Civil wars are best wars. Rebels are the enemy that keeps on giving.
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.
Civil wars are best wars. Rebels are the enemy that keeps on giving.
Well, I for myself see all the province modifiers and mali as kind of destractions and damage the revolters do to the economy and policy of the government. So the guerillas and La Résistance are kind of ... there. What will be needed to counterweight the significant impact of large rebel stacks (as needed to impose a threat, as mentioned various times before) is a real and more visual/substantial impact of the current unrest numbers, maybe through triggered and related events or more significant impact to your economy. Then you could probably get rid of these brainless amounts of rebels spawning.
Edit: And of course, an new function, mechanic or decisions to encounter or prevent those impacts may be required.
Last edited:
I just took half of India in one war as a European power. I have a 120 force limit or so. Got massive overextension, getting mass stacks of 90k in India. To me it seems fair.
I obviously did this to check out what happens.
I obviously did this to check out what happens.
Man, there are country with BS rebels by event or decision. Honeslty, go play as England.
Having to fight 140k Lollards in total, considering in real life they didn´t EVEN revolt is complete BS. The system isn´t bad, but it lacks polish, sometimes laughably so.
Yeah, some even troops are fairly strong. I wish they'd make the rebel events use the unrest system as well, so you could use the same tools to deal with it. I.e. add +X unrest to N provinces for M months instead of immediately spawning a stack. Then again, you can accept Lollard demands without losing any land (right?), so even if they can't be beaten it isn't *that* big a deal in that instance.
I don't agree with that. By that logic, France by 1600 under aggressive & above average player control should not just have any rebellions at all unless it's a full-blown Peasant War. Even small rebellions are annoying and that's kinda the point, especially during wartime, when you have all your troops in offensive operations and you're draining your manpower rapidly, need to keep your troops in a specific area to fight the enemy, then ... boom ... a small, but annoying and manpower-risky rebellion in your homeland is threatening the capital. I think there's a lot of point in that, it can pretty much cripple an offensive operation, at least delay it (and waste more manpower, perhaps MIL points for forced march).
I personally hate rebellions to the maximum myself, but they do have a point and it's an understandable game mechanic, otherwise it would be too easy. It's ahistorical for gameplay purposes, EU IV is far from a simulator.
I do, though, agree that the AI has a lot of trouble with rebels. So far I've played around 200-300 years in two playthroughs and rebels have not been a problem at all. Then again, playing easy nations (France (the Wars of Religion were a bit threatening, though, especially with the capture of the capital (I was also in war for some portions of the religious rebellions) - lost some manpower due to a much needed assault, being on the verge of rebels enforcing demands), Brandenburg > Prussia), but it's so easy to stop rebellions from even happening, let alone beat these weaklings.
And the AI problems with rebels is my main concern. It's not fair to the AI. It also decreases game challenge when half of Europe has, at least once or twice in a few centuries, been completely destroyed by rebels in scenarios where the player would have easily handled it (although it's only logical that some nations do fall to rebels at least once in such a long time period, but the player has such an easy time with it, tbh).
Exactly. Blood for the blood god!
The Lollard events are really weird. It's like Paradox has got Lollardy in England (a fairly non-violent group who were quickly driven underground, only to resurface in the Reformation) mixed up with the Hussites in Bohemia (a religious movement who actually took power, leading to a devastating series of wars, albeit just outside the period covered by EU4).
Basically when the Lollard event appears, you have to decide right there and then whether you want to stay Catholic. If you do want to stay Catholic, prepare to take some punishment from the Lollards that is well out of proportion to anything that happened in the real world. If you don't, just tolerate them. It seems Lollards are in actual fact completely harmless if left alone (no bad internal consequences). However, your papal influence is permanently ruined - the Pope will NEVER forgive you, not even 300 years later. Nobody else gets this treatment, no matter how grievous their acts of heresy - apparently, tolerating Lollards is the one unforgivable sin. Following a historical course of suppressing the Lollards and then converting to Protestant is just pure masochism, and doesn't achieve anything.
