a single ship or place your intended invasion army in any of your connected territories prior so as to force the rebels to seek easier prey in your neighbor's territory). THEN you go in with your army to take back the province. This also has the nice side effect of weakening your neighbor, since they now have the rebel army to deal with, plus the increased revolt risk in any neighboring provinces for the period of time it takes you to seige the fortress. Be careful not to take too long in taking back the province however, or it will declare independence.

I read, in an early review of EUII, a statement about the game simply being a series of battles against rebels. It often does feel that way, especially in AGCEEP if you get the Civil War event.

 

[Underhand]

The rebel troops themselves are not necessarily the ones trying to establish a new state; that often took more determination and imagination than many people had. I figure that the army is a mob looking for an improvement in their lot (read: loot). Such a group would go where they heard that there's money to be had. Of course, they'd probably also try to stay out of danger as much as possible, which makes you wonder what they've been smoking when they cross the border into your, admittedly richer, lands guarded by a hundred thousand technologically superior troops. Hey, it's the AI

 

[unmerged(31117)]

Rebels often showed far more respect for people of there culture than the reguler invading army did in those days, and they were usually far from mindless in their objective. If you know anything about the peasants revolt you will know that rebels were highly targetted in their activities, general looting was forbidden under pain of death but the rebels happily burned and looted the estates of certain hated figures such a John Mortimer the kings uncle.

Rebellions were usually led by either clergy, aristocrats or middle classes people who were well-educated and usually had grand plans of statehood or social reform. Rebelling was punishable by a grisly and painful death, it did not pay to be less orginised than the governments they were up against. Rebellions usually respect borders (at least until they sieze power), remember they don't want to give other countries a reason to get involved in support of their enemies in government.

Proposed changes to rebels

1.Rebels no longer cross borders, they always attack provinces within their own state attacking provinces of their own culture and religion before any other provinces. If their are several provinces that have the same priority in the eyes of rebels they attack the provinces that have the highest income. They will not attack provinces that have an army that outnumbers them in it preffering to attack poorly defended provinces. If there are no provinces that have poor troop numbers to attack then the rebels will dig in and prepare for a last stand.
Rebels are still at war with everyone, just they don't invade everyone.

Rebel controlled provinces can still revolt and rebels formed in this way immediatly move to reinforce the nearest rebel army.

If the odds are good and there are no provinces left that they can sieze then rebels will move to help rebel fortresses that are under siege.

The +2 revolt risk still applies to provinces in other states as dissatisfied people may be insprired to revolt by activities over the border.

Rebel controlled ports increase the risk of pirates generating in nearby sea zones.

2.
When a country declares independance it starts off with the equivilant of a months income in cash per province and imediatly generates as many troops as they would if their capital had revolted (any rebels already in their provinces are converted aswell).

 

[Underhand]

Rebels often showed far more respect for people of there culture than the reguler invading army did in those days, and they were usually far from mindless in their objective. If you know anything about the peasants revolt you will know that rebels were highly targetted in their activities, general looting was forbidden under pain of death but the rebels happily burned and looted the estates of certain hated figures such a John Mortimer the kings uncle.

Rebellions were usually led by either clergy, aristocrats or middle classes people who were well-educated and usually had grand plans of statehood or social reform. Rebelling was punishable by a grisly and painful death, it did not pay to be less orginised than the governments they were up against. Rebellions usually respect borders (at least until they sieze power), remember they don't want to give other countries a reason to get involved in support of their enemies in government.

Granted, but the 'rebels' I had in mind were not rebellions per se. I see rebels in game as a blanket term covering actual rebels, ex-soldiers with no visible means of support, and guerrillas.

Rebels who appear as a result of war exaustion, while of course they cover unrest in the populace over the war itself, also, in my opinion, represent such things as ex-mercenary bands that simply loot and pillage until paid to go away. These would indeed go where they thought there was money to be had, within the area of the war, so I agree with you that they probably shouldn't cross borders, maybe with the exception that they can cross into countries involved in a war together with the country in which they find themselves. These would not attempt to establish a new state unless they had charismatic and effective leadership, which was not always the case. They did sometimes set themselves up as warrior-lords though.

Rebels appearing as a result of cultural differences, religious differences and nationalism presumably represent guerrilla forces, bent on making it too expensive in lives and money for the occupying country to remain in control. These require effective leadership, otherwise resistance would be too scattered and disorganised to be a real problem. Perhaps there should be random events whereby you can get a sudden rash of rebellions and extra revolt risk in provinces with nationalism, to simulate the occasional annoyingly (to the occupying country) good guerilla leader.

Then you've got the actual rebellions, which you have covered rather nicely.

Proposed changes to rebels

1.Rebels no longer cross borders, they always attack provinces within their own state attacking provinces of their own culture and religion before any other provinces.

This one makes sense for the rebellions and guerrillas, but not necessarily the mercenary bands. The engine is probably not capable of distinguishing them though.

If their are several provinces that have the same priority in the eyes of rebels they attack the provinces that have the highest income. They will not attack provinces that have an army that outnumbers them in it preffering to attack poorly defended provinces.If there are no provinces that have poor troop numbers to attack then the rebels will dig in and prepare for a last stand.

I like these.

Rebels are still at war with everyone, just they don't invade everyone.

Rebel controlled provinces can still revolt and rebels formed in this way immediatly move to reinforce the nearest rebel army.

Will the AI be able to handle this? Will we see governments falling even more than we already do?

If the odds are good and there are no provinces left that they can sieze then rebels will move to help rebel fortresses that are under siege.

The +2 revolt risk still applies to provinces in other states as dissatisfied people may be insprired to revolt by activities over the border.

Rebel controlled ports increase the risk of pirates generating in nearby sea zones.

2.
When a country declares independance it starts off with the equivilant of a months income in cash per province and imediatly generates as many troops as they would if their capital had revolted (any rebels already in their provinces are converted aswell).

The rest are great ideas. I especially like last two. Giving new states a chance to survive is probably the most important thing out of all of these.

 

[unmerged(33638)]

I understand what you mean about mecenary bands, but if you were a mecenary captain and you were plundering a province and managed to capture the main city, wouldn't you think about a crown and subjects.
Merc leaders were always greedy and ambitious so I would think that they would be just as happy to start a kingdom, though they would just go for the nearest, richest and easiest province to capture.
I also think that new kingdoms should have a start up army, 20K or so of volunteers to the cause, just to stop the cede, annex, rebel, cede, annex cycle that so often happens. I love the insolent bastards and want them to survive.

 

[iBaLkiD]

I also think that new kingdoms should have a start up army, 20K or so of volunteers to the cause, just to stop the cede, annex, rebel, cede, annex cycle that so often happens. I love the insolent bastards and want them to survive.

Ditto, would give the game more flavour.