CA - Resting on laurels

20 years or so is what most, if not a reviewers gave it. I just spent another post-patch evening dealing with all nature of outlandish rebellion behavior. Italian infantry guided by a arabic potrait by the name of Thorgesson Swenson (not exactly the same name but close) in Finland and Livonia. Enough is enough.

Spies, churches, low taxes, border forts, bishops. They are all there. (not the first 20 years as Danes not able to train such units but close enough, all my provinces have these units asap yet with or with out them the same thing happens)

Rebellions are the catch all for CA. If all else fails. Have a rebellion.

Enough. Think it through. Geez. What demographics do you think plays these games anyways??????????

Gameplay is leaning waaaaayyyy to hard on this.

All the awards in the industry patting themselves on the back for a job welldone does not translate into the rest of the world.

Gotta admit the music is flat out awesome. Pity the gameplay (diplomacy in particular, rebellions) does'nt do it justice.

Rebellions can somtimes be extremely pathetic.

Diplomacy is very painfull too.

Apart from those two the game is quite good.

Rebellions and diplomacy are a big improvement over STW though. And alliances can actually last a long time rather than 2-4 seasons in STW. I have no doubts the next TW will be even better.

Why so many people have problems with the rebellions, I never had major rebellion problems in my campaigns. Is it a problem of the difficulty (i played normal and the one setting above)?
But these specific units in the wrong country destroy the ambience of the game.

No offence, but you must need some training because I have played 8 campaigns and have not had any problem with rebellions... The odd one here and there but I always check tax rate AFTER I move people around.

I recently tried using the aragonese (by modding a file), which was real tough at first but now im in the process of dominating, again.

I always play on expert, and the computer is not really that expert. The AI doesnt trade over the sea good enough.

I've played a dozen campaigns, with all but the first one on 'hard' setting.
If you have rebellions, it's your own fault. Dont blame the game for your own lack of skill.

In the very endstages of the game there are some dubious rebellions where they seem to appear overnight (especially when the monarch dies), but that is also understandable considering the ethnic tensions such a large empire must certainly harbour.

If you get rebellions in the first 20 years of your reign, you are really doing something seriously wrong. Read the manual (now _that_ is something you could complain about) and browse through this forum on how to prevent them.

As for the 'unrealistic' nature of rebellions, I personally dont think it's that bad. A lot can be explained by a frugal imagination ("a mercenary general from tripoli leading a peasant army in revolt in britain? Sure why not I saw Robin Hood (the Costner one)").
As for realism, it's a game not a sim.


The only real outstanding problem with this game as I see it is the castle sieges, which need an overhaul.
The diplomacy is very limited I agree, but not 'broken'; it does what it is supposed to do, I'd just wish it could do some more. That would be a nice upgrade for an expansion pack.

While I don't usually have trouble with rebellions (like a previous poster, I check loyalty each turn) I'll not likely conquer the Papacy again, until I'm ready to finish the game.

I've learned that Portugal will rebel even with high loyalty and Rome will sport a loyalist army even with max loyalty. Unless you really love fighting generally superior armies, you'll leave the Pope alone.

Its not just player rebellions though.

I played one game where almost every coastal province from Denmark to Genoa was rebel held. My empire was fine...but trade was impossible http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/frown.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]As for realism, it's a game not a sim

---

i think i want a sim.

I have to disagree about rebellions and the difficulty scale. If anything, it's a tad too easy because the AI doesn't know how to get a good florin base to get the good troops it needs. Only played Hard so far though, not expert yet.

People complain about rebellions because they don't understand what causes rebellions. I use the auto tax feature to milk the most gold out of each and every provinces playing on expert mode and rarely have a rebellion.

The main reason I see as the cause for mass rebellions has to do with your monarch's location within your kingdom. First you need to have your monarch parked in the middle of the provinces so he can be as close as possible to every province. Second that province MUST be a coastal province. Since when your fleets are linked, it treats other coastal provinces as being only 1 distance away since you can get there in 1 turn using your fleet. I have seen where when the link with my fleet is broken because of a enemy ship or my ship got sunk. When this happened massed rebellions popped up on all my coastal provinces because I had 0 garrsion and the distance to my monarch is like 10 or so because it has to count the number of terrtories it takes to get to the monarch instead of 1 by using the sea. If you can keep this from happening, you can tax as high as your hearts content and you will never get rebellions. Normally when I use auto tax and even on high taxes only keep enough garrions to keey my loyalty around 140%.

