Riots, rebellions and executions.

[rajpoot]

Many times, playing through the TW games, I've faced rebellious cities, as has anyone who has played any of the games. Whatever be the reason......new religion, squalor, too many taxes etc etc, whatever, but what it comes down to is, that the people become unhappy, and then they riot, and if you cannot subdue them in time, they rebel. I personally, can almost never restore order in a rioting city, and always have to wait to let them rebel, then reconquer it, and then exterminate the population, which while effective in game, is not the historically correct way to go about and keeps on nagging me for long time afterwards.
I've always thought, that when the game gives you complete freedom to be a dread lord, then why, why is there not an option to round up and exectue the rioting people immidiatly, why can we not dump them in prison? Why is there no option to get their leaders assasinated using our assasins? If I want to kill off half of my city, I should be allowed to do that! After all, it's my city, and the rebels are traitors, commiting treason!

Now Empire will have an option to continue with Monarchy if I'm not wrong, I hope they give such an option there at least, where we can simply get the rebel leaders assasinated, adn the prominant rebels executed thereafter.......

[Csargo]

Many times, playing through the TW games, I've faced rebellious cities, as has anyone who has played any of the games. Whatever be the reason......new religion, squalor, too many taxes etc etc, whatever, but what it comes down to is, that the people become unhappy, and then they riot, and if you cannot subdue them in time, they rebel. I personally, can almost never restore order in a rioting city, and always have to wait to let them rebel, then reconquer it, and then exterminate the population, which while effective in game, is not the historically correct way to go about and keeps on nagging me for long time afterwards.
I've always thought, that when the game gives you complete freedom to be a dread lord, then why, why is there not an option to round up and exectue the rioting people immidiatly, why can we not dump them in prison? Why is there no option to get their leaders assasinated using our assasins? If I want to kill off half of my city, I should be allowed to do that! After all, it's my city, and the rebels are traitors, commiting treason!

Now Empire will have an option to continue with Monarchy if I'm not wrong, I hope they give such an option there at least, where we can simply get the rebel leaders assasinated, adn the prominant rebels executed thereafter.......

It should also give you a bad reputation with the countries around you.

[TosaInu]

Why is there no option to get their leaders assasinated using our assasins? If I want to kill off half of my city, I should be allowed to do that! After all, it's my city, and the rebels are traitors, commiting treason!


Hello asj_india,

Yes, that's annoying. All the more when you don't have the cash to build all those expensive buildings.

It was an issue in the mega city Rome to keep the mob happy, I doubt so much in all other cases.

[pevergreen]

I guess it would have been too much.

And since when did tosa only have 330 posts?

[ArtistofWarfare]

Many times, playing through the TW games, I've faced rebellious cities, as has anyone who has played any of the games. Whatever be the reason......new religion, squalor, too many taxes etc etc, whatever, but what it comes down to is, that the people become unhappy, and then they riot, and if you cannot subdue them in time, they rebel. I personally, can almost never restore order in a rioting city, and always have to wait to let them rebel, then reconquer it, and then exterminate the population, which while effective in game, is not the historically correct way to go about and keeps on nagging me for long time afterwards.
I've always thought, that when the game gives you complete freedom to be a dread lord, then why, why is there not an option to round up and exectue the rioting people immidiatly, why can we not dump them in prison? Why is there no option to get their leaders assasinated using our assasins? If I want to kill off half of my city, I should be allowed to do that! After all, it's my city, and the rebels are traitors, commiting treason!

Now Empire will have an option to continue with Monarchy if I'm not wrong, I hope they give such an option there at least, where we can simply get the rebel leaders assasinated, adn the prominant rebels executed thereafter.......

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "Empire will have an option to continue with Monarchy"...?

This peaks my interest as we're touching on a topic I've always thought about when pondering Total War- My style of government. I should be able to choose it, change it, alter it etc. And indeed, this should have appropriate effects on my people's loyalty to me and also how surrounding nations view me.

Now, before Empire:TW, I don't really think this would have applied in our games because...it just didn't apply in Medieval and Classical times. I mean, of course there were varying styles of government...but it was much more straightforward and almost all factions would have fallen into the "tyranny" category due to the time period.

With Empire, we're at the perfect time period to implement this. CA/Sega could do a LOT with this. I mean, look at the Civilization series and just how much religion/government plays a role over there. Something even remotely similar being implemented in Empires (not like Civ...I'm just using an example) could make this a total, total drool title.

