Province Loyalty value and Impetuous Units

[Quokka]

I am playing English on Hard and its 1238.

What is the point of having a province loyalty value if it has no real meaning?
I just had a revolt in Tyrolia and the loyalty value was 158%. I have had Tyrolia for about 40 years, I have not been excommunicated and the Pope is happy with me for crusading against the Egyptians. So where did this revolt come from and how can I prevent them?
I managed to scrape together some units from surrounding armies to get a decent defensive stack.
300 Chiv Serg, 120 FMAA, 240 Archers, 80 Mtd Serg, 40 Royal Knights, 1 Catapult.

This brings me to the second part of the title, Impetuous units. The general was a 4 star Royal Knight. I got the perfect defensive position, a damn near vertical mountain and perched on the top of it. My archers and the cat took out over 250 before the rebels got near me. The rebel army consisted of 240 Hobilars and 1000 Spearmen, all valour 0.
The rebels were just wandering back and forth in front of my army for ages, which was fine, time was running out. I had pulled these troops from armies invading Italy and not losing any suited me fine. There was some small contact on one flank where some FMAA were chewing up some spears in a forest. I was watching this happily when I see the crossed swords on my general. I zoom to him and he has run down the hill into 1000 spears. He's the third person to die. I had lost a total of 6 men before this, now my whole army routs and the after battle screen says loses of 208, plus the province. Rebuilding what I lost there would take 36 years.

So from a rebellion in a province with a 0% chance of rebellion, I lose and army, province, and one of my few decent generals. The English get nada for leadership, its amazing they conquered anything. Stripping the units lead to counterattacks by the Italians, losing me another army and province.

So how do you stop rebellions? I had Border Forts, Church etc built in Tyrolia and that didn't stop it.

For those who know about the time, where the armies really that impetuous? Did Catholic Knisghts just charge off like that?
This is not the first general I have lost this game because they charged instead of sitting, not to mention how many other Knights are no longer with me. This is my first game were I am really trying to not use the pause button. Impetuous Feudal Knights kept suiciding so much that I went back to Mtd Serg so they will obey orders, many more survive.

Why do the impetuous die so readily? Earlier this game I had sent a 1 command, 1 acumen, 0 piety King into Finland all on his lonesome against 100 Spearmen. He was V6 and killed all 100. LOL. I sent him against 3900 Fanatics in Prussia next. Now a general I want to keep is the third person to die when he buggers off.

[Shahed]

LOL Funny posts.

Try Muslim units, most do not impetous charge. Watch out for Futtuwa and Ghazi though, they do this kind of thing as well.

[Cebei]

Hi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif Yeah I understand you. On expert mode things get more complicated.

Loyatly percentage only shows loyalty, that is related with taxation issues. Who was the duke of tyrolia? His loyalty means the province's loyalty and if he has high dread (if the king is away) he will create discontent. Also I suspect there have been a heretical movement in tyrolia. It happens there frequently. Also you must have a castle in the province.

As for impetuous units;

These units are usually elites. So they take decisions on their own. If they see themselves in danger they attack on their own. Also impetous units go to war because they want promotion; they fight for valor, if they sit, they act on their own. I dont know but if they charge on their own they are probably annoyed with something that is going on in the battlefield. (brawl on the flank)

As a side advice, never move your general on the battlefield. The game is so realistic that if your men cant see the general in his usual place, they panic and rout. Or at least have your general in the middle of everything; far from the brawl but never too far.

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Quokka]

I didn't move him. He moved himself, bloody idiot. He was safely up behind 2 ranks of Chiv Serg. All he had to do was sit still for a few minutes. There was noone around him, he charged down the hill to the valley below. He did have the Perversion VnV so maybe he was just an irredeemable drama queen. I run a very socially advanced army for the time "don't ask, don't tell, just make sure the only sword you grab is your own".

As for Tyrolia, I don't know who the governor was and can't find out now because I've lost the province. He would have had 4 Acumen and full loyalty. I have already had the -1 Influence, +3 Loyalty event for creating the House of Lords. All of my generals are full loyalty.

[Hurin_Rules]

I feel your pain. Playing as English on hard I had conquered almost the entire map, except for the eastern mediterranean, and was moving in for the kill. By mistake, I left one province with only 99% loyalty. They rebelled, of course, and this set off rebellions in %100 + provinces throughout Europe. Rebels appeared in three provinces, the Polish reappeared in two provinces with about 6 stacks of armies, the Spanish reappeared in 2 provinces with 10 stacks of armies, and the Russians reappeared in 5 provinces with about 14 stacks of armies. Totally bogus.

