Roman Rebellion - Thoughts

[Revan The Great]

Hi,

Today I triggered the 70-province Roman Rebellion. First of all, I've triggered and reloaded three times to see if it would fire correctly and all three times I restarted from a few turns before it fires. Each time it CTD'd on the first try, but then worked correctly after I loaded the autosave.

Here is my campaign.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here is a picture of my empire Post-Rebellion (Imagine the red + the blue together and that's my Pre-Rebellion Empire), and I notice that the Roman Rebels have an outline around their provinces, which should probably be changed to reflect the user's preference (borders or no borders on minimap). Also, before the rebellion I had 73 provinces. The rebellion is triggering at 71 provinces for me, and I just happened to capture 3 provinces in one turn to bring myself up to 73.

Anyways, here are my thoughts.

• The Rebellion strikes me as terribly unfair. I went from 73 provinces to 15 overnight, which is a pretty big disparity. Spain, Greece, and Asia Minor are basically completely devoid of my presence, and I've only kept the crappy African provinces. Granted I still have my armies (for as long as my treasury will upkeep them), so I could potentially retake many of provinces, particularly in Asia Minor where I have no less than six legions who had just finished conquering the place. Admittedly the screenshot above looks really difficult, which is fine, but I don't think it looks very fun.
• As you can see in the above screenshot my capital was somehow moved to Hippo Regius even though I still have Rome. You can't see it, but all of my cities were put on auto manage too and that should be changed.
• I believe that in future incarnations rebellions should occur not randomly, but on a regional basis, and perhaps correspond roughly to historical Roman provinces. For example, maybe the historical Roman Province Hispania Ulterior would rebel all together, whereas Hispania Cisterior would remain under your full control. Likewise, maybe all of Sicily would rebel but all of Cisalpine Gaul would stay in your control rather than Patavium going rebel and Taurasia and Mediolanon remaining loyal. That way the rebellion would feel more like a civil war between two governments claiming legitimacy over the same nation rather than spontaneous anarchy throughout the Empire.
• There are probably too few Rebel legions running around, and too many auxillia garrisoning cities. Generally when a Roman Civil War happened there were series of big field battles between many legions, with few if any sieges. Therefore the fact that every rebel city has a half-stack probably isn't very good. I'd rather there only be 1 or 2 units in each city, and more legions or auxillia stacks wandering around instead.
• Five Rebel Legions spawned in Textosogbrogi, the province with Nemausus as its capital directly West of Massalia. Neither I nor the Roman Rebels own that province though, and they're kept out of Spain by a series of forts, so it's an odd place to put them. I think that probably 50% of Roman players won't have touched Gaul by the time the rebellions happen.
• Not sure if there's anything that can be done about it, but when the rebellion first breaks out I have to spend half an hour fighting or autocalcing dozens of massacres between newly spawned Roman stacks and a bunch of poor family members who had the misfortune of being in a rebel city with only 1 or 2 garrison units when their city threw them out.
• Relating to an earlier point, currently I only really have a core of 3 provinces connected to one another by land, besides that everything else is completely isolated with many of my legions marooned in a sea of blue territory. Sure it's difficult, but I'd rather have a few area's that are 'solidly' in support of my faction, instead of a few random islands and surrounding territories unable to mutually defend themselves. I feel like the Free Greeks!

That's all for now, comment and respond.

[Medieval American]

Is this the way the devs intended the rebellion to be in the first place?

Looks tough!!! That certainly is a hard thing to deal with but, i guess it is going to extend the game and be more rewarding when players are done. (Can't wait to see some comments when this happens to people who arn't expecting it when they play it for the first time.)

[Revan The Great]

Well I'm fairly certain that they want it to be challenging - I just don't think it's challenging in quite the correct way.

[Medieval American]

I understand. And, I agree with you totally when you say, "I believe that in future incarnations rebellions should occur not randomly, but on a regional basis, and perhaps correspond roughly to historical Roman provinces."

However, I have absoutly no idea if a rebellion could be made to happen on a regional basis, or any other way at all than it already is... Only the devs could answer that.

Is it possible that you could rebuild your empire now? No matter how long it takes? I'm mean, do you think that the game is over or that you have a chance to 'make a come back?'

