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.
All the rebellions that have spawned in my game so far haven't had generals so maybe it just depends on the rebellion type? Most of the rebellions I've dealt with are peasant rebellions (which makes sense that they wouldn't have generals) and independence factions for one-province-minors.
Non-peasant rebels will have generals, and often at unrealistically good quality, the kind a player would need idea groups and tradition farming to match.
Err... 60k forcelimit in 1444? What? England never managed 20k at one time in 1444, much less 60k. Nor did France. Battles in the HYW after 1444: Formigny (5k each side), Castillon (6k English, 10k French). Castillon was basically the entire armed might of the French kingdom, and earlier battles with numbers approaching 10k similarly represented most of the country's fighting men. (Many contemporary records of the battles grossly overestimate numbers, so sometimes you'll see ridiculous figures for earlier HYW battles like Agincourt on the french side. These figures are patently ridiculous).
Probably the largest battle of the later HYW was Verneiul in 1424, with 8-10k English and 14-16k French *and* Scottish forces.
Last edited:
And they get full access to your army morale and tactics tech advances - even if you gain them *after* the rebellion has spawned!
No, what they should do is remove unit sizes and change manpower to abstract units so that people would stop comparing them to population figures and historical army sizes. They have to be balanced for gameplay, not history. It's not like in-game ducats are meant to correspond to any historical currency either.
Squirrelloid already replied on this. I'll just add that the Ottoman force consisted in 15k regular Jannissary troops, the rest being mercenaries recruited for the battle specifically.
I love the new rebel mechanics. They're more of a threat instead of a measly annoyance. Still too weak IMO as I have yet to see a country get shattered by rebels, which happened quite a few times in real life.
Ringing commendations on all accounts for the new things in AoW honestly. Just got to kink out some bugs.
Ringing commendations on all accounts for the new things in AoW honestly. Just got to kink out some bugs.
All this talk of how historical army sizes are does my box in. It would be boring to have 5k troops for 100 yrs. Gameplay is whats important. And rebels as they were, as 5k pop ups when yu can field an army of 50k is boring, it has to be challenging.
Pdox, have reduced the randomness, given the player control, and given them a challenge if they dont control. Its fine
Pdox, have reduced the randomness, given the player control, and given them a challenge if they dont control. Its fine
I love the rebel mechanics now! It's predictable and they provide a challenge. If anything, they could make the rebels stronger once in a while. Played until 1750 with Ottomans and never had a rebel stack scare me. Even the 72k Janissary event wasn't hard at all to beat.
Its not even possible in the game, your economy will fail before anything happens.
Alright but, still not possible to have such low force limits. Ottomans have 100k during the siege of Constantinople. Also, how can Ming have only 50k force limit when its population is over 100 million? The whole force limit thing is unnecessary.
At the risk of sounding antagonistic: You're joking, right?
I just finished a game with Vijay - I watched three of my neighbors collapse in that one game alone (Would've been four had I not saved my vassal).
The two more dramatic examples:
Bengal and I partitioned Orissa, Bengal collapsed to Orissan rebels almost immediately afterwards (the revolt was easily bigger than Bengal's force limit, probably multiplied by at least 1.5).
Poor Malwa was brought down from a 23 province regional powerhouse to a 2PM in under a decade. (This one... may have been my fault, still though - it should not be this easy to obliterate your only rival)
Generally, when players post opinions incongruous with those who play less common starts, it's because they play mostly major powers. This post sums up this typical scenario quite well:
"I played as a top 3 superpower starts that has built in religious tolerance, begins the game with discipline, and has among the game's strongest flavor events and this new mechanic didn't affect me much at all! Obviously it's fine!"
--> Same player will typically never play a start like Mongolia or Ceylon, and thus never see the potential for absurdity, or will simply claim "well x is supposed to be hard" while blithely ignoring reality, refusing to address the concept of plausibility except when convenient to them, and continuing to favor powers only.
The problem I see is that when a rebellion army does spawn, often it's size is close to my force limits. Right now, this is not an issue since the rebels are spawning in Africa (And I have all my troops in Africa) but I can imagine later on in the game when my troops are spread out, this will become an issue.
Here's another example of what happened in my game recently : http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=336219495 (They wanted to increase autonomy so I just accepted demands)
What I'm curious to know is what determines the size of the rebel armies?
As someone else may have mentioned, there needs to be a variable to determine how powerful the rebel army is, as well of ways to reduce the size before they spawn. (Maybe this is possible, but I'm not too used to the new rebel system yet).
I can say though that I still prefer the new rebel system to the old one. That was a mess.
Here's another example of what happened in my game recently : http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=336219495 (They wanted to increase autonomy so I just accepted demands)
What I'm curious to know is what determines the size of the rebel armies?
As someone else may have mentioned, there needs to be a variable to determine how powerful the rebel army is, as well of ways to reduce the size before they spawn. (Maybe this is possible, but I'm not too used to the new rebel system yet).
I can say though that I still prefer the new rebel system to the old one. That was a mess.
Your examples sound like they only happened because you took an active role in breaking them apart though. But you are right - I have seen rebels succeed twice.
A war-torn Sweden lost its Norwegian and Danish holdings to rebels. I also have seen several Protestant rebels changing religions on opms that were already Protestant provinces anyway.
Huh, maybe I should go back and check the rebels out more thoroughly though. In either case, I'm loving that they aren't just wimps.
He was sharing his observation in his own case, and came to a conclusion, which he posted as his personal view. Nothing wrong here and no need to be rude or humiliating. If your observations differ, fine, post it. But why invaliding other views? I don't get that.
Generally when a know-it-all jerk on the forums insults others and complains that game mechanics aren't easy enough and he can't conquer all of Asia with Ceylon by 1700 anymore he should be ignored... But I couldn't help myself.
I think people's attitudes toward rebellions in this game is one of the greatest problems with the community, especially in multilayer.
Countries did not just steadily rise to power in the world, they were continually plagued by huge wars for foreign and domestic, something which hasn't been represented in the EU series properly in the past.
Rage quitting in a multilayer setting with this community is a joke, it happens all the time for the stupidest of reasons, "I lost a province in a war, may aswell start a new game", "oh rebels killed my army, better start a new game". Its insane.
The fun of a sandbox game like this is playing through alternate history, not building the same massive blob empires until you get bored and start a new game over and over again. Losing should be considered another fun part of this game.
If you screw up and get a massive rebellion that changes the course of your country's history, GO WITH IT, don't just rage quit and go whining on the forums because the game is hard and you think its 'broken'.
Countries did not just steadily rise to power in the world, they were continually plagued by huge wars for foreign and domestic, something which hasn't been represented in the EU series properly in the past.
Rage quitting in a multilayer setting with this community is a joke, it happens all the time for the stupidest of reasons, "I lost a province in a war, may aswell start a new game", "oh rebels killed my army, better start a new game". Its insane.
The fun of a sandbox game like this is playing through alternate history, not building the same massive blob empires until you get bored and start a new game over and over again. Losing should be considered another fun part of this game.
If you screw up and get a massive rebellion that changes the course of your country's history, GO WITH IT, don't just rage quit and go whining on the forums because the game is hard and you think its 'broken'.