[Guthwyn]

I had an impetuous general in a recent game playing as the HRE. The unusual thing is, his unit was mounted crossbowmen (normally not impetuous). I was defending vs. the egyptians, 3000 vs. my 1000. I had invaded by sea, taken the province, and was now defending with no chance of retreat. I had routed the first wave and reassembled my line. As the second wave approached, I had to repeatedly click on the general to stop him from charging. I placed him on hold position, skirmish (the enemy was within range), and he had plenty of ammunition. But he tried a number of times to charge through my line towards the enemy--even when I had "halted" him and cancelled all orders.
I guess he was just as excited about smashing the egyptians as I was. And the best part was when I realized I got over 1000 prisoners, so now he has the "butcher" virtue. That's right, I said virtue. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Guthwyn

[Tony]

This seems to me to be "gamey" logic put into the game for not very good reasons. To compensate, players end up spending a lot of time "playing the game" tedium rather than the fun stuff. This forces us to spend our game time dealing with "gamey" design issues (NOT fun) rather than the strategy and combat (fun stuff). Some examples:

1) The V&V - the contradictions in, and frequency of, vices is just sloppy game design. It impacts play as a negative - players have to spend way too much time fretting about drunkards or imbeciles...etc. This becomes annoying when your empire grows to beyond around 30 provinces.

2) The "Rebels without a cause" mentioned in this thread. Again, when your empire grows beyond 30 provinces it just gets silly.

3) A minor whinge - the historical messages don't go away when you select "critical messages only" option. I know someone at CA spent a lot of time researching these and putting them into the game, but I should be able to switch them OFF. I don't care if they were someone's pet project - they just add to the end of turn clutter.

I am getting very disillusioned with Medieval TW. The combat and strategy components are great fun - but the half baked crap such as the rebellions and vices make it a exercise in tedium to manage an empire beyond about 30 provinces. Shogun TW did not force players to deal with this sort of crap - why should Medieval?

Hint for CA - spare players this sort of thing in Rome TW.

[motorhead]

I've never had a rebellion like that without a cause. Check the 'revolts' thread in the table of contents topic in this forum for a full list of things that contribute to revolts. I always have border fort, religious bldg, minimum fort/keep, spy, and 100+ garrison.

Some quick questions:
= Was your king moving around? He should stay centrally located and not get cut off on some island. Although when this happens you generally see the huge, mass rebellions.
= Was there any garrison in Tyrolia? Less than a 100 troop garrison allows for a 'nobody home' rebellion.
= Are you using auto-tax? Pre-VI auto-tax was set to 100% when the minimum needed to prevent rebellion is actually 120% (i know, a bit silly).
= was there a recent disaster like flooding or earthquake? These always cause a short-term dip in loyalty.

The only surprise rebellion I've ever seen is a Pope re-emergence, he can come back no matter what the loyalty in the province. Every other rebellion I've ever seen always had some root cause. And I've never seen governor loyalty have any bearing on province rebellion.

As for impetuous units, well, it happens sometimes. Try putting those units on hold position as this is supposed to help a bit for impetous charges.

[Razor1952]

Several points

-1. Once you hit 60% often you see a serious drop in loyalty.

-2.Couple 1. with a king cut off from his kingdom you will get massive rebellions, usually that because of a shipping blockade

-3. Auto -tax on or very high tax for a long time a bit of 1 and 2 will give massive rebellions.



What to do.
- in the mid to later game try to tax no higher than high. leave cutoff provinces at very low.

-If you do get massive revolts -ALL IS NOT LOST- in fact its quite fun.
====>moove your troops to save your best provinces. Leave NO troops in those provinces you can't save.
====>when the rebellion arrives it will be a very small force easily countered or bribed.
====> If there is a strong chance of a re-emergence , destroy everthing in that province (I like to leave the pope with nothing).
====>Obviously set your tax to very low everywhere, moove your king and heirs to give best support and also make sure your shipping lanes are not broken.
===> recapture those provinces at most risk of a re-emergence first.

[squippy]

The rebellions are NOT ridiculous, they are approximately accurate and make the game much more interesting and complex. Are you there toi play the game or just for wish fulfillment?

Edit: rebellions only happen to me if I make a mistake or gamble on a yellow province. And I don;t even bother to trim my nobles for V&V's either. A little care and attention to the peasantry is all thats needed.

