it's this thread
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/on-rebellions.436330/
I took the rebel's town. It's the same as an average town's power, not that it matters since they can't do much to me in the siege map. In other games I took 7-10 rebel towns without any war with major factions as an independent clan. If they make you go to war against a main faction then they might as well delete rebelions as it's the the same as taking any town. I can take any town I want anyways, but being able to just play as a semi-pacifist is a different gameplay rout then being in wars all the time. It's fun to build up the towns.
I see... but without wars it's a little immersion-breaking. I mean, if you were a king of a kingdom and a settlement rebelled against you, you would make considerable efforts to take the town back - no matter if it's the original rebel who controls it or another person. You would feel entitled to that settlement, especially since it's your culture of people. Asking to get fief back and losing reputation which will lead to wars eventually should in my opinion be a thing. Ok, not go to war instantly, so that a rebelled settlement is more distinguished than normal kingdom settlements, but still losing reputation and low reputation having more chances for war would be ideal. Otherwise it becomes exploitable and it doesn't make much sense to be that way, in neither realism or gameplay... And doesn't trading allow for a pacifist run anyway? But at least you have to work for it and you can't do that at the start of the game.
(offtopic: I also think there should be big bands of bandits raiding villages and if they get in big enough numbers maybe also raid settlements... I still hope for bandit heroes outside of hideouts, for more dynamic maps (rebellions, bandit take-over... I mean that's really cool).
For rebellions, it could be totally ok to avoid a war if you had high relationship with the kingdom's king and the lord that previously owned the rebelled fief. Let's say you lose 25 relationship with the king and the owner of the settlement (or if the king is the owner then you lose double the relationship with the king, so 50, so be careful of king's settlements! - those numbers are adjustable, it's just an example). Then, if you want to go for the semi-pacifist route, you must at least work for it a bit. Do quests for those lords until you have a 25 positive relationship. That way you don't go on the negative after capturing it and not giving it back, and you get no wars because nobody is voting to go to war with you. And if you actually work so much for this goal and you maintain positive relationships with all lords while conquering Calradia, I think that makes you a worthy ruler of the land, and nobody would really oppose that...And it makes more sense if you grind quests for a kingdom and have positive relations with the lords (like they actually know you), that they maybe wouldn't declare war on you if you took a rebel settlement. It's like, you never went to war with them, you didn't attack them, you did them favors... they'd be more forgiving I'd imagine. They might even consider you a possible ally - once alliances are implemented, hopefully. So this will make more sense then).
But definitely need some extra kind of grinding for it, otherwise it becomes the norm to play like that and it's too easy... don't know what the best solution is atm, but those are my thoughts. And if your kingdom is getting too big (either you buy many settlements or take them through rebellion), I think it would make sense for smaller kingdoms to start declaring war on you because they would fear eventually being taken over. I would make it so that if you have a kingdom of your own, and a main faction has less settlements than you, they would go to war with you trying to conquer the lands. It would also help snowbally from the bigger factions, because the more settlements one would get, the more chances for the small factions to declare war on it. Don't know if snowballing is a big issue anymore though