You could have varying styles of Democracy, Monarchy, etc. I don't know where we would want to draw the line in the sand, that would require some thought. I don't know how viable Marxism or Communism would be in 1805 , although that's not putting it too far ahead of where it surfaced anyway. So perhaps we could put this in there. But surely, Capitalism cannot even be mentioned in this time period. One would have to assume that Colonial Imperialism would be the "height" of government in that time period...

Of course, different "factions/nations" in this time period should benefit from their strong government. For example: If the French were to effectively establish Democracy as their style of government (and say, reach a certain overall level of appeasement within their borders) they would receive various bonuses to leadership and provinces. VnV's as well as provincial bonuses etc.

added w/ edit: Just asked someone I know who has extensive education in history: They're not so sure that you wouldn't want to include Capitalism in there. They're saying that technically (or perhaps, not even technically) if you cover through the conclusion of the American Revolutionary War, you would need to also cover Capitalism as it can be argued (perhaps easily) that the birth of Capitalism directly corresponds with the end of the Revolutionary War and the birth of the United States. From what I've gathered in my time, some historians debate whether what followed in the United States right after the birth of itself, was not true capitalism. This leaves the true "birthday" of Capitalism open to some interpretation. From an American perspective, I would say that most of the country considers it's independence day, the birth of Capitalism as well.

If you had Capitalism, Democracy, Communism (or just Marxism), Monarchy and Imperial Colonialism...just to start...you'd have a hell of a government/diplomatic system to work with in Empire. Forget all the depth this would add to the game as a whole: Just the wars alone would become far more interesting as now you would be adding an additional reason to go to war, a 18/19th Century reason- To attack a conflicting style of government.

Infinite possibilities from there...Coalitions, Coups, Revolutions, etc. It could be amazing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

IIRC the 3 government types you can get in ETW are Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, and Republic.

@Pevergreen: Obviously some kind of Moderator conspiracy.

You may never hear from me again...

[ArtistofWarfare]

IIRC the 3 government types you can get in ETW are Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, and Republic.

@Pevergreen: Obviously some kind of Moderator conspiracy.

You may never hear from me again...

How do you "get" them? Is it as simple as a choice given to the player at the beginning of the campaign, or is it something that you have to work towards (or simply fall into certain categories) to attain?

[Rhyfelwyr]

We don't have a whole lot of info so far on how exactly they will work, we just basically know that those are the 3 governments available.

BTW, would you really say capitalism began with American Independance? Does all the colonial imperialism and resulting trade not count as capitalism? Or would that technically merchantilism?

Regardless, Communism and Democracy are both pretty much out the scope of ETW, considering it ends in 1820. Also there would be no need to separate between Monarchy and Imperial Colonialism. I wouldn't say capitalism is a government in itself, it pretty much ties in with all the rest.

I think CA's system will pretty much represent accurately the states of Europe. Where it may break down is with the colonies and border regions.

[ArtistofWarfare]

We don't have a whole lot of info so far on how exactly they will work, we just basically know that those are the 3 governments available.

BTW, would you really say capitalism began with American Independance? Does all the colonial imperialism and resulting trade not count as capitalism? Or would that technically merchantilism?

Regardless, Communism and Democracy are both pretty much out the scope of ETW, considering it ends in 1820. Also there would be no need to separate between Monarchy and Imperial Colonialism. I wouldn't say capitalism is a government in itself, it pretty much ties in with all the rest.

I think CA's system will pretty much represent accurately the states of Europe. Where it may break down is with the colonies and border regions.

Thanks for the response. I look forward to information regarding this as it unfolds.

Regarding Capitalism- That's kind of what I was debating in my own mind. I don't know if you would bunch Imperial Colonialism in with Capitalism. In my mind, I would say you would have to. Still, if you ask others they might disagree with this.

I personally, do not consider the birth of capitalism the dawn of the United States. Still, I'm hard pressed to find a specific event other than the Independence of the Colonies (birth of US) that you could turn to in the game to introduce Capitalism.

But if the game ends in 1820 then this of course narrows things down a little anyway...

Still, communism and democracy are close enough (not similar obviously, close enough in "birth") that you could include them and not be straying too far from historical reality. Perhaps something to consider if CA/Sega found a really exciting reason to do so...