Last edited:
Well supressing them does increase reform desire (IIRC), and more desire makes provinces flip faster. So there is a benefit, even if very well hidden, and newbies won´t notice it.
I think the event was made to punish people who try to fight the HYW for decades, but it´s stupid because even if you manage to White Peace in 2 years you will still have trouble
I think the event was made to punish people who try to fight the HYW for decades, but it´s stupid because even if you manage to White Peace in 2 years you will still have trouble
I think the event was made to punish people who try to fight the HYW for decades, but it´s stupid because even if you manage to White Peace in 2 years you will still have trouble
Isn't that the job of the Wars of the Roses?
Reform desire is a global thing, so any one country's decisions won't shift the date of the Reformation very much. As for the rate of flipping, I have no idea how it works now that they've completely overhauled the process. Is there a guide somewhere to how exactly Centres of Reformation work (with numbers)?
Yeah, haha, currently we have three punishments for England: The HYW for itself, the Lollards and the War of the Roses
Still not enough, lets face them the plague and reformation at the same time! \sarcasm
Still not enough, lets face them the plague and reformation at the same time! \sarcasm
Oh it is the main event to make the player get a clue, but lollards too will punish you as WE rises to astronomical levels
The decision gives +5% reform desire, making it one of the most potent events to stimulate the reformation later, so I wouldn´t dismiss its impact. As for flipping, was there any ninja change to the process in the patch? Shouldn´t higher reform desire still make more provinces flip?
So I've got one positive response and no other comments (see post #52 and response in post #54, quoted above). In fact this idea (rebels taking province immediately) was in the original EU boardgame so implementing it is only returning to the True Path.
I'm not so thrilled about rebels automatically taking a province. I could see that under some circumstances but not others. For instance, a "peasants revolt" is likely stemming from the countryside, and would need to take the castles of a region. A noble's or pretender's rebellion would more likely have the support of the local castles and cities.
So, maybe have the province fall automatically based on the type of rebels.
Personally, I wish they'd implement some sort of interception system, where you don't automatically catch rebels. Unfortunately, my ideas were going to be based on terrain type, which they've pretty much simplified and eliminated on an intraprovince scale. But, basically, if there is swamp, forest, mountains, desert, etc. -- some sort of place for rebels to hide -- there should be some percentage chance that they'd retreat and be uncatchable for a period of time. A week or a month, say.
You'd have to leave your army stacks in the area for rebel suppression.
Just my thinking. But of course, that's not going to happen any time soon.
So, maybe have the province fall automatically based on the type of rebels.
Personally, I wish they'd implement some sort of interception system, where you don't automatically catch rebels. Unfortunately, my ideas were going to be based on terrain type, which they've pretty much simplified and eliminated on an intraprovince scale. But, basically, if there is swamp, forest, mountains, desert, etc. -- some sort of place for rebels to hide -- there should be some percentage chance that they'd retreat and be uncatchable for a period of time. A week or a month, say.
You'd have to leave your army stacks in the area for rebel suppression.
Just my thinking. But of course, that's not going to happen any time soon.
Lollards in particular must go. I do not remember reading anything about 40,000 well armed Lollard rebels in my history book, not even as a counterfactual possibility.
Asymmetrical warfare would be an excellent system to implement. Areas with rebel presence could suffer tax and production penalties, and units deployed in the area suffer high attrition, but have a chance of finding and defeating the rebels. Spies could help with this, making espionage ideas actually useful.
Asymmetrical warfare would be an excellent system to implement. Areas with rebel presence could suffer tax and production penalties, and units deployed in the area suffer high attrition, but have a chance of finding and defeating the rebels. Spies could help with this, making espionage ideas actually useful.
All rebels bar patriots (and zealots?) start with the same tech as the overlord.
Yes, those 20k somalian tribesmen now know how to use cannons.