I give absolutely no credence to anyone who says that this is a "good thing" or that it "works for you" or "L2P" or any of that nonsense. Anyone who states anything akin to that has little knowledge of military history.
My main point is that the Lollards, in particular, were anemic and unable to rouse a single regiment's worth of troops historically. This is, and has always been, an inflated event with no basis in history. The Lollard revolt needs to be nerfed or just excised from the event files. If anything, it could be some sort of impact to stability. Not a -1 stab hit, but, for instance, some malus to increase stability. +5% cost or something. Because they were nothing but a distraction to England. They were never a military threat to the crown. The game should simulate them via some other mechanic than simply tossing improbably stupidly huge numbers of rebels on the map.
If that's the best Paradox can do, then they aren't trying hard enough.
The overarching problem of "too many rebels" has also been noted by other people, and I would support them. Paradox has always gone back-and-forth on rebels, from CK2 to Vicky2. Too many. Too few. Too tough. Too easy.
The current game is basically unplayable for me because it's just badly designed, badly balanced, and badly tested. Any playthrough would show how many nations are just getting wrecked from an absurd amount of rebels. The AI cannot handle the basics of rebel-stomping, especially at the scale of the rebellions now being generated.
Yes, yes, yes. I can understand if people grow too fast/too soon, and have a mix of cultures and religions. Yes, rebels will be tricky then. But if the game is just blatantly punishing anyone for taking any action to increase the size of their nation, then forget it. I'd have more fun arguing politics on Facebook or trying to teach algebra to a tween.
My main point is that the Lollards, in particular, were anemic and unable to rouse a single regiment's worth of troops historically. This is, and has always been, an inflated event with no basis in history. The Lollard revolt needs to be nerfed or just excised from the event files. If anything, it could be some sort of impact to stability. Not a -1 stab hit, but, for instance, some malus to increase stability. +5% cost or something. Because they were nothing but a distraction to England. They were never a military threat to the crown. The game should simulate them via some other mechanic than simply tossing improbably stupidly huge numbers of rebels on the map.
If that's the best Paradox can do, then they aren't trying hard enough.
The overarching problem of "too many rebels" has also been noted by other people, and I would support them. Paradox has always gone back-and-forth on rebels, from CK2 to Vicky2. Too many. Too few. Too tough. Too easy.
The current game is basically unplayable for me because it's just badly designed, badly balanced, and badly tested. Any playthrough would show how many nations are just getting wrecked from an absurd amount of rebels. The AI cannot handle the basics of rebel-stomping, especially at the scale of the rebellions now being generated.
Yes, yes, yes. I can understand if people grow too fast/too soon, and have a mix of cultures and religions. Yes, rebels will be tricky then. But if the game is just blatantly punishing anyone for taking any action to increase the size of their nation, then forget it. I'd have more fun arguing politics on Facebook or trying to teach algebra to a tween.