I know when this happens to me, I'm going to feel disenchanted enough to the point that I might want to stop for a while, and have a mug of Ovaltine.

[Revan The Great]

I could do it. I have six legions in Asia Minor, and another four in Northern Italy, so a 'conquest spree' would help me get back on my feet, and after that I suppose it's just a matter of time.

Again my main problem isn't with the admitted difficulty, but the obnoxiousness of having random provinces scattered all over. Plus the fact that so many cities rebelled really makes it feel as if you the last 200 turns were for nothing since you basically start out with the same amount of provinces you had in Italy at the start of the game, except spread out, and now you need to reconquer everything but against tougher opponents.

[sithlord447]

i don't agree as in both of my rebellions i faced similar situations, and still had fun, and prevalied with out to much difficulty,
my empire just after my rebellion(my first one)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

this was my first rebellion which was pretty similar to yours, besides you lost africa and kept roman and i lost rome, and got 2 pratorian legions to my one , after about 16 turn i had pretty much retaken my my empire

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

so basicly what i am trying to say is that even, though you are losing a huge chunck of your empire, and having to face anywhere from 7-15 enemy legions, and adding on top going into heavy debt it is still managable and FUN.

Anyways, here are my thoughts.

• I believe that in future incarnations rebellions should occur not randomly, but on a regional basis, and perhaps correspond roughly to historical Roman provinces. For example, maybe the historical Roman Province Hispania Ulterior would rebel all together, whereas Hispania Cisterior would remain under your full control. Likewise, maybe all of Sicily would rebel but all of Cisalpine Gaul would stay in your control rather than Patavium going rebel and Taurasia and Mediolanon remaining loyal. That way the rebellion would feel more like a civil war between two governments claiming legitimacy over the same nation rather than spontaneous anarchy throughout the Empire.
• There are probably too few Rebel legions running around, and too many auxillia garrisoning cities. Generally when a Roman Civil War happened there were series of big field battles between many legions, with few if any sieges. Therefore the fact that every rebel city has a half-stack probably isn't very good. I'd rather there only be 1 or 2 units in each city, and more legions or auxillia stacks wandering around instead.
• Not sure if there's anything that can be done about it, but when the rebellion first breaks out I have to spend half an hour fighting or autocalcing dozens of massacres between newly spawned Roman stacks and a bunch of poor family members who had the misfortune of being in a rebel city with only 1 or 2 garrison units when their city threw them out.
• Relating to an earlier point, currently I only really have a core of 3 provinces connected to one another by land, besides that everything else is completely isolated with many of my legions marooned in a sea of blue territory. Sure it's difficult, but I'd rather have a few area's that are 'solidly' in support of my faction, instead of a few random islands and surrounding territories unable to mutually defend themselves. I feel like the Free Greeks!

That's all for now, comment and respond.

to answer some of that
as to everything going to automanage that is a necessary evil (for a reason i don't remember) if you remember it did that after the capua rebellion aswell

and on the rebelling provinces it is done in a regional way with each general area being divided up (like iberia, italy,rome, africa,asia minor,syria ect. and when the rebellion hits a certain number of those areas rebel, in your case, italy, greece, and asia minor, with you wholding onto africa, rome, and northern italy. you just had the misfortune to keep the regions that have the fewest provinces

[Revan The Great]

Which isn't to say that it isn't manageable, or even that it isn't fun in the broadest sense of the word. It's just that I fought a dozen battles over the exact same cities a few minutes ago. Plus it doesn't feel very realistic for you to retain just a small section of each continent. It's almost like everyone in the whole empire must hate you, which doesn't seem right because of how successful the average Roman player is. That's why I'd rather have it where you lose less provinces, or at least the provinces you keep are grouped roughly together, and that there are smaller spawned garrisons so that they change hands more often but in compensation there are more enemy legions in the field to deal with. I definitely think that it'd be more interesting is places rebelled on a regional basis - and more realistic.

Oftentimes when a Roman Civil War broke out the governor of a certain province would declare himself Emperor and the legions in his province would back up entirely until it looked as if they might lose or be overwhelmed. It'd feel more like 'Imperator! The Governors of Africa Proconsularis, Hispania Cisterior, Syria, and the Panonian Provinces are against us! Luckily the good men of Italy are still with us, as are all of the Gallic Governors and their Legions plus Achaea, the province of Asia and ...."