[HopAlongBunny]

Knights were not known for their reason (with some exceptions) Barely removed from stone age,they were highly trained thugs. Did knights do foolish things? Yes. Did nobles do foolish things? Yes. Just watch them, you can almost always recall an impetuous unit as long as you intercept it before contact.

Rebellions were a problem in the Middle Ages. It is a bit "gamey" to get massive rebellions for no apparent reason. As noted, there often is an explanation if you look closely (king suddenly out of contact for example); sometimes there is no explanation. I have had games with no rebellions; games with 1 or 2; games that degenerated into massive revolt. I think its part of the randomness built into the game as well as build strategy, garrisons, LOC...etc. Don't panic http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Nice thing about a game is you can deal with this situation as one history; other games will follow a different course. Deal with the situation or reload last save and try again http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

ps /ctrl-s is your friend http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Cebei]

I would suggest keeping ALL of your dukes/amirs near your king; not in their respective provinces. If you dont keep them near your king (preferably in the same army), they develop stupid vices. I spend a great deal of the turn transporting new dukes to the capital city, near the king. And by the way, the cepital should change as you grow. Kings influence must spread equally. Sit the king just in the middle of your kingdom with amirs and second men (viziers, chief commanders) near him.

As for impetuous units; """keep position""" order prevents stupid charges.

[The_Emperor]

Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Sep. 08 2003,14:45)]As for impetuous units; """keep position""" order prevents stupid charges.
Not neccessarily... I had an entire army Camped out in a defensive battle, all on Hold Position showering the enemy with arrows, did the Royal Knights hold back? Nope The GENERAL Charged in with two other units

I recalled him, Bad General Expect a pay cut http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[NewJeffCT]

I agree, sometimes the rebellions seem a bit silly. However, there is usually a root cause. Sometimes, I have found it very hard to find that root cause, though. I remember playing as the English on Hard a while back and I had crusaded early on into Rum or Edessa or some place around there. Oddly enough, my English empire at the end of the early period, or early in the high period, was the English Islands, Flanders, Normandy and Constantinople, Trebizond, Nicea, Anatolia, Rum & Edessa, and I think one other right around there. I held them all long enough to have built watch towers, border forts, churches & monasteries (and some reliquaries), but still kept having rebellions, even though I was pretty watchful of the governor V&Vs and the tax rates. All the territories, especially by the time you get done building a monastery at least, had very high Catholic percentages. None of them had small garrisons, and they all had at least a few agents (emissaries, bishops, assassins, a few spies…)

But, by the time I got sick of the campaign, I had a few “Field Defense Specialists” in the Middle East.

[Cebei]

Quote[/b] (The_Emperor @ Sep. 08 2003,12:16)]
Quote[/b] (Cebei @ Sep. 08 2003,14:45)]As for impetuous units; """keep position""" order prevents stupid charges.
Not neccessarily... I had an entire army Camped out in a defensive battle, all on Hold Position showering the enemy with arrows, did the Royal Knights hold back? Nope The GENERAL Charged in with two other units

I recalled him, Bad General Expect a pay cut http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
LOL Disband him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Even though I am playing on expert, I have never ever experienced umm "over excitement" with my troops. So I thought I was doing something right. But it appears hold position order is not one of them. Thanks for clarification Emperor http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

But I still insist on tthe ""keep big boys near the king"" theory http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[Spino]

Sorry to hear about your general blowing a good thing but you really need to put a leash on all Catholic knights and Impetuous units (Highland Clansmen, Ghazi, Nizari, etc.) under your command to get the most out of them. Unless you want them to react at will make absolutely sure you set their orders button to 'Hold' instead of 'Engage at Will'. Since these units are naturally itchy to join the fray this is only a partial rememdy. You can further offset an impetuous unit's nature by placing it farther back behind your front line. How far back from the front lines is up to you but I find anywhere from 3-4x the depth of your average unit to be adequate.

SPEAR SPEAR SPEAR
SWORD SWORD


IMPETUOUS http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif IMPETUOUS


EDIT: Above example was meant to refer to defensive type formations where you have a number of impetuous units to handle. Obviously when on the attack placing the impatient lads in the front lines (especially on the flanks) is better than leaving them in the rear... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Cebei]

Althouugh (it appears that) I have a talent for keeping impetuous units tight, I always believed that top-notch general always tailors his battle according to elite impetuous units. Impetuous units retreat less often and are ideal for sending in the first wave, to disrupt enemy defence or disrupt enemy offence with a preemptive strike.

