Stop with the Idiotically Stupidly Insanely Large Rebel Sizes

[swm]

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.

Bengal I had absolutely nothing to do with; I took absolutely no hostile actions towards them until at least a decade afterwards.


Malwa was totally my fault. That said: Murdering Malwa was too easy. I should not be able to rofl-stomp a regional power this easily.
It was so easy I actually did it by accident. I went to war over a bunch of claims, and towards the end I absent mindedly took a diplo tech without reading how many points it would cost me. The result was about a year of full occupation waiting for diplo points to tick up.
I took 5 provinces in the peace. My ally took 3 in its separate peace. The rest blew up on its own.
Granted, I divided Malwa in two, but it didn't matter. For one thing, it was horribly outnumbered. Malwa was facing multiple 15k+ rebel stacks and collapsed in the time it took to build a 4k stack. Moreover, it died fast. From war start to collapse, I think Malwa fell in about 4 or 5 years (including the year of me being absent minded). When Malwa collapsed, 3 different nations declared independence from it, reducing it to a 2PM.

I thought truce timers were intended to stop things like this?

Pictures for the curious. Mewar, Dhundhar, and Gondwana are the revolter states. Jaunpur was my ally. Note the fairly high unrest in one of Malwa's last remaining provinces.

Spoiler

 

[Bragi]

Uh, that was indeed fast

 

[anomanderus]

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.

There I don't see the point of adding the "and Scotland"

Scotland had something like a million people, England something like 4 million and France somewhere between 10 and 15 million people

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'.

Losing will never be fun in any game

 

[correctamundo]

Losing will never be fun in any game

Even though losing as such isn't fun the risk and reality of it happening is what makes winning fun. At least for me. It's what kept me hooked on this game initially.

 

[TheeLord]

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'.

very well said! Losing does not bother me in the long term. I can get over any loss and it's almost fun at times to know that there is actually a challenge there.. Why play a game if there is no chance of losing????

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Even though losing as such isn't fun the risk and reality of it happening is what makes winning fun. At least for me. It's what kept me hooked on this game initially.

It is important to lose because of a poor choice made, rather than just RNG screw or fake difficulty.

In order for the game to be the former, you have to know about and how things like peasant's war functions, or you get bigtime screwed at random with no real way of predicting it. Unrest is similarly vexing, playing with it properly means gaming it such that you either don't get the rebellion...or you managed conquests in a pattern such that any one rebellion isn't very large. A few select nations like Ming just get kind of screwed if unlucky.

 

[Squirrelloid]

There I don't see the point of adding the "and Scotland"

Scotland had something like a million people, England something like 4 million and France somewhere between 10 and 15 million people

Losing will never be fun in any game

Because 6500 of them were Scottish? As in, almost half the force.

Despite its massive population advantage, France had a terrible time fielding similar proportions of its population as other countries. This was due in no small part to most of the French countryside having been pillaged continuously during the HYW - not just by English armies, but also by mercenary companies that resorted to banditry when the war went cold. There was also the Jacquerie, a brutal peasant rebellion that devastated a third to half the country until someone actually bothered to fight them. (Once trained men with weapons and armor actually attacked them, they were quickly routed - ie, the fate of most revolts in the period, and why the average revolt in EUIV being crazy hard to defeat militarily is ridiculous).

If you wanted to accurately portray France at game start, it would have 50% LA everywhere (not as a floor, but representing the fact that the monarchy had little effective control of the administration of the country).

 

[Squirrelloid]

Losing is fun, but it should be to your actual opponents. Rebels shouldn't be a challenge - ever - unless you're already hard-pressed elsewhere, or they're backed financially and militarily by your rivals.

 

[ChildeR]

Losing will never be fun in any game

There are games where you always lose, yet they manage to be fun.

(E.g. some roguelikes. Though many of them have at least theoretically a way to win you are still expected to lose most games. Some have none.)

 

[atwix]

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.

you always make me smile bud

 

[atwix]

the only thing I don't get is why every province gets same amount of rebels. Do provinces above a certain basetax spawn more?

I play Yaroslavl, and all i see is 12k rebel stacks on province varying 1 to 4 basetax. Its already friggin hard to win independance, and then you get 12k rebels when you conquer an OPM like Tver? I managed, but i was like "WOW rebels stronk". Harsh treatment is useless.

Does that mean i should claim/conquer the biggest tax provinces first?

And.. what after integrating a vassal? Do those provces get same autonomy as your vassal had?

Anyways, regarding the OP complaint: This new rebel mecahnic is just a nerf to agressive players, period. Conquer 5 provinces anywhere, and you get 60k rebels shortly after. It makes blobbing from 1444 start hard with an OPM.

I had to rely on waging war, and using ally stacks to kill rebels. For a new player, seeing 60k rebels might be a rage quit moment.

All in all, i think this change favors players that are well aware of game mechanics. I don't quite know if that is a good thing or not.

