Ambitious Rebels

[Dellathane]

Yet more evidence as to why the Rebel Rights Movement is such a noble cause!

[LordK9]

Even in the real world, Attila and others fit the bill.

[Brandy Blue]

Oh, and aristocrats do more plundering than any "rebels".

Well, isn't that how they became aristocrats in the first place? Be a bigger thief than your neighbors or be descended from one.

[Axalon]

Logically, they should be the way they are in raw MTW. Rebels are supposed to be a band of anarchists who rather destroy and plunder than build, train and have a kind of a state which they seem to do in Redux. At least, it is what I picture when I hear the word "rebels".

I think you are stretching things pretty thin here, as to somehow "warrant" the default (raw MTW) circumstances on rebels. At any rate, if you (or anybody) want the static, timid and passive rebels in your game - that is your privilege and headache.

Personally, I want and expect more then that out of rebels, a lot more, and so I have radically changed things and designs to make it happen. In general that will (if done successfully) deliver more organic, active and dramatic campaign which in turn will (conventionally speaking) generate a more exciting and interesting experience on this stuff - and I prefer that instead. My result on that is Redux, which may very well still present the best hunting grounds for various rebel activity - so far. It proves that higher levels of challenge and activity is very possible to achieve with the rebels, if that is what people truly want. I want it, and now I can get it...

For the likes of you, who don't (seem to) want higher levels of challenge and activity - raw MTW is a good place to go, no arguments there. For the likes of me - who do want more challenge and activity out of rebels - raw MTW is a poor place to go, due to its designs, traits and performance. As a result, people such as myself will therefore always be better off in the realm of modification and alterations, because it is there, like it or not, where increased challenge and activity levels - beyond what raw MTW can deliver - are to be found somehow. Ergo, people are not stuck with the default experience on rebels, they have a choice on this, as there are both existing and possible alternatives to it.

- A

[Gilrandir]

I think you are stretching things pretty thin here, as to somehow "warrant" the default (raw MTW) circumstances on rebels. At any rate, if you (or anybody) want the static, timid and passive rebels in your game - that is your privilege and headache.

Personally, I want and expect more then that out of rebels, a lot more, and so I have radically changed things and designs to make it happen. In general that will (if done successfully) deliver more organic, active and dramatic campaign which in turn will (conventionally speaking) generate a more exciting and interesting experience on this stuff - and I prefer that instead. My result on that is Redux, which may very well still present the best hunting grounds for various rebel activity - so far. It proves that higher levels of challenge and activity is very possible to achieve with the rebels, if that is what people truly want. I want it, and now I can get it...

For the likes of you, who don't (seem to) want higher levels of challenge and activity - raw MTW is a good place to go, no arguments there. For the likes of me - who do want more challenge and activity out of rebels - raw MTW is a poor place to go, due to its designs, traits and performance. As a result, people such as myself will therefore always be better off in the realm of modification and alterations, because it is there, like it or not, where increased challenge and activity levels - beyond what raw MTW can deliver - are to be found somehow. Ergo, people are not stuck with the default experience on rebels, they have a choice on this, as there are both existing and possible alternatives to it.

- A

What I look for in this game is not only a challenge (however minute it may seem to you), but also (and may be primarily) an essential proportion of logics and historic accuracy. If modding takes these away giving the rebels, say, Darth Vader as a general to make them more aggressive and invincible, consequently challenging, it does not make the game better, in my opinion.

[caravel]

"Difficult rebels" are easy enough to produce - just give them specific uber units, lower upkeep and training costs and rebel faction specific cathedral income buildings...

While this arguably makes it more challenging for the player, it also makes it next to impossible for the AI - which is as dumb as a brick (especially on the campaign map) and will be quickly overrun. The Rebels have a notable advantage over the other factions - no rebellions or provincial loyalty problems. This means that the rebels' tax rates are fixed at "very high" and they don't suffer from it (except in the case of faction reappearances).

The better approach is to just create a rebel specific cathedral income building (these are auto-razed when factions invade) and leave units and their stats balanced. This gives the rebel faction what they need more than anything else - funding (but not too much funding).

The problem with any theoretical rebel faction specific buildings, is that the rebels won't develop their provinces in line with what the major factions are doing - so provinces will be very underdeveloped and the rebel specific buildings will be razed on the loss of the province.

[LordK9]

What I look for in this game is not only a challenge (however minute it may seem to you), but also (and may be primarily) an essential proportion of logics and historic accuracy. If modding takes these away giving the rebels, say, Darth Vader as a general to make them more aggressive and invincible, consequently challenging, it does not make the game better, in my opinion.

My thoughts exactly. Plenty of sci-fi games out there where anything goes.

[Axalon]

What I look for in this game is not only a challenge (however minute it may seem to you), but also (and may be primarily) an essential proportion of logics and historic accuracy. If modding takes these away giving the rebels, say, Darth Vader as a general to make them more aggressive and invincible, consequently challenging, it does not make the game better, in my opinion.

Right.... Well, if you want to believe that I and others resort to - or need - Darth Vader, the logic of the Marvel universe and Mickey mouse to get more activity and kick out of the rebels - then have it your way.... Making rebels harder somehow is easy (as is the entire game), making them function properly is a different story (as is also true for the entire game). Anyhow, I can obviously do little for you anyways. Have fun with raw MTW rebels...

