Rebels (Part II).

[IamIreland]

I find it quite strange that religious/nationalist rebels are able to fight their compatriots (who are automatically presumed as being hostile to everyone). While I admit nationalism may not have been a pressing issue at this time, I would have imagined that in the middle ages where religious zealotry was considered as being part of the norm, that rulers would have supported those of their own religion and that this should be reflected via an ability to "offer to join war(s)".

In addition, I don't see the point in being automatically hostile to your enemies' rebels. If they have risen in an area you are trying to conquer, then yes it would be necessary to fight them, but if they have risen for some other reason on the far side of the realm that doesn't concern you, you should be able to assist them (or at the very least remain neutral).

 

[Woifee]

You are talking about peasant rebels? They are threatening the gods given order of life. There are rulers and there are the ruled. If the ruled rise up und succeed they challenge the whole system and also you.

 

[IamIreland]

You are talking about peasant rebels? They are threatening the gods given order of life. There are rulers and there are the ruled. If the ruled rise up und succeed they challenge the whole system and also you.

To answer your question, I am talking about peasant/ ex-soldier rebels, yes.

The "rulers/ruled" point you made is a fair one, and if I'm being honest it went completely over my head when posting this. However, do you not think that (in the case of the AI especially) that a zealous *insert religion of your choice* ruler would prefer to see a ruler of their religion in control of a specific area as opposed to a heretic/heathen?

In addition, from a players' perspective, imo it would make more sense to support (or at the very least avoid hindering) the advancement of rebels in the scenario where they are seeking to weaken a realm which follows a more aggressive religion, e.g. Catholic rebels in a Muslim/Germanic realm.

Thank you for your input, by the way.

 

[Woifee]

To answer your question, I am talking about peasant/ ex-soldier rebels, yes.

The "rulers/ruled" point you made is a fair one, and if I'm being honest it went completely over my head when posting this. However, do you not think that (in the case of the AI especially) that a zealous *insert religion of your choice* ruler would prefer to see a ruler of their religion in control of a specific area as opposed to a heretic/heathen?

In addition, from a players' perspective, imo it would make more sense to support (or at the very least avoid hindering) the advancement of rebels in the scenario where they are seeking to weaken a realm which follows a more aggressive religion, e.g. Catholic rebels in a Muslim/Germanic realm.

Thank you for your input, by the way.

Actually agree with you. For gameplay it would make sense. But in RL as a nobleman I would never ever support peasant revolts.

 

[technowhiz]

But at the very least they could not be hostile towards you. I’m sick of the catholic rebels of the Muslim blob attacking me when I’m holy warring their enemies for the same religion.

 

[IamIreland]

But at the very least they could not be hostile towards you. I’m sick of the catholic rebels of the Muslim blob attacking me when I’m holy warring their enemies for the same religion.

For sure man, that's the kind of things I had in mind when writing this post. Completely defeats the purpose of both their goal (and yours) in the process. You'd think there'd be at the very least neutrality, and at most co-operation.

 

[technowhiz]

Yeah. Though there are some funny moments when the Muslim blob that’s invading you takes out your Muslim rebels.

 

[Tryvenyal]

The "rulers/ruled" point you made is a fair one, and if I'm being honest it went completely over my head when posting this. However, do you not think that (in the case of the AI especially) that a zealous *insert religion of your choice* ruler would prefer to see a ruler of their religion in control of a specific area as opposed to a heretic/heathen?

Even if this is correct, I assume noone - noble or not - hold peasants below pagan raiders/adventurers etc. And they are not locked up in infinite hostility or is impossible to interact with. Peasant leaders should be lowely regarded.. Ofc. A true noble does not negotiate with peasants.... Unless... they risk to usurp your birthrighted land?

 

[Jaevelklein]

Speaking of rebels, this is a side note, but I also find it weird how the "Crushed national revolt" doesn't stack. It's a constant -4% value. It should stack for a -4, -8, -12% decrease in national rebellion for each one you or your vassals win. And the defeated county shouldn't be able to raise rebels for the next 5 years or so. It should be 0% rebel chance. It's both strange and annoying that the rebels can muster ~2k soldiers over and over again in the same county that they were all killed. January in the county of Oxford: 2k. Killed. June in the county of Oxford: 2k. Killed. November in the county of Oxford: 2k. Killed. Like how does this make any sense at all? Fix please!

 

[Rockphed]

Speaking of rebels, this is a side note, but I also find it weird how the "Crushed national revolt" doesn't stack. It's a constant -4% value. It should stack for a -4, -8, -12% decrease in national rebellion for each one you or your vassals win. And the defeated county shouldn't be able to raise rebels for the next 5 years or so. It should be 0% rebel chance. It's both strange and annoying that the rebels can muster ~2k soldiers over and over again in the same county that they were all killed. January in the county of Oxford: 2k. Killed. June in the county of Oxford: 2k. Killed. November in the county of Oxford: 2k. Killed. Like how does this make any sense at all? Fix please!

I could swear that when you crush a revolt from a province that the province gets a modifier for about a year that gives it -10% revolt risk.