Either way, just the fact that we have 3 styles of government confirmed in the game gives me a lot of hope. I can only see this making the game better and the campaign more epic/challenging.

edit: I just double checked- American War of Independence ...1775-1783. Declaration of Independence in 1776 and battlfield victory in October of 1781. So I guess if the game ends in 1820, then you certainly wouldn't want to introduce "capitalism" at the historical date of conclusion of the Revolution. Just not enough time left to fully utilize that style of government. So clearly, for the purposes of this game, it would be wise to bunch capitalism in there with Imperial Colonialism. Now the question is whether this is fully playable from the start, or if a specific event "unlocks" the "discovery" or establishment of certain styles of government.

Then again like you said, Capitalism could strictly be looked at as a style of economy and not a style of government. So all of that said, I guess it would be best not to even refer to anything with the title capitalism and instead, find an appropriate place for it in Monarchy etc.

The big key here is that your government= your economy= a real effect on your income and reliability for income. Governments that are tax heavy on their people would obviously be crippled by a revolt or refusal to pay said taxes. Governments that specialize in trade and mercantilism would obviously be dealt an economic death blow by embargoes, war and storms at sea/ports being destroyed...and internal unrest within the borders of their trading partners.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well before I start a left-wing rant, I'll just say that we probably won't be getting much more info on this until after after the next CA FAQ, since its been hinted at that its going to be on land battles.

I just look forward to executing everyone as an absolute monarch.:2thumbsup:

EDIT: I'm pretty sure CA will just lump the economic side of things in with the governments. Also I think the three included will be there from the start. Britain was a Constitional Monarchy since the Glorious Revolution of 1688. France, Russia, and most Catholic countries had absolute monarchs, really pushing towards despotism, especially the Ottomans, Russians, and Louis XIV's France from 1643-1715. As for Republican governments, I think the Dutch were a Republic in 1700, although I'm not sure with the whole stadtholder issue.

[ArtistofWarfare]

IIRC the 3 government types you can get in ETW are Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, and Republic.

@Pevergreen: Obviously some kind of Moderator conspiracy.

You may never hear from me again...

Relatively easy choice on this one for me as a starting faction for my first campaign I'd say...either:

a) British- Constitutional Monarchy
b) France- Republic
c) Russia- Absolute Monarchy...or even, a Republic :idea2:

a French Republic could probably throw some weight around Europe in the early game...

Although I don't know exactly how the colonies will be handled...If Britain starts the game with holdings, I see them as probably one of those all or nothing factions. If you can control the colonies (which will be a challenge), you'll love to play with them and gain an upper hand very early in the game. If you find yourself always just spending 100% resources on controlling the colonies, you'll probably end up falling apart and not like using them.

I still wonder how the multiple continents will be handled considering how close some factions are to the Americas and how just flat out non-accessible some factions are to them. I'd hope that central powers as well as eastern factions get to have a similar accessibility to places like India and ...as much of Asia as they are including in the game.

Further, if it's 1700-1820...We have got to at least be looking at 6 months per turn. If it's one year we're talking 120 turns...max. Can no do. I'd like to see 1 turn represent 3 months. Now we're at 360. I think that is perfect.

I guess I can at least hope for a compromise and see 240 turns.

edit: Regarding Colonies and holdings- This also brings up, how much of India and the Americas is included? Enough so that the Spanish and French would also be starting with considerable holdings? Of course this is semi-rhetorical due to the limited information that is out there right now but still, there's a LOT of wondering to do...

[rajpoot]

India had not been properly colonized in 1700, infact proper colonization had had only begun then. Aurangzeb died in 1707, and while he had lost a lot of land in his lifetime, now after his death, the Empire collapsed into warring provices.
It was now that the Comapny began to slowly expand its territory, and even now it was after 1757, at the time of Robert Clive, that they finally pulled out the stops and jumped into open wars and politics with the Indian provinces.

I'll wager that India will be like Kingdoms Americas, where the East India Company has just been given freedom to raise its army and conquer territory if they want to, while facing them would be the shattered Mugal Empire, with a handful of rebel settlements here and there........(I doubt they'll include the smaller India provinces as factions, as there were way too many of them, and they never really did much apart from holding their own lands).
And ofcourse we'll have the French and the Portugese controlling a bit of land too. And mybe even the Dutch.

Anyway, back to topic now.:yes:

[YankeeDoodle14]

Capitalism really should come to play in 1776 - the year Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Capitalism really should come to play in 1776 - the year Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations.

