Stop with the Idiotically Stupidly Insanely Large Rebel Sizes

[PeterCorless]

How many threads did we see about how uselessly broken England was? Seriously.

I bought Art of War hoping to see some nice changes.

Long ago, I stopped playing vanilla because I was just simply tired of the shenanigans. Since VeF is still unavailable, I took my chances with playing vanilla again.

Ugh. Made me wish I hadn't given Paradox more of my money.

By 1454

1st Largest Army in Europe: Austria, 48,000
2nd Largest Army in Europe: Lolllard Revolt, 47,000

This is after England has already destroyed Lollard stacks of 14,000, 10,000, and 13,000, and possibly more before I allied them. I tag-switched to England and they are on the dregs of manpower. It's going to get uglier yet.

Historically, the Lollards would have considered themselves lucky to have gotten 1,000 troops together at one time.

How on earth can Paradox justify taking a religious minority that militarily would never have even warranted putting a single regiment on the map, and give them an army rivaling the largest in Europe?

Why not just put stacks of Nazi Aztecs in London? They have the same basis in reality.

^Yes, that's hyperbole for anyone with a slight humor impairment.

The game still feels broken.

Fix please.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

There's two or three issues at work here.

1) Rebel size is meant to challenge the nation, since they'd be little more than an annoyance to be swatted if they spawned with anything resembling historically accurate numbers, and at that point, why even have rebel troops?

2) Rebellions should probably scale a bit less than they do now, to prevent absurdities within mechanics like rebels with an army larger than the nation's potential manpower pool.

3) Multiple types of rebellions should be more likely to trigger at once -- perhaps an ongoing rebellion should increase unrest in all provinces? -- if the troop numbers are reduced, to make rebels less of an annoyance, and more of a threat, while still maintaining semi-realistic (or at least mechanically plausible) numbers.

 

[Kh3lben]

Why not just put stacks of Nazi Aztecs in London?

I 'd pay top dollar for a DLC including just this.

 

[wingzero890]

I 'd pay top dollar for a DLC including just this.

Please don't give them any ideas because they did this with CK2 and it's an awful DLC.

 

[Freudia]

Please don't give them any ideas because they did this with CK2 and it's an awful DLC.

Curious: What makes it a bad DLC?

 

[Kh3lben]

Please don't give them any ideas because they did this with CK2 and it's an awful DLC.

I know,i got sunset invasion...perma disabled :ninja: But those are just regular Aztecs. ^^

 

[VampireBoot]

Please don't give them any ideas because they did this with CK2 and it's an awful awesome and hilarious DLC.

Fixed that for you.

 

[hashinshin]

Sunset invasion is hilarious.

I think EU4 needs a zombie invasion DLC.

 

[balmung60]

Curious: What makes it a bad DLC?

Not having a sense of humor about the DLC is what makes it a bad DLC.

 

[billclintonmask]

Just think of the rebel stacks as fighting with the SPIRIT and HEART of 14,000 troops.

 

[gothos]

The AI has a hard time with rebels, I must say. I've been able to keep mine under wraps mostly, but in my new Portugal game my catholic Morocco vassal just kept getting absolutely wrecked by Sunni Zealots, Moroccan Peasants, Berber Patriots and Susan Nationalists. All it took was one war with Benin when my stack was away and they got completely wasted. It would seem making a christian Morocco is not a good idea, should've just vassalized them as Sunni.
Curiously, my catholic Tafilat vassal never had a single rebellion and are doing very well for themselves. Considering annexing Morocco and giving all their land to Tafilat. Or just starting over.

Edit: Oh and I must not forget my Kongo game. Turning catholic and reforming looks like it was a mistake. With 8 forcelimit I had 5+ Shamanist Zealot stacks of 11 troops rise up. Welp.

 

[Lord Finnish]

I'm totally cool with rebel mechanics the way they are.

 

[Freudia]

The AI has a hard time with rebels, I must say. I've been able to keep mine under wraps mostly, but in my new Portugal game my catholic Morocco vassal just kept getting absolutely wrecked by Sunni Zealots, Moroccan Peasants, Berber Patriots and Susan Nationalists. All it took was one war with Benin when my stack was away and they got completely wasted. It would seem making a christian Morocco is not a good idea, should've just vassalized them as Sunni.
Curiously, my catholic Tafilat vassal never had a single rebellion and are doing very well for themselves. Considering annexing Morocco and giving all their land to Tafilat. Or just starting over.

Edit: Oh and I must not forget my Kongo game. Turning catholic and reforming looks like it was a mistake. With 8 forcelimit I had 5+ Shamanist Zealot stacks of 11 troops rise up. Welp.

The AI tends to have problems with the rebel mechanics now. Kind of like 1.6.0 rebels. Of course, it's hit or miss on how the AI actually fairs at it; my Orthodox Najd vassal in my Theodoro game has had only one revolt and it was a peasant revolt.

 

[Gunthah]

I quite like the rebel mechanics as they are now.

 

[Calad]

Sunset invasion is hilarious.

I think EU4 needs a zombie invasion DLC.

They already have rebel invasion. It is just unannounced.

 

[kvk]

We want Nazi Aztec Zombies invading France!:rofl:

 

[mattkunz]

The problem is EU lacks the mechanics to portray the ways in which rebellions were historically threatening, e.g. controlling large parts of your own army, or hampering your government even when not in open revolt. In EU the only way for rebels to be a threat, is to be a military threat and that already means ahistorically large rebellions.
Another easier to fix problem, is the lack of a rebel ai. If rebels acted less like braindead zombies, it wouldn't take nearly as many to be a military threat.

 

[ChildeR]

The problem is EU lacks the mechanics to portray the ways in which rebellions were historically threatening, e.g. controlling large parts of your own army, or hampering your government even when not in open revolt. In EU the only way for rebels to be a threat, is to be a military threat and that already means ahistorically large rebellions.

Yes, I'm not sure the game would be more fun if instead of spawning an army that rivals yours, the rebels would take control of half your units. Maybe it would and I hope the devs explore it, but the current system is fine. Small tweaks to numbers may be needed, but I hope no major decrease happens.

It's great that we mostly got rid of small rebellions. There's no point to having a 1/4 FL rebellion or even smaller, since you can just crush it easily without any problems.

 

[No idea]

I think putting a max to the size of rebels should do the trick. The max number of regiments in a single revolt might be 50% of your total land limit, for example. That would make for rebellions you might crush if you have enough MP and no problems (other wars or economical problems), but rebellions that will be dangerous if you have said problems. After all that was basically what happened most times. Rebellions were usually crushed, but a few times, due to problems of the country, they were succesfull.

One thing I think they should change is the amount of patriots and nationalist rebellions. There are too many of them for this time period. Peasants or religious rebellions were far, far more common than patriotic or nationslistic ones during the games time frame, even if sometimes is difficult to give a historic rebellion a single "casus rebellionis".

 

[ChildeR]

I think putting a max to the size of rebels should do the trick. The max number of regiments in a single revolt might be 50% of your total land limit, for example.

Which means they are never a threat...