too many rebel settlements

[maxstill]

this is very anoying,there are too many rebel provinces,and it takes a lot of time till i can have wars with other kingdoms,because the all always focuses on destroying the rebel settlements,my point,too many ebel settlements make the game borring

[anaztazioch]

What do you expect, to make every fation start as an empire, or every possible settlement to have its own faction, beyond the hardcoded limit ?

Now in my Khwarezm campaign i dont wage war, i just move arround my 1 strongest available stack accompanied by militia/levy stack to protect from eigther Seljuks, Omani or Ghaznivids from attacking me, and 1 mercenary stack to keep an eye on my back (where my 2 stacks are in Ghazni lands, mercs watch Seljuks).
And now i see Kypchaks stack near Khiva... I have alliance with them all (VH/VH alliance) and its my 4th alliance with Ghaznis thanks to Omani, who kept attacking us both and signing peace... lol

[Slash5]

What do you expect, to make every fation start as an empire, or every possible settlement to have its own faction, beyond the hardcoded limit ?

Or lower the amount of rebel settlements ?

[Lewbington]

Or lower the amount of rebel settlements ?

Suggestion - Think before posting.

To lower the amount of rebel settlements would either mean giving them away to other factions or deleting them, neither of which would be historically accurate or more fun for gameplay purposes.

Can I be a patronizing now too?

[gaius valerius]

Or lower the amount of rebel settlements ?

Those settlements are rebels because historically speaken they didn't belong to that faction?

[Strelac]

or stop focusing on the rebels and attack other factions as soon as you want to provoke war. I don't get it ...

EDIT: I guess let me expand my remark more informatively. Numerous rebel settlements are for those of us who like slower game development, however that should not stop those who want war already from 2nd turn. AI faction will result in attacking rebels only as optional measure, if they are not in war with someone else.

[The Cobra]

Rebel settlements are their for a wise reason, if you'd wage war with other factions in the beginning you would have no money while on the other hand the AI has a money script which means defeat at first glance, they are their to make you further expand your economy at the start of the game or you might perish from debts.

[B. Ward]

Don't play the mod or make your own

[Douchebag]

maxstill your crazy.

[maxstill]

maybe,who knows but that wasn't my point

[Miraj]

Maxstill has a point. Sometimes the early game, especially out east can be quite repetitive and predictable due to the large "rebel gap" between factions. The 2 main reasons for this is the overall settlement count and fewer factions.

For example simply adding a faction like the Atabeg of Azeribaijan will allow us to shift the great seljuks more east and south and make the Khwarezmian campaign a lot less rebel stomping and a lot more varied due to having to deal with the Seljuks sooner. Adding faction like the Rus and Volga bulgar would make the Kypchak campaing considerably less bland and add a tonne of competition. Same goes for adding factions like Zengids, Yemen, and stronger north Rajputs.

Aside from that, the only other way to reduce the rebel pwning is simply to reduce the number of settlements. Which I'm not against, but the historical bones in my body ache to see some historically significant town or castle being removed for gameplay. I will ponder on it.

[Douchebag]

Maxstill has a point. Sometimes the early game, especially out east can be quite repetitive and predictable due to the large "rebel gap" between factions. The 2 main reasons for this is the overall settlement count and fewer factions.

For example simply adding a faction like the Atabeg of Azeribaijan will allow us to shift the great seljuks more east and south and make the Khwarezmian campaign a lot less rebel stomping and a lot more varied due to having to deal with the Seljuks sooner. Adding faction like the Rus and Volga bulgar would make the Kypchak campaing considerably less bland and add a tonne of competition. Same goes for adding factions like Zengids, Yemen, and stronger north Rajputs.

Aside from that, the only other way to reduce the rebel pwning is simply to reduce the number of settlements. Which I'm not against, but the historical bones in my body ache to see some historically significant town or castle being removed for gameplay. I will ponder on it.

so you will add kievan rus for 1.5 patch?

[Zymran]

Maxstill has a point. Sometimes the early game, especially out east can be quite repetitive and predictable due to the large "rebel gap" between factions. The 2 main reasons for this is the overall settlement count and fewer factions.

For example simply adding a faction like the Atabeg of Azeribaijan will allow us to shift the great seljuks more east and south and make the Khwarezmian campaign a lot less rebel stomping and a lot more varied due to having to deal with the Seljuks sooner. Adding faction like the Rus and Volga bulgar would make the Kypchak campaing considerably less bland and add a tonne of competition. Same goes for adding factions like Zengids, Yemen, and stronger north Rajputs.