Would the Italian city states of the middle-ages not count as having capitalist systems?


Further, if it's 1700-1820...We have got to at least be looking at 6 months per turn. If it's one year we're talking 120 turns...max. Can no do. I'd like to see 1 turn represent 3 months. Now we're at 360. I think that is perfect.

Wouldn't that be 480 turns?

I think they will go with 1 turn = 6 months. That would be 240 turns. Since M2TW had 226, I think that would work nicely.

[Furious Mental]

Smith didn't invent capitalism, he just understood it better than anyone before him had and suggested that it be used to limit the power of absolute monarchs. He couldn't have done this if it wasn't already well-developed by his time.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Smith didn't invent capitalism, he just understood it better than anyone before him had and suggested that it be used to limit the power of absolute monarchs. He couldn't have done this if it wasn't already well-developed by his time.

Well, that's what I was referring to- It's difficult to get a firm date on the "birth" of Capitalism. It's very open to interpretation...

You could look at it one way and Capitalism would be justified throughout almost the entirety of the campaign. You could look at it another way and Capitalism would barely squeeze itself into the last 30-50 turns. You could look at it even another way and there just wouldn't be any justification for capitalism in the campaign at all.

It definitely would require some research and thought...

[ArtistofWarfare]

Would the Italian city states of the middle-ages not count as having capitalist systems?



Wouldn't that be 480 turns?

I think they will go with 1 turn = 6 months. That would be 240 turns. Since M2TW had 226, I think that would work nicely.

Apologies, you're right...3 months would be 4 years per turn and bring us to 480. I agree, that's too long.

Each turn would have to represent 4 months to be 3 turns per year and come in at our 120 x 3= 360.

I don't think this back and forth between 3 and 4 months would be something CA would get into...so yeah, we're probably looking at 1 turn = 6 months = 240 turns total.

Still, to cover that entire time period in a maximum of just 240 turns seems a little rushed to me. Due to changes in technology/globalization/mobilization I think the 1 turn = 4 months = 360 total campaign turns, would be ideal. Again though, I doubt CA will go this route.

I'll just add that I thought M2TW's 226 turns per campaign was just laughably short. When I install it in just a day or two...I'll definitely be getting it to flip at 1 turn= 1 year and get my rougly 500 turns. Perhaps even 1 turn = 6 months when I play on VH/Huge.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't think the M2TW campaign was too short. Of course if the AI was better and diplomacy was useable beyond the tenth turn, then of course a longer campaign would be nice.

But I find that even as a 'turtler' I own half the map not long after turn 100, and after I fight a WW2 style war of attrition against the Mongols and Timurids I am able to spam full stack armies and conquer the last half of the map and the Americas with about twenty turns to spare.

Hopefully of course with better diplomacy and a smarter AI we will need longer campaigns...

[ArtistofWarfare]

I don't think the M2TW campaign was too short. Of course if the AI was better and diplomacy was useable beyond the tenth turn, then of course a longer campaign would be nice.

But I find that even as a 'turtler' I own half the map not long after turn 100, and after I fight a WW2 style war of attrition against the Mongols and Timurids I am able to spam full stack armies and conquer the last half of the map and the Americas with about twenty turns to spare.

Hopefully of course with better diplomacy and a smarter AI we will need longer campaigns...

Yeah see, you would know much better than I would about how the number of turns in M2TW works out. I've played a couple handfuls worth of hours on M2TW and it was on this current PC- So quite limitedly. Again, I'll start finding out in a few days :yes:

Let me just ask you (and sorry to OP for straying topic with this turns discussion, I'll cease after this)- I obviously intend on using Huge (largest) unit sizes with M2TW and Kingdoms. Wouldn't things work out better for me with 1 turn = 1 year anyway?

How viable is switching your M2 files from 2.00 to 1.00 basically...?

Edit: Were you talking about even in a VH campaign? This was my concern...as expressed in the depths of the MTW:VI forums.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The issue over turn length is basically up to you, depending on how you want to play. I've never changed the turn lenght myself, although I have modded other things and it is very easy to edit if you are worried about that.

I'm also been guilty of spending far too much time here considering how little I used to play the game seriously, I'm just playing my way through each team hoping to have caught up to a respectable level by the time ETW comes out (5 campaigns, nearly 6 done so far).