 

[Prom_STar]

Everything in this game is an abstraction and everything is intentionally simplified. Cf. base tax and province manpower to Vicky's pop system. Because of that abstraction, revolts are not going to make historical sense. Stop expecting them to in a game where a province is represented by nothing more than base tax, manpower and a single trade good. I much prefer rebellions be actually threatening, actually a challenge, than for their size to be true to history and the rebels thus pose no risk to my country.

The new rebel system is a massive improvement in my opinion. We've gone from the whim of the dice to a system where you can actually see rebellions forming and take steps to counteract them. Less power to RNG and more agency to the player. Huge improvement. The rebellions have to be big for them to matter. If that strains realism, well I'll sacrifice realism for better gameplay. If you wanted this game to be realistic, you'd have to rebuild a whole lot more than just the rebel system.

 

[Pete0714]

Sunset invasion is hilarious.

I think EU4 needs a zombie invasion DLC.

Nonononononono DANG IT!

 

[Big Blue Blob]

Everything in this game is an abstraction and everything is intentionally simplified. Cf. base tax and province manpower to Vicky's pop system. Because of that abstraction, revolts are not going to make historical sense. Stop expecting them to in a game where a province is represented by nothing more than base tax, manpower and a single trade good. I much prefer rebellions be actually threatening, actually a challenge, than for their size to be true to history and the rebels thus pose no risk to my country.

The new rebel system is a massive improvement in my opinion. We've gone from the whim of the dice to a system where you can actually see rebellions forming and take steps to counteract them. Less power to RNG and more agency to the player. Huge improvement. The rebellions have to be big for them to matter. If that strains realism, well I'll sacrifice realism for better gameplay. If you wanted this game to be realistic, you'd have to rebuild a whole lot more than just the rebel system.

I partially agree with you in that the problems with EU4 lie far deeper than rebels. I do not agree with you that the current state of things is remotely good. EU5 must be very, very different if I am going to waste my money on it...

Also, Sunset Invasion is stupid. It should be an Easter egg activated from the console, not a paid DLC.

 

[matk]

Lol Lithuania is getting wrecked in the 5 games I've started since AoW came out (all only played for 20ish years, to get a feel for the expansion). All those new tags in that region? We get to see them most games right near the start!

 

[Outrider]

The new rebel system is a massive improvement in my opinion. We've gone from the whim of the dice to a system where you can actually see rebellions forming and take steps to counteract them. Less power to RNG and more agency to the player. Huge improvement.

Agreed, the system is an improvement over monthly dice rolls.

The rebellions have to be big for them to matter. If that strains realism, well I'll sacrifice realism for better gameplay.

Not really. For them to "matter", they need to be sufficiently large not to always be brushed off. A moderately sized rebel army can be a serious threat if the majority of your troops are occupied with a war or if your country has been thrashed by war.

If they're a threat to your existence when you're at peace, with full manpower and strong generals, something is wrong. When playing as a European major, this won't happen, but for anyone small it appears to routinely happen.

Can you explain to me why absurd rebels make for "better gameplay" rather than just stating it as a fact. Even in your post you stress the import of player agency, when the outcome of the system as currently implemented appears to take it away in many cases.

 

[Tzeentch_]

Is this a bug or WAD? I have 6k force limit yet 8 stacks of 6k rebels popped up simultaneously. I feel like it should have just been a single stack of 6 as dealing with 48k rebels with 6k troops isn't much fun. They're all Najd peasants.

 

[correctamundo]

In order for the game to be the former, you have to know about and how things like peasant's war functions

Actually you may have to know exactly but I don't. Even if you don't know all the triggers exactly it shouldn't be a complete surprise that wasting your resources in game may come with negative consequences. I managed to trigger to peasant's war twice before I knew the triggers. Both times I had of course through bad decisions wasted my resources. Neither occasions resulted in game over. But the stab hit sort of insinuates the remedy. It could have been game over though. And why not? It was after all my risk behaviour that brought it all on me.

 

[Anzi]

Fact of the matter is, that the only way to get huge rebel stacks is to massively mismanage your nation. If you play impatiently, you'll pay a price.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually you may have to know exactly but I don't. Even if you don't know all the triggers exactly it shouldn't be a complete surprise that wasting your resources in game may come with negative consequences. I managed to trigger to peasant's war twice before I knew the triggers. Both times I had of course through bad decisions wasted my resources. Neither occasions resulted in game over. But the stab hit sort of insinuates the remedy. It could have been game over though. And why not? It was after all my risk behaviour that brought it all on me.

Which 1.8 nation were you playing when you got a peasant's war?

Previous iterations where accepting rebel demands didn't give up territory don't count.

Fact of the matter is, that the only way to get huge rebel stacks is to massively mismanage your nation. If you play impatiently, you'll pay a price.

Spoken like a true player who only plays major powers.