Aside from that, the only other way to reduce the rebel pwning is simply to reduce the number of settlements. Which I'm not against, but the historical bones in my body ache to see some historically significant town or castle being removed for gameplay. I will ponder on it.

I'd disagree that it makes the game more predictable - I'd say it makes every game more unique as you never know who will expand where. Sure there are some areas which almost always get dominated by the same faction, but lots/most get conquered by different factions in every game. It also depends on the player's actions. Like in my Kypchak campaign where I rampaged all the way to India I left huge power vacuums in the central map area, which has led to the Crusaders conquering all of Syria and Iraq as far as Baghdad, and the Omanis expanding into Shiraz and the ex-Seljuk territory. I reckon you just about struck the balance . I've realised that BC is the only mod I've played that doesn't really need improvement

[Miraj]

lol no

[anaztazioch]

I'd disagree that it makes the game more predictable - I'd say it makes every game more unique as you never know who will expand where

Negative. Ghorids allways rush Delhi. Ghaznivids allways go Bukhara and Herat, than more to south. Rajputs conquer arround, Miliks allways goes north till they meet with Ghorids. Seljuks allways go for Shiraz and Southern Iran and a lil bit to Georgia. Georgia allways goes more south than north. ERE pushes Turks, leaving Cumans to their own. Armenia eigther goes for ANtioch or fights Turks, Turks goes for Armenia or Edessa. KoJ usually goes for Antioch and Aleppo. Ayybids hits Mecca, or wages war vs Makuraia and KoJ. Makuria goes up the nile rather than rebels arround that Ayyubids. Abbasids goes for Omani or Seljuks. Omani expands in Arabian penisula and all that Seljuks, Ghaznivids and Kwarezm leaves for them than attacks Seljuks (or my Kwarezm empire). Ghaznis wars with Kwarezm or Ghorids, depends who has weaker garrisons.

Unless you rush with conquest, or make lots of diplomacy, game allways goes the way i pointed. Atleast in my games that is.

[Miraj]

Negative. Ghorids allways rush Delhi. Ghaznivids allways go Bukhara and Herat, than more to south. Rajputs conquer arround, Miliks allways goes north till they meet with Ghorids. Seljuks allways go for Shiraz and Southern Iran and a lil bit to Georgia. Georgia allways goes more south than north. ERE pushes Turks, leaving Cumans to their own. Armenia eigther goes for ANtioch or fights Turks, Turks goes for Armenia or Edessa. KoJ usually goes for Antioch and Aleppo. Ayybids hits Mecca, or wages war vs Makuraia and KoJ. Makuria goes up the nile rather than rebels arround that Ayyubids. Abbasids goes for Omani or Seljuks. Omani expands in Arabian penisula and all that Seljuks, Ghaznivids and Kwarezm leaves for them than attacks Seljuks (or my Kwarezm empire). Ghaznis wars with Kwarezm or Ghorids, depends who has weaker garrisons.

Unless you rush with conquest, or make lots of diplomacy, game allways goes the way i pointed. Atleast in my games that is.

It doesn't always go a certain direction. Perhaps 60% of the time it goes the same way, I'd estimate. Which is far from always.

But we can all agree that more varying campaigns the better. One idea that I could add into 1.5 is to randomly "roll the dice" and have faction start armies vary for every faction totally dependent on chance. So some campaigns I'd spawn a faction extra units, and other maybe other factions would get extra units. That way each time you open up a campaign, you might end up with totally different challenges and campaign expansions.

[anaztazioch]

I dont think that would work. AI has its money scripts, so starting army wont make much differance. Only slow down or haster AI expansion/war in expiriance/opinion

[Silent]

Rebel settlements give me the ability to expand without provoking my neighbor's, which I like quite a bit...



I'll fight the bloody turk's when im ready to fight them!

[Miraj]

I dont think that would work. AI has its money scripts, so starting army wont make much differance. Only slow down or haster AI expansion/war in expiriance/opinion

Nope. Money scripts are something that are equal across the board. This differentiates factions at start creating different start conditions that lead to different campaign growths. Initial start conditions can make a huge difference.

[Bull]

I don't understand Maxstill's point. If you want to fight another faction straight away, most faction can do that in the first turn:
ERE-Turks
Seljuks-Abbasid
KoJ-Ayyubids
Ghurids-Ghaznavids

The other factions also borders each other after they conquer a town or two, which usually is within 10 turns.

Think of Genghis Khan, he has to unite the Mongol Tribes first before he can march on the world.