As for the campaign difficulty, I play on M/VH. I set the campaign to Medium because basically all the difficulty setting affects is diplomacy. On Easy, your relations with factions and your reputation automatically improve. While on Hard/Very Hard, they automatically decline. Medium is the level playing field in this respect, and you really can't play above Medium if you want to enjoy any kind of diplomacy withouth crazy micromanagement with diplomats etc. As for the battle difficulty, I play Very Hard, otherwise your units get a morale and stamina bonus IIRC. VH is the level playing field for battles. Not taking into account AI stupidity obviously.

The campaign difficulty setting is irrelevant to how difficult the campaign really is and the competence of the AI, so I recommend playing on 'Normal' to allow some diplomacy in the early game.

In RTW it was the other way around, VH campaign difficulty and M battle difficulty were the 'fair' settings. So in my first M2TW campaign, as the Scots, I wondered why everyone hated me from the start but when they actually fought me in battle routed as soon as they got an arrow stuck in one of their men.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Thanks Caledonian...

I did some research on the subject myself:

1) I can confirm the accuracy of your campaign difficulty information. The actual "difficulty" of the campaign seems quite random...sometimes a cakewalk, usually "not too hard", and on a handful of occasions, a brain buster. This, however, is not in any way shape or form related to the difficulty setting you choose. Random. Your explanation on how difficulty settings effect diplomacy (and that they only effect diplomacy) goes completely hand in hand with my findings. (for anyone reading this back log)

2) It doesn't seem that choosing anything less than VH battle difficulty gives YOUR troops various bonuses. This is the only thing you wrote that conflicts with what I've read.

Easy- Gives your troops bonuses...

Normal/Hard/Very Hard- Strictly strategic upgrades regarding AI. The information I've found (source: http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/topic/629/t/Frequently-Asked-Questions-amp-Game-Fixes.html) states that (and upon further research this source has evidence to back it up) there are no AI bonuses at any level. Increasing the difficulty only makes the AI "smarter". Bonuses per difficulty did not carry over from RTW to M2TW. The player on the other hand- Doesn't receive bonuses unless they choose the easy setting. Medium/Hard/VH don't yield any bonuses to either side. Further, the big difference at H and VH is supposedly in morale/fatigue management of one's own troops. Terrain/Fatigue/Morale/etc are more closely tied together and your army is more "fragile" and needs to be more carefully managed. It looks as if this system has replaced the old one...of simply handing out bonuses to the AI as the user hikes up the difficulty.

Now of course, I've yet to have the experience to know personally. I'm also just clarifying/questioning rather than changing your original suggestion. This only makes VH more viable with M2TW indeed. On Rome, VH gave totally unrealistic bonuses to the AI...and therefore was unviable, as was anything less than VH due to the insta-rout of the AI.

I would suppose that I would start the game on M/H for the first go and then move up to M/VH after I have finished a campaign.

Regarding Turns- I think I too will leave it at the standard 2 years per turn- at least for the first several campaigns I do. a) I'd like to meet victory conditions on the level playing field a few times before changing anything myself and b) It seems as if changing the dates to 1.00 (1 turn= 1 year) or 0.50 (1 turn= 6 months) would require the changing of build times and some event's arrivals in order to scale appropriately. I don't want to get into that until I have quite a bit of experience with the game and at least have my own opinions on how I'd like to tailor things. Keep it simple stupid, right? :yes:

I have one last question- Promise- What about unit sizes? I am going to use Huge unit sizes. No question about it. Am I really getting myself into a population and recruitment pool issue by using the largest units I can? I could not find any information about this anywhere. Just a few people asking about it as I am followed by no response heh.

Thanks

[Rhyfelwyr]

You are probably right about the battle difficulty settings. Maybe it was just the passive AI bug in the Scots campaign (the one I did on M battle difficulty) that made it seem so easy, since I was playing without a patch then.

Also I agree you are best just not complicating things and using vanilla till you play the game a bit. Don't do what I did and get bogged down in modding, it is an addiction, no wonder EB is so amazing.

Also IIRC recruitment now has no affect on a settlement's population, unlike in RTW. And I don't think it affects the recruitment pool either, I always have plenty of units to recruit on the Huge setting.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Good stuff...Thanks again.

I'll probably start it with M/H as said. Maybe even M/M just to get going. That way I can get an idea of where to go from there.

That's good news about the recruitment pools/population on Huge too. I didn't want this to be a problem as I'm very much looking forward to getting a LOT of troops on screen.