Right now it's more like 'Well Imperator everyone hates your guts. Luckily about two cities on every continent still like you enough, and a couple of cities in Italy are on our side. Our legions are all loyal but behind enemy lines with hundreds of miles between them and the nearest friendly territory. Here is your sword incase you'd rather just fall on it...'

[welwelwel]

Which isn't to say that it isn't manageable, or even that it isn't fun in the broadest sense of the word. It's just that I fought a dozen battles over the exact same cities a few minutes ago. Plus it doesn't feel very realistic for you to retain just a small section of each continent. It's almost like everyone in the whole empire must hate you, which doesn't seem right because of how successful the average Roman player is. That's why I'd rather have it where you lose less provinces, or at least the provinces you keep are grouped roughly together, and that there are smaller spawned garrisons so that they change hands more often but in compensation there are more enemy legions in the field to deal with. I definitely think that it'd be more interesting is places rebelled on a regional basis - and more realistic.

Oftentimes when a Roman Civil War broke out the governor of a certain province would declare himself Emperor and the legions in his province would back up entirely until it looked as if they might lose or be overwhelmed. It'd feel more like 'Imperator! The Governors of Africa Proconsularis, Hispania Cisterior, Syria, and the Panonian Provinces are against us! Luckily the good men of Italy are still with us, as are all of the Gallic Governors and their Legions plus Achaea, the province of Asia and ...."

Right now it's more like 'Well Imperator everyone hates your guts. Luckily about two cities on every continent still like you enough, and a couple of cities in Italy are on our side. Our legions are all loyal but behind enemy lines with hundreds of miles between them and the nearest friendly territory. Here is your sword incase you'd rather just fall on it...'

I agree with Revan here. It's much more realistisc to have provinces as whole revolting against the empire. I don't know if this would be possible, but it would be great if the legions of the player that are present in the rebelling province at that moment, switch side to the rebels. Furthermore I also prefer having more rebell legions on the field than garissoned in the cities

[sithlord447]

I do support lower garrisons, and more legions, but if you still have a save from before the rebellion initiate it a couple of times and i bet you will get some better region combos, as i think you just got the short end of the stick with that one ( this is what i did just in reverse because i wanted a harder one)

[Chernish]

Looks great! Have In the RS2 such an uprising? This is great! This is reminiscent of the civil war in MTV1 - congratulations!

[dvk901]

The rebellion is written to be random because if it weren't, then the consequent times you played a campaign you would just know what was going to happen.....and you could likely prepare, or it would just be even 'more' irritating. Let's say that all of Spain rebels one time, all of Africa, all of Greece, all of Gaul.......I suppose that would be OK. And that could be random based on the area, and perhaps have it be a stronger rebellion?

But, in reading about the 'Year of the Four Emperors'....which this rebellion attempts to kinda simulate...you have a case where the whole Empire was thrown into chaos. It's hard to simulate that in RTW without using four factions, and there is the issue of the AI actually NEEDING cities to be able to recruit units to oppose you. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of rebel armies running around that may or may not fight you. Without a 'vested interest' (meaning cities to hold) the AI has a tendency to pack up and run to wherever it HAS a vested interest.

The other problem is that the script has now to know whether you actually HOLD an entire region where a rebellion would even bother you. It's based on conquering a certain number of regions 'anywhere', and randomly picks regions from areas you actually control. If it were written to be based on holding 'x' amount of regions and 'all the regions of an area', it would really, IMHO, get very complicated script-wise.

Personally, although I've had no time to actually face that particular dilemma, (which TBH looks pretty scary on the face of it) I like the randomness of it, and the fact that you have to put all your conquest plans on hold to retake your Empire. The fact that there is no implied 'reason' for the rebellion....as in, your people seemed happy in area 'x', why did they have to rebel?.....really isn't a valid objection, I don't think. When did the 'people' in the Roman Empire ever have a choice about who was Emperor, or whose side they were on? Happy or not, cities got sacked and people killed who were 'happy' just because they got caught on the wrong side of the argument.

The switching to auto-manage thing, unfortunately, is a known 'side-effect' of the script.....any script that would do this sorta thing.

