I would note the decision to make the Ibadi nation of Mzab have a Sunni province seems to result in them getting destroyed by Sunni rebels in most games
Stop with the Idiotically Stupidly Insanely Large Rebel Sizes
- Thread starter PeterCorless
- 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.
I´d say that maybe overall unrest levels should be decreased by 10 to 20% (of the base values, so if a situation has 10% unrest, it should be 8). And check if Humanism is indeed OP.
Yeah, I think what they can do is increase the national army force limit sizes. England in 1444 should have a force limit of 60k or so. France 58k, Ottomans 55k, Austria 50k, Burgundy 48k. The armies are way too small in the game. Historically, the Ottomans defeated the crusaders in the battle of varna with 60k troops.
I would MUCH rather have relevant rebels than see almost no revolter states and the Timurids survive until 1821 ninety percent of the time. Thanks for the changes, Paradox. Don't listen to these people.
P.S. Lollards are given more units than normal rebels. For god's sake (whichever denomination's god that might be), they're HERETIC rebels. Accepting heretic demands doesn't lose you provinces, and Lollards don't even exist outside of Europe.
P.S. Lollards are given more units than normal rebels. For god's sake (whichever denomination's god that might be), they're HERETIC rebels. Accepting heretic demands doesn't lose you provinces, and Lollards don't even exist outside of Europe.
I have no problems with the new rebel system. But right now nunbers are silly, and the historical precedent is completely none existence. I could see a very large revolt, spanned by some very important demand for change in society could see success. But in actual history, revolts (in Europe, anyway) were so rarley successful that paradox has actually made them all more or less into event chains.
I'm definitely all for nerfting numbers, because they are stupid (22,000 Lollards in London in 1450, are you serious?), but keep the current system as it will probably help break blobbing hordes down.
I'm definitely all for nerfting numbers, because they are stupid (22,000 Lollards in London in 1450, are you serious?), but keep the current system as it will probably help break blobbing hordes down.
I seriously have to wonder if people complaining about the rebels refuse to raise autonomy in newly acquired provinces, refuse to take ideas to offset unrest or gamble with several provinces at 10% unrest for 5 years and then wonder why they have had an uprising.
In my current Brandenburg game, I took humanism, and raised autonomy in all newly conquered provinces where the Unrest was above 5% and I have had not one unrest revolt. Not one.
Raise autonomy, you lose it fast enough anyway.
On the subject of rebel sizes, they need to be a threat, otherwise you might as well remove them from the game. I personally like the new mechanic.
In my current Brandenburg game, I took humanism, and raised autonomy in all newly conquered provinces where the Unrest was above 5% and I have had not one unrest revolt. Not one.
Raise autonomy, you lose it fast enough anyway.
On the subject of rebel sizes, they need to be a threat, otherwise you might as well remove them from the game. I personally like the new mechanic.
Decreasing numbers is worse, because it will do too little difference with AI but will make things too easy for the player. One thing is attacking a 5k rebel stack with 5k mercenaries (which isn´t that expensive), another having a 10k stack with 10k mercenaries (which is a TAD more expensive to build and mantain). Situation number 1 makes them pointless, situation number 2 allows them to be the treat they should be.
For lulz I tried a game as England and there are 3 lollard stacks, one of which is 24k, which is probably too much indeed.
I think that there needs to be some tweaking with event rebellions. For the new mechanic in general i just need some getting used to it but for the events (eg lollards and war of the roses) something needs to be done. Specifically for the lollards i played as England tried to put them down but due to being dow by a coalition and burgundy i couldn't. I accepted there demands and got the lollards accepted modifier. This would have been fine except that the Lollard heresy modifier didn't disappear from my provinces once i accepted demands. over the course of the game i got 2 or 3 more Lollard rebellions each time having to put them down at the cost of manpower or accept demands at the cost of 50 prestige even though i had the lollards accepted tag. Accepting demands should remove the unrest caused by the lollard heresy.
For the war of the roses i got stomped due to multiple stacks being spawned by foreign support. Eventually england broke, this caused me to loose personal union with France and to release the nations of wales, northumberland, normandy and guyenne as well as cede calais and picardie to burgundy even though only pretender rebels had spawned. before this patch i never had my nation break before but i had thought that being broken by one type of rebel wouldn't enforce all potential rebel demands.
For the war of the roses i got stomped due to multiple stacks being spawned by foreign support. Eventually england broke, this caused me to loose personal union with France and to release the nations of wales, northumberland, normandy and guyenne as well as cede calais and picardie to burgundy even though only pretender rebels had spawned. before this patch i never had my nation break before but i had thought that being broken by one type of rebel wouldn't enforce all potential rebel demands.
"Adventurers in CK2 need to have more soldiers than the largest empire in game otherwise they can't win!"
That's you
If I recruited every man into my army in the entire country how can rebels be spawning with more than my force limit where the hell are they getting the soldiers if my manpower is 0 then the population pool for rebels should be close to zero
How about various severities of revolt. At low severity, a small stack spawns that loots the countryside but can be swatted. E.g. 2k or 3k rebels.
At higher severity, a slighty larger stack (but still historically reasonable, say 5k but I admit I'm plucking that out of the air) spawns but takes immediate control of the province.
Job done - go siege that province. And if another province flips because your RR is too high, start worrying...
You've still only got small rebel stacks. It only takes a handful to seize the town hall and stop paying taxes.
OH and I'm also a fan of your troops rebelling - either via manpower loss or actual stacks splitting/rebelling.
At higher severity, a slighty larger stack (but still historically reasonable, say 5k but I admit I'm plucking that out of the air) spawns but takes immediate control of the province.
Job done - go siege that province. And if another province flips because your RR is too high, start worrying...
You've still only got small rebel stacks. It only takes a handful to seize the town hall and stop paying taxes.
OH and I'm also a fan of your troops rebelling - either via manpower loss or actual stacks splitting/rebelling.
The thing is, the game models the type of a standing army, where the soldiers are paid professional soldiers, not to confuse with levies, raised among peasants and burghers in a militia system. So the manpower-pool is, in a very abstract way, just the pool of the male population, willing to earn their money as a professional soldier.
THIS is very good! Solves many problems! Defeatable size, but annoyings since they effect your nation from start on!
That's me, too, because CK2 has the same problem as EU4: excessive ease in projecting power and not enough negative effects from warfare. If PDS steadfastly refuses to add internal mechanics to show what war does to a country, then oversized rebels/adventurers is the only way to do anything about it.
(And, note well, in CK2 it's too little anyway.)
I might believe that but then rebels come equipped with just as good weapons, just as much cavalry, just as much cannons often more, better generals, same discipline and higher morale sometimes. Seems very professional to me
One problem is that these rebels are just as well trained, armed, and led as the nation they're rebelling against. Found it silly on one of my playthroughs having the War of Roses occur and seeing England covered in rebels(Roughly 150k+) yet, these men weren't willing to cross the channel? That's quite the insult to the Monarch if the lords were holding back 150,000 armed and trained soldiers from securing the French throne.
I absolutely agree that this is not remotely a good depiction of actual relations of powers back then. I only hinted that the force limit or the army size respectively does not reflect the total amount of available male population between 16 - 50 yo, capable of bearing weapons. CK2 is one extreme, EUIV the other.
To be fair, at least now rebellions don't spawn with generals. Before, any rebellion could defeat any one of your unlead armies just because every rebellion spawned with a general.
This is a good idea IF they reduce the size of rebellions like you said.
They do spawn with generals from what I saw. When I actively made a rebellion occur in my Ottos game to flip religion three stacks and each of them had a general leading. Though the stats were not that great (2-1-0-0.. etc).