I have already basically said what I wanted to say here, people have a choice on rebels, they are not stuck with the default rebels, there are alternatives on this for the people so inclined (Medmod and Redux are for instance existing alternatives, and it is possible create some on your own).

- A

[caravel]

There is definitely some merit in tougher rebels, "raw MTW rebels" are tame, but you need to accept that people want to play the game their way or the vanilla way. There are also plenty of players who will enjoy the "redux way" (and why not?). Everyone has their own opinions on how the game works and everyone plays the game for their own reasons. Even myself and gollum, who shared many opinions on the game, were polar opposites when it came to certain aspects. for example I wanted to remove all ships from the Pocket mod, gollum was not at all convinced. in hindsight I have to somewhat grudgingly admit that he was correct...

I think I've been rather unfair and confrontational with you Axalon and for that I apologise. I honestly think now is the time to move on, accept each others differences for what they are and just get on with being part of what is left of the MTW (and STW) community.

Merry Christmas one and all.

[Gilrandir]

Next question of course is, is it possible for a province to rebel against rebels?

The answer is positive. I saw it in my last French campaign. After I started a war with the Pope and was excommed lots of my provinces rebeled. I withdrew my troops from them but next year EACH of these province had a loyalist rebelion in my favor against those rebels. So, I guess the prerequisite of a rebelion against rebels is the recent possession of the province by some faction able to instill strong loyalty in its subjects.

[ferdi]

The answer is positive. I saw it in my last French campaign. After I started a war with the Pope and was excommed lots of my provinces rebeled. I withdrew my troops from them but next year EACH of these province had a loyalist rebelion in my favor against those rebels. So, I guess the prerequisite of a rebelion against rebels is the recent possession of the province by some faction able to instill strong loyalty in its subjects.

yes. ı experienced sometihing like this too. a province rebel against rebels. it is usual if your influence(of the king) increase (2 to 3 or alike) loyalist rebel aginst rebels.

[drone]

The answer is positive. I saw it in my last French campaign. After I started a war with the Pope and was excommed lots of my provinces rebeled. I withdrew my troops from them but next year EACH of these province had a loyalist rebelion in my favor against those rebels. So, I guess the prerequisite of a rebelion against rebels is the recent possession of the province by some faction able to instill strong loyalty in its subjects.

I think this is possible because you owned the province at the end-turn, not the rebels. If I'm not mistaken, once the rebels truly own a province then no loyalist rebellions occur. They are still susceptible to reemergences though.

[Gilrandir]

I think this is possible because you owned the province at the end-turn, not the rebels. If I'm not mistaken, once the rebels truly own a province then no loyalist rebellions occur. They are still susceptible to reemergences though.

When extensive rebellions occur I can't hold all the provinces with loyalty at zero and no more than garrisoning troops in each. So I set the taxes to very low and withdraw all the troops to a couple of provinces I can hold by doing so. When the rebellions do occur they are usually one-two units due to having no royal forces in the province. So I move in from the shelter province and recapture what used to be mine. As you see, that rules out you supposition that I still could have owned the provinces in the situation described. I simply didn't have enough troops.

[LordK9]

I may be way off base as I so often am but what I think "Drone" is referring to is that the rebels appear a turn before anything really happens. Generally, when an army is in a province and are besieging the city , they own it but this isn't true right off with the rebels. You can build new buildings or destroy old ones, etc and react by moving in more troops prior to the rebellion. If I understood you correctly, you are simply moving out your troops while you still own it thus allowing loyalists to form up the same turn the rebellion actually begins (at the end of the turn they appear).

[Gilrandir]

If I understood you correctly, you are simply moving out your troops while you still own it thus allowing loyalists to form up the same turn the rebellion actually begins (at the end of the turn they appear).

I didn't make it clear, I'm sorry. I do move out my troops when the province is still mine and there is no hope (zero loyalty) that I can keep it. The end of the turn. The rebels appear. The end of the turn and I'm told that I own the province no more. The end of the turn and I have loyalists popping up in ALL the provinces I left in that way.

[LordK9]

Sounds like a good strategy - one of the few things I don't like about this game is that often the rebels within a province show up with cutting edge technology that cannot be produced there (or, with tons of useless siege equipment). If loyalists pop up, that is basically free troops that can make retaking the province easier. Don't you have a bandit problem though (they appear when the garrison drops below 100)? Also, after more thinking, it does make sense that you don't own the province when the loyalists show up. Why would they if you owned it?

[Gilrandir]

Sounds like a good strategy

It's not a strategy. It just happened that way. Don't you rely on it, there is no guarantee that you will have it. I saw it happen only once on such an extensive scale.

Don't you have a bandit problem though (they appear when the garrison drops below 100)?

I had when I had less game experience. Now I have learned to watch for loyalty drops and adjust the tax regime (or bring in more troops) correspondingly.

[drone]

I believe the mechanics work like this:

• You pull your troops from the province. The province still belongs to you, and you have full control of the queues. Hit end turn.
• Rebels spawn in the province. This is essentially a siege, the province belongs to you but you cannot build. Hit end turn.
• The rebels capture the province. The loyalist check is performed prior to the rebel lands mechanic, so a loyalist uprising is possible since the happiness is low.
• If loyalists did not emerge, the standard rebel lands happiness mechanic sets in and the loyalty is fixed at 100%. No rebellions are possible, but reemergences are (the 120% factor).

When you play the rebel faction (either with the .conan. cheat or the -ian faction switch), you can see how the happiness mechanic works for them. Rebellions are not a problem.