On Rebellions

Currently viewing this thread:

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
This one.
giphy.gif
:lol:

2 seems fair, personally I think 3. What is the difference between a rebel clan and an independent clan (player) taking over a city? Don't see why a faction wouldn't declare war (I also prefer my games challenging)
 

Apocal

Master Knight

I've been watching other people, newish players, streaming and they frequently struggle to get their own kingdom kickstarted. Clan parties are much harder to afford, they are trying to get mission-side sieges to be more difficult and nothing in the game teaches you how to survive as a small kingdom.

Just make it easy to get that first town.
🤷‍♂️
 
giphy.gif
:lol:

2 seems fair, personally I think 3. What is the difference between a rebel clan and an independent clan (player) taking over a city? Don't see why a faction wouldn't declare war (I also prefer my games challenging)
The difference is the faction ****ed up and didn't take care of their property, people and didn't strike back fast enough, so now somebody else who stepped up gets a chance to turn the town around! We're not their subjects, vassals or militia, we're not the same as the rebels, we're a noble Clan (or are we?) with the right own land and raise military forces. It's okay for option 2 or other ideas, if they're mad about it, or maybe there is some other consequences, but it shouldn't be the same as declaring war on a faction.

I guess just for gameplays sake, I don't want 2 things to have the same result. If we can already attack a faction and get into a war whenever we want then want fighting rebels to be different and not lead to the same situation.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
I've been watching other people, newish players, streaming and they frequently struggle to get their own kingdom kickstarted. Clan parties are much harder to afford, they are trying to get mission-side sieges to be more difficult and nothing in the game teaches you how to survive as a small kingdom.

Just make it easy to get that first town.
🤷‍♂️
The situation in general makes sense for someone who is a vassal or a king (once clan tier 4) and like I said 2 seems like the fair choice (just not my preference). I'm still confused about if TW wants us to own fiefs before clan tier 4 as an independent clan (without leaving a faction and getting war decced on), because this just seems like a cheesy way to achieve that. I've never messed with it so I have no idea how factions even handle independent clans (besides leaving factions). But the fact we can't form armies as an independent clan always made me figure at most they want you to be a mercenary or trader.
 
Last edited:

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
@AnandaShanti actually last week @SadShogun and @lottendill told me capturing rebel towns is started to be common player tactic and it can be good to add a new rule there. We made some discussion and cannot decide what is best for game. So I adviced to ask players and collect information. We have 3 choice :

1- Leave like current state, not asking player anything and no penalty with old owner
2- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps relation loss with previous owner of settlement
3- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps start war with previous owner of settlement

It seems my choice is 2 but not sure still. However it is good to collect what players think. What is best for gameplay?

I would say that depends, doesn't it?

If you take the rebellious settlement as a vassal ( a Vlandian Vassal captures a rebellious Vlandian city), in my eyes there is only room for option 2 (+up relation with owner if give back).

On the other hand, if the rebellious settlement is taken as a vassal (Vlandian Vassal captures Battanian city), option 2 if there is a war ongoing between factions and option 3 for an ongoing neutral relationship that with that causes war.

Finally if the rebel settlement is taken as you as an independent kingdom ruler, option 3.
 
Last edited:

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
2- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps relation loss with previous owner of settlement.

It seems my choice is 2 but not sure still. However it is good to collect what players think. What is best for gameplay?

I like this option too. I like the idea about returning fiefs to original owners to keep map balancing, but I think that after returning the fiefs, we should get something (relation gain, plus something else maybe).
 

Kut

Sergeant
I would say that depends, doesn't it?

If you take the rebellious settlement as a vassal ( a Vlandian Vassal captures a rebellious Vlandian city), in my eyes there is only room for option 2 (+up relation with owner if give back).

On the other hand, if the rebellious settlement is taken as a vassal (Vlandian Vassal captures Battanian city), option 2 if there is a war ongoing between factions and option 3 for an ongoing neutral relationship that with that causes war.

Finally if the rebel settlement is taken as you as an independent kingdom ruler, option 3.

This is more appropriate imo...
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
Yay I hope it comes out with

^in regards to pre-battle placement and formations. Been months now and it never came :sad:

You mean this one in particular? This is the most recent official statement regarding this issue.

"Dejan" said:
[...] please note that the perk and the perk description were there without functionality. It was removed from the perk tree as we don't believe a feature like that should be locked up behind a perk.

We will explore the idea as part of the "Order of Battle" feature instead.
(source)

---
scarface52 Could you share the Callum's quote link instead of a screenshot, please? I couldn't find it using the search engine.
 

Bluko88

Regular
We noticed that some players are using rebelled settlements as an exploit. Capturing the rebelled settlement, allows player to have the settlement without war consequences to previous owner, do you think this exploit is something we should try and fix or it is good as it is?

I don't really see how this is any more "exploitive" then say selling goods at ridiculously high prices to Cities that have just been sieged. It's especially funny when you're the attacking party. It's like:

Lord: "Hey folks! I just ruined your city and probably killed tons of your friends and family. But I see you're rather low Grain! How would you like to buy some Grain for 29.99 Denars? Limited time offer!"

Peasant: "What?! Aww motherfu-"

@AnandaShanti actually last week @SadShogun and @lottendill told me capturing rebel towns is started to be common player tactic and it can be good to add a new rule there. We made some discussion and cannot decide what is best for game. So I adviced to ask players and collect information. We have 3 choice :

1- Leave like current state, not asking player anything and no penalty with old owner
2- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps relation loss with previous owner of settlement
3- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps start war with previous owner of settlement

It seems my choice is 2 but not sure still. However it is good to collect what players think. What is best for gameplay?

