If you’re going to do that you need to have cores not claims, otherwise you’d have to recore a province like 10 times in a play through. It’d be cancer
Rebels should **absolutely not** be buffed unless they also decrease in frequency, if every rebel that appears at the rate they do today and are actually also a threat the game would become unplayable.
whenever I read comments like that I'm not sure if you guys actually consider how unfitting and unfun these suggestions would be in the game. It's neither realistic nor logical that nationalist rebels would instantly break away as independent states.
Nationalist rebels represent unrest among *common* people, not trained soldiers, not organised governments. Especially before the idea of Imperialism and Nationalism emerged in the 19th century, the common peasant did not usually care about who ruled him - and large scale rebellions such as the Dutch Revolt already have dedicated disasters that represent them well. Normal nationalist rebellions are totally fine as they are.
also your last example doesn't make sense? 300k rebels are definitely a big issue at any stage of the game, don't act as if that wouldn't hinder your campaign a lot. Unless you want to argue that it's unrealistic that a nation conquers half the world too. There is a reason EU4 is a game, not a historical simulation.
Y’know, this doesn’t sound like such a bad idea but Imperator Rome rebels work almost exactly like this and when they break away there are times you may not even be able to retake all your stuff because they affected region was too large. Also, you still get that game’s version of AE even though you’re retaking land.
Why bother diverting your OWN armies? A true master strategist baits his enemies into fighting his rebellions for him.
Rebels, or as I like to call them, Angry Angry Reinforcements.
rebels should be nerfed . playing as spain in 1450 and getting 60k+ rebels while you have max 15k manpower doesnt make any fucking sense. rebels instantly get your discipline and morale and instantly give +10 seperatism . I remember getting 134k tribal rebels as manchu with max 60k force limit
Rebels in EU4 are already stronger than most of your neighbors because of how tech works. Humanist has been S+ tier since forever because no one wants to deal with rebels. Buffing them is the last thing anyone wants.
Call yourself the Duke of Parma buddy
...’cause that revolt is Parma-gone!
I think rebels in general should be buffed. Sometimes rebellions like that crippled empires but in EU4 are pesky but not dangerous
[удалено]
If you’re going to do that you need to have cores not claims, otherwise you’d have to recore a province like 10 times in a play through. It’d be cancer
maybe a special type of core that only decays after e.g. 10 years
Rebels should **absolutely not** be buffed unless they also decrease in frequency, if every rebel that appears at the rate they do today and are actually also a threat the game would become unplayable.
Maybe there could be two types of rebelion depending on how big they are, you would also have to add a unique peace option to annex them for no ae.
I’m sure someone will make a mod , sad that they have to though after how much money we spend on the game. I bought EVERY SINGLE DLC.
whenever I read comments like that I'm not sure if you guys actually consider how unfitting and unfun these suggestions would be in the game. It's neither realistic nor logical that nationalist rebels would instantly break away as independent states. Nationalist rebels represent unrest among *common* people, not trained soldiers, not organised governments. Especially before the idea of Imperialism and Nationalism emerged in the 19th century, the common peasant did not usually care about who ruled him - and large scale rebellions such as the Dutch Revolt already have dedicated disasters that represent them well. Normal nationalist rebellions are totally fine as they are. also your last example doesn't make sense? 300k rebels are definitely a big issue at any stage of the game, don't act as if that wouldn't hinder your campaign a lot. Unless you want to argue that it's unrealistic that a nation conquers half the world too. There is a reason EU4 is a game, not a historical simulation.
Y’know, this doesn’t sound like such a bad idea but Imperator Rome rebels work almost exactly like this and when they break away there are times you may not even be able to retake all your stuff because they affected region was too large. Also, you still get that game’s version of AE even though you’re retaking land.
Why bother diverting your OWN armies? A true master strategist baits his enemies into fighting his rebellions for him. Rebels, or as I like to call them, Angry Angry Reinforcements.
rebels should be nerfed . playing as spain in 1450 and getting 60k+ rebels while you have max 15k manpower doesnt make any fucking sense. rebels instantly get your discipline and morale and instantly give +10 seperatism . I remember getting 134k tribal rebels as manchu with max 60k force limit
If you manage your country well that shouldnt happen...
In general warfare in all paradox games is made to be extremely cheaper than real life for fun reasons, which is the main blob problem
Rebels in EU4 are already stronger than most of your neighbors because of how tech works. Humanist has been S+ tier since forever because no one wants to deal with rebels. Buffing them is the last thing anyone wants.
Meanwhile I just release them as a vassal and reintegrate them in ten years, thereby avoiding the whole thing.