[welwelwel]

I agree with that the rebelling must be random, but what I meant was that for example that Macedonia and perhaps Asia Minor rebel or Hispania Inferior and Aquitania or ... So that the game would take whole provinces whilst deciding which regions and which not

[ray243]

The rebellion is written to be random because if it weren't, then the consequent times you played a campaign you would just know what was going to happen.....and you could likely prepare, or it would just be even 'more' irritating. Let's say that all of Spain rebels one time, all of Africa, all of Greece, all of Gaul.......I suppose that would be OK. And that could be random based on the area, and perhaps have it be a stronger rebellion?

But, in reading about the 'Year of the Four Emperors'....which this rebellion attempts to kinda simulate...you have a case where the whole Empire was thrown into chaos. It's hard to simulate that in RTW without using four factions, and there is the issue of the AI actually NEEDING cities to be able to recruit units to oppose you. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of rebel armies running around that may or may not fight you. Without a 'vested interest' (meaning cities to hold) the AI has a tendency to pack up and run to wherever it HAS a vested interest.

The other problem is that the script has now to know whether you actually HOLD an entire region where a rebellion would even bother you. It's based on conquering a certain number of regions 'anywhere', and randomly picks regions from areas you actually control. If it were written to be based on holding 'x' amount of regions and 'all the regions of an area', it would really, IMHO, get very complicated script-wise.

Personally, although I've had no time to actually face that particular dilemma, (which TBH looks pretty scary on the face of it) I like the randomness of it, and the fact that you have to put all your conquest plans on hold to retake your Empire. The fact that there is no implied 'reason' for the rebellion....as in, your people seemed happy in area 'x', why did they have to rebel?.....really isn't a valid objection, I don't think. When did the 'people' in the Roman Empire ever have a choice about who was Emperor, or whose side they were on? Happy or not, cities got sacked and people killed who were 'happy' just because they got caught on the wrong side of the argument.

The switching to auto-manage thing, unfortunately, is a known 'side-effect' of the script.....any script that would do this sorta thing.

Is it possible to script to ensure that once the rebel leader is dead, the rebelling cities will return to the player?

Most of the time, the death of the rebel leader is enough to convince the cities supporting the rebellion to give up.

[tone]

I'm back now and will attempt to address some of these questions / issues over the coming days /week. Please give me a list of which regions should rebel together, if they do so. The plan was to make it random, but grouped, so that groups of regions all rebel together.

I'll look at the CTD too. Was there an error message?

[Revan The Great]

I'm back now and will attempt to address some of these questions / issues over the coming days /week. Please give me a list of which regions should rebel together, if they do so. The plan was to make it random, but grouped, so that groups of regions all rebel together.

That's basically what I had in mind. I'll work on a list.

I'll look at the CTD too. Was there an error message?

There wasn't, and I'm at a loss towards what happened. Since doing the exact same thing after reloading seemed to get around it.

[dvk901]

Can you provide a save game from just before it happens?

[Revan The Great]

Here.

http://www.mediafire.com/?jdtmoywgjz0

I had to reload to a few turns back before what I had, and play through a bit until I got to the rebellion, but the campaign is substantively the same. I played around with loading the save, and as far as I can tell the save linked above will CTD every time that you try to end turn with it, however if you load the autosave that it creates upon ending that turn, then it will play correctly.

Also, I've gone up a few revisions since my initial report, and I noticed that you drastically reduced the number of provinces that rebel. And I know I must sound really obnoxious, but you could increase it a little bit now so it'd be more like 50/50 or 60/40 in terms of province splits.

[tone]

Also, I've gone up a few revisions since my initial report, and I noticed that you drastically reduced the number of provinces that rebel. And I know I must sound really obnoxious, but you could increase it a little bit now so it'd be more like 50/50 or 60/40 in terms of province splits.

Actually I've done nothing to change things.

[Revan The Great]

That's odd because in my first game it brought me down to 15. But when I loaded up the campaign posted above one of the rebellions (admittedly the only one I paid attention to, I should've watched all of them) left me with 50 regions. Is there a chance for that big a variability in the script?

[tone]

There shouldn't be. Now that we've got a decent saved game to look at, I'll take a closer look.