Ok- I'm all done...once again, apologies for straying off topic :whip:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Even if as you have shown it doesn't make a huge difference, I think you should make it at least M/VH.

My 10 year old brother as decided to hijack my PC and play M2TW non-stop, and he conquered all of Europe as the HRE by turn 100. He then got bored with them, and started a campaign as the Moors. By turn 12 he had all of Iberia (if it was up to me that should be an achievement taking a whole campaign), and had won the short campaign by turn 25. He had no TW expereince at all prior to this.

Admittedly that was on E/E, but he said he'll try N/N next time and I bet he'll still steamroller the world.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Even if as you have shown it doesn't make a huge difference, I think you should make it at least M/VH.

My 10 year old brother as decided to hijack my PC and play M2TW non-stop, and he conquered all of Europe as the HRE by turn 100. He then got bored with them, and started a campaign as the Moors. By turn 12 he had all of Iberia (if it was up to me that should be an achievement taking a whole campaign), and had won the short campaign by turn 25. He had no TW expereince at all prior to this.

Admittedly that was on E/E, but he said he'll try N/N next time and I bet he'll still steamroller the world.

Well, as you said: He was on Easy/Easy.

Maybe have him try M/H next and see what he does...just out of curiosity heh.

I don't understand why the campaign is apparently so easy though. I just don't see the point behind that development decision. There are varying difficulties...and M/VH or H/VH should be just as challenging as an MTW:VI campaign.

[Rhyfelwyr]

lol, he only wanted to play the Moors because he thought the Generals pictures in my Turkish campaign were really cool.:laugh4:

I've never had a serious go at VI, I hope too once I have played more M2TW and Kingdoms, then RTW/BI.

Anyway I'll stop derailing this thread now.

On Topic: Talking of MTW, I remember you often got 'specialised' rebels in that. For example you could face peasant uprisings, loyalist revolts, and also religous uprisings (I think?).

Something along those lines for revolutionary rebels would be immense in ETW. Imaginse playing as the absolutist French, when some Republican rebels appear in Paris. These governments would be the perfect driving forces behind civil wars. Please bring them back CA!

[rajpoot]

Also IIRC recruitment now has no affect on a settlement's population, unlike in RTW. And I don't think it affects the recruitment pool either, I always have plenty of units to recruit on the Huge setting.

?????!!! :dizzy2: Really? If it's true, then it sucks! That'll be so unreal, and without any apparent reason too...........that is what I do to keep the peasants under control, no wonder I'm unsuccessful most of the times......... :wall:


And speaking on topic, it's not as if M2TW does not have legal executions......we have Inquisitors burning our Generals, we have our Priests doing it to the Heretics, we can even execute the captured armies, the only gaping hole that should be filled in the future title is execution of rebels and those who disrupt law and order should be an option too.

[PBI]

Talking of MTW, I remember you often got 'specialised' rebels in that. For example you could face peasant uprisings, loyalist revolts, and also religous uprisings (I think?).

Something along those lines for revolutionary rebels would be immense in ETW. Imaginse playing as the absolutist French, when some Republican rebels appear in Paris. These governments would be the perfect driving forces behind civil wars. Please bring them back CA!

I seem to recall CA mentioning something like this, that if the right conditions were fulfilled, different rebellions would emerge, of Luddites, Jacobites etc. Presumably there will be some new mechanism for handling rebellions given the number and variety of rebellions in the time period.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I remember CA stating there will be emergent factions, two of those being the 13 Colonies and the Jacobites.

That is great, but it doesn't really allow much flexibility in the game. What if I convert the Highlands to Protestanism? I wouldn't expect a Jacobite revolt then. On the other hand, say France gets greedy, taking the Spanish Netherlands and then the Dutch Netherlands. Then I would expect some form of uprising from the Protestants there. In such cases, it would be particularly nice if a General was 'spawned' by them as their new King (or regional equivalent), who would still be part of the Rebel faction but control the region himself, with 'Dutch Rebel' forces co-operating. If I was to push my luck, in such cases it would be nice if Rebels were divided into regions, say in the case of the Dutch - Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Bruges, and Antwerp. If there was a revolt there where they got such a 'King' character, all armies listed as 'Dutch Rebels' would attempt to take all Dutch provinces, at least from the faction they rebelled against.

I suppose that really is pushing it though.