Mmm depends. We need to consider how the player is involved in taking it back I think.

A. If the player isn't with an existing Kingdom (and hasn't formed their own)
No penalty or prompt

I mean why would would you start a war with someone who could potentially become a loyal subject? Suppose you could add a prompt asking player if they'd like to join previous Kingdom owner as a Vassal?

B. If the player is with a Neutral Kingdom (or their has their own Kingdom and isn't currently at war with previous owner)
Ask player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps relation loss with previous owner

I think declaring war is too extreme since it isn't specifically a hostile action against the original owner per say.

C. If player is with an Enemy Kingdom (or is an Enemy Kingdom)
Well you're already at war so...


In all fairness I think you guys should hold off on mucking with Rebellions as is, til you actually add some more Diplomacy mechanics. The game desperately needs some meters that show Kingdoms attitudes to each other. The most aggravating aspect of joining a Kingdom is having no real idea who you're going to be at war with next - or if said Kingdoms are about to make peace.

IMO Rebellions are serving their purpose in stopping big factions from snowballing too much. Really if a player has enough troops to swoop in and take a Rebel City I say let them. There really aren't that many ways to get a Fief other then joining a Kingdom and hoping you'll be awarded a Fief you'd actually want.

The only thing that needs to be looked at immediately is the multiple Rebel Factions of the same name. Pretty sure I have a save here where Unqid is at war with "Husn Fulq Rebels" like 4 times. Shouldn't each Fief just have the one Rebel Faction? If you're going to have multiple Factions spawn in it should be "Bob's Husn Fulq Rebels".


Oh and good job adding Rebellions by the way! The game desperately needed this mechanic. Taking over all of Calradia should not be easy or even all that feasible when you think about it.
 

McDadden

Recruit
I like the feature, but the only problem is I think rebellions happen too often within the same town. For instance, some players have talked about their towns rebelling numerous times to different factions. Personally this happened at Iyakis in my Empire playthrough. It rebelled, I reconquered it, and then it rebelled again within a matter of days. This makes no sense to me. The people of any given town would lose their resolve rather quickly after getting slaughtered time and again. I only think their should be a hidden cooldown timer for each town in between rebellions.
 

Grumpy181155

Sergeant at Arms
WBVCWF&S
I like the feature, but the only problem is I think rebellions happen too often within the same town. For instance, some players have talked about their towns rebelling numerous times to different factions. Personally this happened at Iyakis in my Empire playthrough. It rebelled, I reconquered it, and then it rebelled again within a matter of days. This makes no sense to me. The people of any given town would lose their resolve rather quickly after getting slaughtered time and again. I only think their should be a hidden cooldown timer for each town in between rebellions.
...... and to give the player / NPC time to put some counter measures in place.
 

Noobier

Veteran
WB
@AnandaShanti actually last week @SadShogun and @lottendill told me capturing rebel towns is started to be common player tactic and it can be good to add a new rule there. We made some discussion and cannot decide what is best for game. So I adviced to ask players and collect information. We have 3 choice :

1- Leave like current state, not asking player anything and no penalty with old owner
2- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps relation loss with previous owner of settlement
3- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps start war with previous owner of settlement

It seems my choice is 2 but not sure still. However it is good to collect what players think. What is best for gameplay?

Why not let the player choose in a dialoge:

1. You can swear loyalty to the main faction and get the fief as reward.
2. You get townprospertity=money + some relationship buff with the faction/clan for giving it back.
3. You keep it and go to war with the original faction.
4. If you manage to swear an oath to another mayor faction before 10 days, the two major factions will go to war.
 

Dreed89

Sergeant at Arms
@AnandaShanti actually last week @SadShogun and @lottendill told me capturing rebel towns is started to be common player tactic and it can be good to add a new rule there. We made some discussion and cannot decide what is best for game. So I adviced to ask players and collect information. We have 3 choice :

1- Leave like current state, not asking player anything and no penalty with old owner
2- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps relation loss with previous owner of settlement
3- Asking player to keep or give fief back, if player keeps start war with previous owner of settlement

It seems my choice is 2 but not sure still. However it is good to collect what players think. What is best for gameplay?

Option #2 but with more depth and additional dialogue like many others have exemplified. Possibilites like:
  • More likelyhood of war in the future with the original owner
  • If the relationship with the original owner was very high, war could be very less likely
  • An option to buy the fief
  • Immediate war if the relationship with owner was really low.
  • Not a faction war but original owner clan holding grudge to player, raiding, ambushing caravans etc.
 

Grumpy181155

Sergeant at Arms
WBVCWF&S
I just took a new town in my current game and moved a culturally similar, good governor to manage it plus installed a garrison of 200+ and despite having the three villages raided, plus starvation, plus twice being besieged, the town is still mine and does not look like rebelling. I did a lot of work though stopping as much raiding as possible and kept a close eye on the loyalty and only once after I initially took the town did I need to use the Festivals and Games choice to boost Loyalty. Rebellions have changed my building priority though and now I prioritise Workshops, Fairgrounds, Orchards and Granaries over Militia buildings. Rebellions also mean I need to garrison at least 200 troops in every town.
 
Top Bottom