Don't park your Monarch Move him around, let him see his domain, let his subjects see him. It's a hassle, but it's fun to plan your royal route. Get him exercise

Annie

Yeah, the King's Royal European tour Does anyone know if the princes do also have any influance on this (Prince's European tour http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/joker.gif )?

I usually keep my King a bit out of the way of danger and tend to move my princes around a lot. Don't have a lot of rebellions, but I also keep lots of troops present in provinces I just conquered.

Let me get this straight...the game basically counts up the number of moves it would take your King (or in my case Emperor, I'm the HRE) to get to a given province, and that determines his effect on said province's loyalty?

My problem is, as the HRE nearing 1200 I have a tremendous amount of land from Muscovy and Novgorod to the British Isles (no provinces on the other side of the mediterranean though), much of which is landlocked. I tend to park my King in Burgundy, Ile de France, Swabia, and perhaps Switzerland when he feels like skiing. But, given your coastal advice, is there perhaps a more advantageous position?

(I guess that question is rhetorical as I'll have to try it out on my own, but suggestions never hurt nobody nohow)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Lord Romulous @ Nov. 29 2002,08:10)]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]As for realism, it's a game not a sim

---

i think i want a sim.

---

Yes. I cannot understand why people confuse a sim for a game, or vice versa. Their both the same thing. Technically, theres no such thing as a sim. Sims exist for military planners. MTW may be a game, but that doesnt stop designers from making a somewhat realistic one at that.

Every person here who argues that MTW is a game and not a sim is an idiot. Frankly MTW was designed with a historical basis in mind, achieves a reasonable amount of realism in it, and must uphold those standards. Otherwise theres no point in creating a historical subject for a game.

As soon as you label a game as historical strategy, you can be damn well sure that some research was done in the game to make it authentic. If its games your into. play dungeons and dragons, so you can compare goblin masters with wizard monkeys.

There are some of us who expect to buy a historical strategy game, and expect HISTORICAL strategy, mind you not 100% accurate, but theres nothing wrong with a game not being 100% accurate, the whole objective is to create a game based on reality as close as possible.

Its ironic some people in here say MTW, a game titled "historical strategy" argue that MTW is merely a game and in the same league with first person shooters.

There is a reason CA made MTW for they could have made a game based on fantasy, but they went out of their way to make a game based on history play out reasonably close to reality.

Therefore, any game made with such standards must uphold to this and create a game based on their subject in a realistic manner, which I believe MTW has done.

Dont dare say MTW is a game and not a sim. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/argue.gif

Richard, I'm sorry to say it but you are not all that sharp are you?

MTW is a game based in an historical setting. Its concessions to historical accuracy are so many they are beyond count.

If you play GT3, and smash your car into a wall at 200 km/h, you get to drive on with a busted headlight.
Get the picture yet?

You should perhaps watch who you call 'idiots' as well. Opinions differ, and yours is not always the correct one. I'm sure your dad will explain it to you once he feels you'e old enough to handle the responsibility.

Ahh rebelions i love them for one reason target practise he he
i usualy try to take a quarter of europe in a few turns then crank up the tax to very high let them rebel them quash the rebelions it gets ur generals way up valour wise my heir is at valour 16 with 1000 men all at val 5 to 10 now that is a elite army all thanks to rebelions.
ps they r easy to crush on the highest difficulty level i only get trouble with the pope but even then i just send in the elite army he he

hmm richard get a life mr historian guy
i bought this game for fun not to learn as im already quized in medeival warfare would u consider pearl harbour to be a "sim" after all mtw is a pearl harbour of sorts ie. the designers didnt think oh lets make the game historically accurate just cos its set in medieval times they set it in medieval times because this is a very volatile period in history and makes for a great game if it was historicaly accurate then there would be a few wars here and there but no country would have the power or recourses to conquer half or even all of europe so watch who u r calling an idiot im willing to bet that 99.9% of ppl bought this becos they want fun not a history lesson.
medal of honour was set in ww2 and had the guns the tanks etc just like mtw has the swords the guys but would u consider moh to be a sim? no its an action game just like mtw is a strategy game

Okay folks, this is not a "Who's the Biggest Idiot" contest.

We are discussing laurels, naps and CA. I suggest we are return our focus to intellectual exchange of opinions and ideas. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/idea.gif