the revolution is so annoying

[subzero12479]

Peasants: We are really unhappy with this absolutism stuff but since we are so happy here we wont actually start a revolution.
King: Ok, thats fine, i guess. its not like i can force you to pay your taxes.
Thats so stupid, i cant believe thats still implemented like this. the stability less than 2 requirement for the disaster to start makes no sense whatsoever. also, when i eventually reduce my stab enough (intentionally or not) and beat the "disaster" (aka kill two rebel stacks and stab up a bunch of times, one might expect dealing with an entire outraged population would be a little bit more challenging) it wont do anything about the revolution in my subjects, so they will sit on +50% autonomy or +25 unrest until a rng event in a couple of decades fires without me or them being able to do anything about it, nice.

 

[InvisibleBison]

The implementation of the revolution in the base game is pretty awful, but the more I hear about how it works with Emperor the less I want to buy that DLC.

 

[Pandrea]

Unfortunately the rebel stacks being made of tissue paper makes any historical revolution or civil war nothing more than an annoyance. They're not a threat and can be stack-wiped easily except when your army is being kicked in actual war.

I can't see a solution except waiting for EU5. CK2 and VIC2 are much better in to simulate internal troubles: in CK2 entire regions or even all your country can rise up against you and in VIC2 the loyalty of your very regiments is at stake.

 

[Nostalgium]

I can't see a solution except waiting for EU5. CK2 and VIC2 are much better in to simulate internal troubles: in CK2 entire regions or even all your country can rise up against you and in VIC2 the loyalty of your very regiments is at stake.

This was also true in earlier builds of Imperator, where rebellions were regional and almost had a kind of snowballing effect. Then, for some reason, they added a huge malus to revolt risk if a revolt had recently occured. The one change made to that game I was not on board with and I felt took a mechanic to a worse place than where it had started.

 

[Pandrea]

This was also true in earlier builds of Imperator, where rebellions were regional and almost had a kind of snowballing effect. Then, for some reason, they added a huge malus to revolt risk if a revolt had recently occured. The one change made to that game I was not on board with and I felt took a mechanic to a worse place than where it had started.

You know, for every person who says "game too easy / unrealistic, pls buff this and change that" on this forum, there are hundreds of customer who wanna an easy game where they can steamroll the world with their favourite political entity of the age.

 

[Nostalgium]

You know, for every person who says "game too easy / unrealistic, pls buff this and change that" on this forum, there are hundreds of customer who wanna an easy game where they can steamroll the world with their favourite political entity of the age.

Sure - but the key here is that those mass regional revolts weren't actually more difficult to put down than, say, the whack-a-mole rebels you can get in EU4. They were simply more interesting, and felt more alive. I'm not actually ever advocating for EU4 to be more difficult; all of my comments on this forum related to gameplay are about how I think it can be made more immersive and interesting. I'm actually in the crowd that likes to steamroll, but I don't see that as a reason to stop striving for a more complex and immersive game - concepts that I again want to stress are completely unmoored from difficulty. You can have incredibly simple games that are hard, and complex ones that are easy.