Later on you can surround the disrupted enemy. With disciplined troops.

If your general is impetuous, I would suggest keeping an eye on him or leaving no gaps in your defence, because usually impetuous units attack to cover that gap.

[o_loompah_the_delayer]

Regarding impetuos knights, I have had the identical problem when ddefending on a hill. The only thing you can doo is keep an eye on which of your units are moving around - you get a triangle in the unit icon at the bototm of the screen. in a defensive battle as described no one should be movoing around except the occasional chargee to clear the slo0pes and ammo-less archers. Knights tend to be twits and will charge at unfortunate times.

Re tyrol as others have said, be wary of autotax I try to keep loyalty at 140% as has been suggested elsewhere in the forum. And at some point there will be rebellions whatever you do. They can however be fun so relax

Also as for vices in governors, once the governor has a couple of good vices (builder, steward, and also if possible charmiing/ thinker - but I dont know how ot influence these), I tned to put a 1* general in charge of the governors stack, so that the general picks up the bad traits. Sure the governor doesnt become great, but he doesnt become a twit either. Dont do this with command bonus governorships (Rum, Normandy, Trebizond etc), they should always go to your leading generals/ royal uncles.

[A.Saturnus]

Actually, to be historically accurate, we shouldn`t have any control over knights most of the time. Knights were individualistic elite fighters whos orders only gave them a general direction. After entering battles, they were entirely out of control. At least that`s what some historicians say.

[ToranagaSama]

My suggestions is too read the Table of Contents where you'll find HUGE threads on the subject of "Rebellions".

The TOC s/b the first place to seek for answers regarding Battlefield and Campaign issues.

BTW, 200% Loyalty is what *may* give you "Zero chance of Rebellion" NOT 158%.

There are a number of things that may have caused that province to rebel. It could have been a Single thing or a combination and cumulative effect of several things. Had you lost a very recent battle? Did your King have poor V&V and/or low Influence? What was the Loyalty of the General in that province and/or that of the Govenor? What Tax Rate did you have? HOW much money did you have banked and what was your Income(profit)? I could go on....

The point is that other than your province loyalty, you have not provided (and may not have been aware of) the other *more* relevant indicators. Province Loyalty, in essence, only refects the conditional effects of all the above, plus more. The MOST important of which is, How many troops did you have in the province at the time and are you playing vanilla MTW or IV (or a mod)?

Whatever the situation consult the TOC

Good http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif Luck

[Hamburglar]

Yeah if your loyalty is only a little bit over 100% then many things can happen during the "interim phase" between turns that would cause a revolt, such as....

King dies
Governor dies
King or Governor picks up a Vice
Famine
Flood
Earthquake, etc
Get cut off from King (lose a ship or something)



Theres plenty of things that happen.

[LestaT]

It happened to me once. In ALL provinces the loyalty suddenly drops to 0 when i should have won the game totally. My king and heirs got cut off in Ireland.

[rory_20_uk]

Province loyalty: If the % is differentfrom the chance that the province will revolt, then a % is not appropriate. Rather, have values such as "unlikely" or "seething unrest". Then if a province with 400 soldiers sitting on it with "unlikely to rebell" loyaty suddenly develops 3,000 rebels at least nothing said that this wouln't happen - better than the 200% loyalty-disappears-overnight syndrome that happens from time to time.
I think that it would be good if sometihng would mention if the lord of the area was having a positive or negative effect on the loyalty, rather than scouting round the whole map for each ruler in turn. Similarly, in MTW we are told not only the morale of troops on the battlefield, but also what is causing them to be happy / worried. I think that a similar system would aid players on the strategic map with the provinces.
Impetuous units: IMHO, NOTHING can explain why a king with an empire stretching 1/2 way across Europe should feel the need to take on the enemy army by himself, and the same should go for any generals worth their salt. FANATICS do this, but then they want to die - kings and generals normally want to brag how they won, not have an epitaph reading "here lies King Bozo V, who too late realised that charging pikemen front-on leads to certain death". I think that impetuousness should be (unless the troops are fanatics) that they will charge any fleeing foe - gloriously running down the enemy, scores of prisoners taken, routing the foe from the field. Thugs may enjoy the death and humiliation of others, but normally have a semblance of self preservation and would like the risks of death to be less than the risks of winning glory for themselves. This may not always be tactically sound, but IMHO would appeal to the knights involved.
Charging spearmen / halbadiers / etc etc is not brave, it borders on the suicidal and as said previosuly no reputation is made on being dead. If ORDERED to do so, they would have to, as else they would be disobeying the king.
Practically, this creates merely a headache for the player in having to reign in the errant idiots who appear to want nothing more than to get separated from the rest of the army and killed - a general with "the ability to decide which troops to sacrifice and which to save" should not be doing this. (If I want to get the general killed, well I am allowed to do so, but he isn't http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
If there was an attribute named "psychotic", then I can understand this behaviour a lot more http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[squippy]

