Rebels - suggestions

[unmerged(2156)]

IMHO the most important thing is to remove the link between the economic value of the province and the # of rebels

The number of rebels should depend on province population and revolt risk percentage (NOT the economic strength of the province). Its logical that in a highly populated province there will be more potential rebels, and its also logical that a higher revolt risk = anger will make more people rebel

And I still think you should have less than normal income in rebel-prone provinces (in addition to the penalties for overall low stability). Getting less money from rebellious provinces should hamper you in a way that is not as ludicrous as the 50-60k rebel army in Flanders!!

 

[Owl]

vive les sans-culottes

Originally posted by hlv
IMHO the most important thing is to remove the link between the economic value of the province and the # of rebels

The number of rebels should depend on province population and revolt risk percentage (NOT the economic strength of the province). Its logical that in a highly populated province there will be more potential rebels, and its also logical that a higher revolt risk = anger will make more people rebel

I agree - isn't unrest more likely to result from poverty than wealth?

 

[PatMaster]

You dont understand.
The number of ducats you get from a province is directly linked to the number of people that lives there!
This has been discussed thousands of times!
I think Dralizaar made an experiment on this typing in the cheatcode that made the popultion of the capital 10k higher.
Immediatly he got a fue more ducats/month than he did before.
Fact is, that the income is linked to the numbers of people, and the income is linked to the numbers of people revolting.

The only way to fix the problem you are referring to is to actually have those rebbels who was killed removed from the population.

 

[unmerged(4944)]

Its not directly linked, the pop size contributes to overall income, but not by a great deal - too little in fact.

I think the rebelling armies are fine and fun, and represent all sorts of brigands, noble rebellions and secessions etc.

But the size of rebel armies is excessive, even by EU standards. And it's not really necessary. The combat system doesn't worry about size of armies very much, so 5,000 rebels will cause almost as much rouble as 20,000 and feel a lot more realistic.

As far as sieging goes, just give any rebel army a "constant" chance of taking a fortress, regardless of its size (as long as its a minimum of say 5,000). This represents the city joining the rebellion, rather than the rebels storming the city & fortress.

 

[unmerged(2156)]

You dont understand.

Maybe you should reread my post

I'm well aware of the link between pop size and prov. income.

What I am suggesting is that you cut income out of the rebel loop, just make rebel army size dependant on pop size only and cut out the crap that makes COTs have 50k armies.

So the "only" way is not to remove killed rebels from the province population. The "right" way is to tweak rebel size so it no longer depends on province income (which can still be related to province population as much as it wants!!)

 

[unmerged(2156)]

Maybe using Flanders as an example led to this misunderstanding as Flanders has both high population and high income

Lets use Styria as an example instead:

low population, high income -> very large rebel armies

Try cutting income out of the "Styria" loop!

 

[Sidney]

One other thing- all peasant rebels should be land tek level 0, maybe you go to 5 to show that they've snagged a few firearms somewhere along the way. No peansant armies fared evry well against well trained and armed troops. The fact that my peasants are one land tek lower than me has me deeply concerned about the far too generous gun rights of my serfs.

 

[Owl]

rampaging rebels

Another thought - why do EU rebel armies start wandering into adjoining territories once they have gained control of their own?
If this is meant to simulate the rebellion spreading it doesn't work because what they always do is leave their home province empty so you can retake it easily.
So are they just drunken undisciplined looters after their first win, not freedom fighters after all?

 

[Steph]

They try to free other provinces of the same would be independant state. So if a rebel army take control of Bretagne, it will then try to take control of Armor, and create Britany.

 

[grumbold]

Standard uprisings just burning the province rather than producing armies works for me.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by PatMaster
You dont understand.

So you think it's reasonable that when Styria revolts (province capital pop. circa. 6000), definitely not one of the most heavily populated European Provinces historically, it does so with repeated 80k+ armies. Population has a much lower effect on wealth than it should do, and wealth should have no real connection to rebellion size in the context of the game.