Just curious why the different rebels seem to be allied, shouldn't they fight with each other if they have different goals? Especially the patriots who tends to liberate a same province?
Shouldn't the different rebels fights too
- Thread starter arkcheung
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
sounds interesting, though patriots shouldn't fight over the same province (a province can only have one culture, and patriots won't occupy provinces without their culture). But it could be cool seeing pretender rebels fighting against each other, or nationalist groups representing division over which way the new country will go.
Perhaps the rebels see the government (ie- you) as the greater threat and unite to get you out of the way before settling their differences over a nice game of chess.
It's a nice explanation but it doesn't hold up to history I daresay. Why would two pretenders vying for the same throne unite?
ya that doesnt make sense as its basically saying hey lets work together for a throne we both want, I'm sure it will work out for both of us.
Different heretic rebels fighting each other makes sense, and same for pretenders, though I've never had multiple pretenders at the same time.
I would think that it's an issue of balancing the game-if rebels fought over your territory, it seems like it would be a lot easier to deal with them.
I would think that it's an issue of balancing the game-if rebels fought over your territory, it seems like it would be a lot easier to deal with them.
Well, Rebels are a 'country' like Pirates and such, thus they can't fight each other any more than your armies can.
Gamplaywise, at the moment, yes. The point of the thread is that perhaps they should be able to fight each other - say, having different countries represent different groups of rebels perhaps.
It should vary in different situations, I guess.
Let's say there are three countries in a region, A, B and C.
If A and B are at war, then rebels from A and B spring up in C, then wouldn't they be hostile?
And if there are rebels that are trying to break away from your nation, would they not try to take control over a province held by simple tax revolters?
But if it's something like particularists and religious zealots, then they probably wouldn't be fighting eachother.
Let's say there are three countries in a region, A, B and C.
If A and B are at war, then rebels from A and B spring up in C, then wouldn't they be hostile?
And if there are rebels that are trying to break away from your nation, would they not try to take control over a province held by simple tax revolters?
But if it's something like particularists and religious zealots, then they probably wouldn't be fighting eachother.
Agreed it's just for game balance, but it would be fun to see the rebels fights with each other.
We would also like them to fight each other, and use different, dynamic flags, but unfortunately it was too much work to implement.
Think of it a bit like the resistance in WWII. You had the communist and the regular resistance. Both with different goals and they weren't too happy with eachother, but overal Sun Tzu still says that "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" so they kept out of eachother's hair as much as possible, until the war ended (and you do see that happening, as when one of them gets their objective and turns into a national army, the other will start fighting or sieging).
So basically for the AI the biggest baddy is primary focus and I think that's okay, otherwise say France would have it even easier.
So basically for the AI the biggest baddy is primary focus and I think that's okay, otherwise say France would have it even easier.
Lol In civil wars, this FREQUENTLY happens actually. from roman times to today's africa.
Let's destroy the actual establishment, then collaborate for a while, then one of us will die or be exiled.
I have a historical context.
During the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, there were two generals Bardas Phocas and Bardas Skleros who initiated a civil war. They initially fought eachother, with one of them having the blessing of the Emperor, but then joined together. Obviously this alliance wasn't to last and one killed the other but... this is one historical place where I can think of that two pretenders allied.
During the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, there were two generals Bardas Phocas and Bardas Skleros who initiated a civil war. They initially fought eachother, with one of them having the blessing of the Emperor, but then joined together. Obviously this alliance wasn't to last and one killed the other but... this is one historical place where I can think of that two pretenders allied.
Maybe you could think of the current system of rebels (e.g. pretenders) as the main pretender to the throne and his second-in-command. Of course, that would necessitate one of them taking over and the other becoming his heir... that might get complicated...
We could then very well create as many countries as they are types of rebels. Might also allow for better tech difference. I'm tired to see peasant rebels and pretender rebels have the same efficiency against the national army...
When musket where invented I doubt each peasants got his copy, just like I doubt each russian family has the latest AK prototype :rofl:
That's why they always first raid the nation's local arsenals.
Discipline. Now there's a difference.