Bannockburn:
"Despite Clifford's and Beaumont's premature and unsuccessful attempt to relieve Stirling the day before, years of victory have caused the brave English knights to regard their Scottish foes with contempt. So, without waiting for the 'flower of the forest' (archers) to weaken the enemy formations, the order is hurriedly given to attack With one rush, hundreds of mounted knights led by the impetuous Earl of Gloucester, thunder headlong through the boggy ground straight for the impenetrable mass of spears, hurling themselves into defeat and death. With dash and courage the knights try to force a way through but the infantry stand firm. "

Agincourt:
"The battle was fought on 25 October 1415 and was one of the most important and decisive battles of the Hundred Years War. The main reason for the English success was the use of the longbow as a long-range weapon. As the heavily-armoured French knights lined up waiting for the battle to begin, the English archers rained arrows down upon them. Before any orders were issued, the knights broke ranks and began to charge, trampling down their own foot soldiers. As they neared the English army they came under increasingly heavy fire. The horses reared up at the rows of stakes and presented easy targets to the English archers. Many knights were unseated from their horses and taken prisoner."

etc etc

[kawligia]

I think when there are excoms, vices or royalty being cut off, the peasantry should gradually lose loyalty rather than being ready to immediately rebel like a tightly wound spring.

THAT would be much more realistic...and pleasant.

[rory_20_uk]

Point taken squippy http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif And the battle of Hastings is another great example of overeagerness causing a slight hitch in plans (such as the fall of the Saxon kings). SO however stupid the knights are on the field, they can't do a lot worse than in some cases historically. But the fact that these battles are so notable is the fact that the knights did do something so momentously stupid. If they did this all the time we'd not know Ajincourt and Poitiers so well (and we'd quickly run out of nobility - france lost one hell of a lot in just those two battles).

But the king does not get himself killed in either of these cases (notable as they are) - unlike MTW's kings. I guess that one could say that the king is caught up in the moment / swept along with the other knights in his unit.

[squippy]

Have you ever played Counter-Strike? If not, give it a try.

There is a curious phenomenon on CS. Frequently, frequently, the DEFENDING team will carry out a massive and suicidal assualt on the attacking team - for no reason. The blood is up, the target is there, the instinct is to hunt it down. humans are hunting animals, and we have those aggresive reflexes.

Now consider this in the context of the feudal knights who have been raised their whole lives to be warriors and nothing (or little) else. The primary purpiose of their lives is to fight and win. And this is hammered into them form a very early age.

It is not at all surprising that combat discipline was hard amongst these troops. Restraint was not their thing; taking the fight to the enemy was. Holding back was hard - and this still applied to Royalist cavalry in the English Civil War.

[lancer63]

I love rebellions now. Look at it this way, it gives you the chance to weed out outdated and vice ridden units, even if they're on your side, it gives your rookie generals to get stars and skulls. Rebellions clean up the bad blood and leave your troops better trained...depleted but now you have veterans. Of course there's the small issue of surviving the rebellion and your neighbors, but who's paying attention. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
At the beginning of one of my biz campaings my troops in Naples got rebellion after rebellion. By the time I was able to produce units in that province I had a 28 men biz infantry unit and 6 naphta throwers both with 5-7 points of valor and the BI general went from 1 star to 6 in 5 turns + the skilled last stand and expert defender vices.
I highly recommend rebellions...oh yes, I do. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[Hurin_Rules]

Not to nitpick, but what 'knights' were there at Hastings?

The only 'knights' fought on the side of William and the Normans. Far from being undisciplined, many scholars feel they actually executed a feigned retreat in order to draw the Anglo-Saxons out from their positions.

The Anglo-Saxons did not have knights. Their Huscarles fought well and it seems that it was the peasant/yeoman fyrdmen who broke ranks to pursue.

The only undisciplined forces in the battle were these levies, not the professional troops.