Let's talk about Rebellions

Currently viewing this thread:

Askey

Veteran
2) Should be openly hostile against all Kingdoms

Its silly how the AI never declares war against a rebelling clan and simply leaves them be. Rebellions undermine their entire societal structure and should be squashed by any existing Kingdom on the threat they provide. When a settlement rebels, it should reject all forms of vassalage and be openly hostile to all Kingdoms.

I disagree with this, why would I wipe out a rebellion in my enemies lands? If anything I'd want to create an alliance and encourage their disruption. Fine example is Scotland and France against England.

3) The rebellion should spread to nearby settlements

When a settlement rebels, it should incur a penalty on all neighboring settlements for loyalty, security, prosperity, militia and recruitment. Lords will have a hard time gathering commoners for their command when a nearby settlement is in open rebellion. If the rebellion lasts long enough, these settlements might join up in arms with the rebellion. They wouldn't create a new minor faction, but join the existing rebelling clan with new leaders.

Disagree with this, makes no sense to me.

4) Unique non-noble party compositions

Part of the problem when rebellions occur is that their forces are simply no match and I've never seen them gather armies. I propose instead that rebellion clans spawn with a large army of militia/mercenaries at their command when they spawn. Their only strength being the sheer number of them. Nearby bandits and looter parties will slowly join up with rebellion armies as they share a somewhat similar goal.


Disagree with this, makes no sense to me. Personally I think the rebellion should have an all or nothing attitude. They should be on the hard defensive attempting to make allies quickly or empty out their castle/city and go on a hard offense attempting to eat away at their enemies weakness.


5) Allowing the player to stop the rebellion as it occurs

If a rebellion is imminent, if your party is waiting inside a settlement, you can fight the rebellion as it occurs. Similar to Gang fights, the player and his party will spawn in the streets and have to fight off the horde.

Love this idea.

6) Clans with low loyalty settlements should support policies that raise it

"Well my town has only rebelled 3 times, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I lose 5% production"

Highest I've ever seen for policies like Forgiveness of Debt or Trial by Jury is 7% in a 10 clan kingdom. What is wrong with these people?!
They will gladly give up 30% of their income to the King but the idea of money go down is universally reviled no matter how much it would benefit
them in the long run.


Yeah I agree with this, it makes sense.


Thanks for Reading and let me know what you think about rebellions!
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
To be frank, Rebellions lack oomph. They are a nuisance rather than a tangible threat in their current implementation.
They are also always spurred forth from clashing cultures and lack of food, which is brought forth because AI Kingdoms
would gladly sacrifice loyalty gains so the ruler can receive 500 extra denars per day and they need their 5% extra tax dammit.

They also almost always immediately crushed, and what clans survive just usually go on to become vassals in another Kingdom.
Rebellions need sustainability and a global impact to be an in-depth mechanic rather than an annoyance.
Frankly this is all TW wants rebellions to be not a threat just a way to keep the ai, and the player from steamrolling too fast.

So here's some ideas on how that could be accomplished:

1) Rebellions should be a people's movement

"We rebelled against our tyrannical overlords, btw I'm declaring myself Emperor"

Rebellions should be as their namesake describes, rebellions against society structures and the power imbalances. It should be a peasant led movement against the Kings and lords of the land making their lives miserable. Rather than simply adopting the indigenous culture and creating a new clan, Rebellion clans should be unique in their structure.
That's a lot more work for TW and I'm guessing they'd never go for it, besides why wouldn't it be the native culture. Typically rebellions (in this game) occur because newly conquered towns are poorly treated.

2) Should be openly hostile against all Kingdoms

Its silly how the AI never declares war against a rebelling clan and simply leaves them be. Rebellions undermine their entire societal structure and should be squashed by any existing Kingdom on the threat they provide. When a settlement rebels, it should reject all forms of vassalage and be openly hostile to all Kingdoms.
Gotta disagree with this one, if I'm at war with someone and a settlement rebels I would support it or at least turn a blind eye to it. If I'm across the map they I wouldn't give a rat's ass about it. The only time it would be pertinent is if I'm neutral to the faction and I'm next to the rebelling town.

3) The rebellion should spread to nearby settlements

When a settlement rebels, it should incur a penalty on all neighboring settlements for loyalty, security, prosperity, militia and recruitment. Lords will have a hard time gathering commoners for their command when a nearby settlement is in open rebellion. If the rebellion lasts long enough, these settlements might join up in arms with the rebellion. They wouldn't create a new minor faction, but join the existing rebelling clan with new leaders.
Sorry I disagree, rebellions are occurring because local lords are mismanaging their towns so if neighboring towns are stable why should it spread? The only exception I can see is if there is some kind of instability in neighboring towns maybe it makes it easier to rebel. But that's a very specific circumstance and probably so rare that it's not worth worrying about. I feel it's something that just adds complexity without any real reasons outside of a few situations.

4) Unique non-noble party compositions

Part of the problem when rebellions occur is that their forces are simply no match and I've never seen them gather armies. I propose instead that rebellion clans spawn with a large army of militia/mercenaries at their command when they spawn. Their only strength being the sheer number of them. Nearby bandits and looter parties will slowly join up with rebellion armies as they share a somewhat similar goal.
That sounds like a good idea, but how would looters and bandits be reintegrated if the rebellion is successful? It's not like they're useful for the town besides cannon fodder. Are they just dispersed? If something like this is done then the ramifications need to be examined.

5) Allowing the player to stop the rebellion as it occurs

If a rebellion is imminent, if your party is waiting inside a settlement, you can fight the rebellion as it occurs. Similar to Gang fights, the player and his party will spawn in the streets and have to fight off the horde.
This sounds like a good idea.

6) Clans with low loyalty settlements should support policies that raise it

"Well my town has only rebelled 3 times, but it'll be a cold day in hell before I lose 5% production"

Highest I've ever seen for policies like Forgiveness of Debt or Trial by Jury is 7% in a 10 clan kingdom. What is wrong with these people?!
They will gladly give up 30% of their income to the King but the idea of money go down is universally reviled no matter how much it would benefit
them in the long run.
Yes TW does make some kind of silly decisions are far as what the ai does.

The big problem I see with your proposal is that TW never intended rebellions to be what you're wanting. They came about because people keep asking for alliances and rebellions to slow down steamrolling. Of course alliances got flat out refused and we got rebellions but they're limited in scope too. I just don't see that TW is ever interested in what you're proposing. But there are definitely some good thoughts here and some of this could make a nice mod.
 
Top Bottom