On Rebellions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
SadShogun said:
If the conditions are met, a rebellion is started with some chance.
Click to expand...
May I ask what the chance is? How likely per day is it?

Also, I notice that the militia losses more units from high starvation then the garrison, maybe this should reverse when they loyalty is low enough that the militia rapidly builds. I would like to starve them to hurry the process along but I think it's only good for getting loyalty down but not depleting the garrison.
 
lottendill said:
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?
Click to expand...
That's a weird way to describe as an exploit because I also read that devs new players would do so and approved.

mexxico said:
While implementing rebellion we discussed with @lottendill and @SadShogun (who implemented that feature) this (players to capture rebel towns) will be the common case in future. I think its good to have this because otherwise player need to attack kingdoms which are generally stronger than rebels to take their initial fiefs which can cause problems for them, when player take a fief from a kingdom kingdoms come back with strong armies to take it back. So rebellions are good for players especially starting their kingdoms to get a new property without being enemy to kingdoms. When you do this you do not be enemy to old owner of that town but actually that kingdom lose a town to player. Maybe player can lose relation with king of old kingdom in this scenario but this case is not enough for starting a war.
Click to expand...

1: It's not really an exploit if it's known to Devs when they make it.

2: It's better for the health of the game then the player wiping out a faction outright to have fiefs. Believe me, I can take on any faction and have a town by force, by day 60. The game is much better with me taking a rebel town then wiping a faction out and taking 6.

3: It's the only enjoyable thing new for players to do. If you remove it or make it not worthwhile it will be a complete downgrade back to boring gameplay.

4: Being a vassal and being a ruler are horrible with no player agency, no control, just endless mindless AI wars with no reward or enjoyment. If I don't have control and choice the game is not enjoyable at all. So playing as a single clan is the only way I actually enjoy playing.

TLDR it's good as it is

However @mexxico 's idea for having some -relation makes sense too. Also did you guys know that the rebel clans defeated by the player don't seem to ever go away or join a faction? Unless it was changed in 1.5.7(so far it hasn't), in 1.5.6 they persisted to respawn for the rest of the game and eventually it was like a faction 's worth of enemy rebels sneaking around. Perhaps this could be enhanced and they could team up and work together to strike back at the player who take fiefs independently from rebels?
 
@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?
 
mexxico said:
@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?
Click to expand...
My choice is 2. I don't like 3 because it's the same as just taking a fief without the rebellion. I would also support other ideas that are distinct and new challenges. Such as, what if after refusing to give it back, at some point the original owner will launch a 1 time effort to reclaim it with their clan. Not a normal war, but 1 event where you must defend your fief. It could maybe have other alternative ways to solve it too.
 
mexxico said:
@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?
Click to expand...
In my opinion choice 2 is the best, it won't outright punish you with an instant war against a bigger power but will give you a relationship penalty which is fair.

Don't know if relationships affect chance for war declaration right now but if yes would be good to give a penalty in relationship with the faction (or ruling clan if it's that relationship that matters) of the previous owner of the fief too so they would have increased chances of declaring war on the player but give you a bit of time to prepare for it.

Maybe even tie it with traits and previous relationship like an closefisted/ deceitful traited ruler wouldn't take this offense lightly and would be more likely to declare war outright to get lost territory back, good traits or previous relationship would be more likely to just take the relationship loss or send an ultimatum demanding compensation (barter screen)
 
vonbalt said:
Don't know if relationships affect chance for war declaration right now but if yes would be good to give a penalty in relationship with the faction (or ruling clan if it's that relationship that matters) of the previous owner of the fief too so they would have increased chances of declaring war on the player but give you a bit of time to prepare for it.
Click to expand...

Yes it effects. However effect is less currently, actually while offering option-2 I said them I can increase effect of relationship on wars also.
 
mexxico said:
Yes it effects. However effect is less currently, actually while offering option-2 I said them I can increase effect of relationship on wars also.
Click to expand...
Oh that would be great then! since monarchy is a more personal kind of government it would make sense that relationships have more effect on wars, would be cool to see monarchs that hate each other guts warring much more frequently than with others they have more friendly relationships :party:
 
mexxico said:
I said them I can increase effect of relationship on wars also.
Click to expand...
My choice is “2” with this effect. There will be always the possibility of war because of this behaviour. (capturing rebel towns)
 
Since wars between monarchs indeed are a rather personal thing...could a war be forced to stop once you get hands on their monarch i.e. imprisoning him?
 
mexxico said:
@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?
Click to expand...
I would support 2 as well but I also like the idea of paying reparations either from the previous owner if the player decides to return the town or from the player to the NPC if the player decides to keep the town. If payment is made and accepted then there should be no relation loss.
 
We should also have an option to return the fief to its original owner after defeating the rebels, with a big money and relation reward. The rulers could even give you a quest to recapture rebelling cities if you're a mercenary, it could be a good way to practice sieges without actually declaring war on a kingdom and earning some money. @mexxico
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LDominating
Rant about game design
Replies
2
Views
301
LDominating
LDominating
Selphie Nutter
Slower game mode needed
Replies
3
Views
178
oświecony
oświecony
Current playthrough
Replies
2
Views
210
Winter1
Back
Top Bottom