taking a rebel settlement early giving advantage?

[The Glorious Moldovan]

So in my french campaign i noticed that once i take all the rebel settlements by seiging them my income is going down.This time i took a settlement in turn 2,afterwords i was getting like 1000 income

Could it be that taking a rebel settlement early in the game gives you an advantage?

[In3x]

So in my french campaign i noticed that once i take all the rebel settlements by seiging them my income is going down.This time i took a settlement in turn 2,afterwords i was getting like 1000 income

Could it be that taking a rebel settlement early in the game gives you an advantage?

Yes, I think this is obvious, the more settlements, the more money. Check out my AAR "The Spirit of the Blitz" to see how effective taking rebel settlements early in the game really is.

[ChivalrousKiller]

Settlements provide income, armies provide expenses. Because of this, if you want to gain a high income, you'll have to take as many settlements as possible with as small armies as possible. In the early stages of the campaign, the easiest way to do this is conquering rebel cities

[Fireright]

100% CK and welcome back to the forums.

Name of the early game is to 'smash and grab' any nearby rebel settlements pronto. I can't be having the sweaties clobbering York before moi if I'm playing England.

[Drustan]

The costs of maintaining your army is divided across your settlements in proportion to their population. Even if it appears that the settlement you have captured is not generating much income, it will still be soaking up some of the costs.

[Nosjack]

The costs of maintaining your army is divided across your settlements in proportion to their population. Even if it appears that the settlement you have captured is not generating much income, it will still be soaking up some of the costs.

It was like that in RTW, but in M2 the expenses aren't divided up. The expense is simply subtracted from city income.

[Drustan]

It was like that in RTW, but in M2 the expenses aren't divided up. The expense is simply subtracted from city income.

Isn't that the same as what I said?

[Nosjack]

Isn't that the same as what I said?

Not really, the expenses aren't divided by city population like in Rome, and the net income isn't shown by each individual city.

[Drustan]

Not really, the expenses aren't divided by city population like in Rome, and the net income isn't shown by each individual city.

Oh right, I understand what you mean now

[The Glorious Moldovan]

hmm thank you all for answearing the obvious...have some rep

[diez]

but there is a bad point also...other factions,that u expand near to them later will go war,and its dangerous cause u may be "sandwiched" between the factions u r are fighting and the other that attacked u.
example:
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
FRANCE |REBELS <-|HOLY ROMAN | HUNGARY
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________



lets say u r playing with holy roman,and u take the rebels and it becomes like this:

|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
FRANCE |HOLY ROMAN |HOLY ROMAN | HUNGARY
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________

many turns have passed and ur fighting hungary,france attacks ur rebel settlements:

|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
FRANCE |FRANCE |-> HOLY ROMAN <-| HUNGARY
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
|______|_______|____________|____________
then both hungary and france attack u.warring with many settlement will also reduce your reputation and make more factions war with u

[ChivalrousKiller]

If you don't take them, your neighbors will. So I don't see any cons in taking a rebel settlement. After all, a successfull expansion needs to start somewhere

[The Glorious Moldovan]

If you don't take them, your neighbors will. So I don't see any cons in taking a rebel settlement. After all, a successfull expansion needs to start somewhere

Im not saying that taking rebel settlemnts is a CON,im just asking what the advange over taking it early on or taking later on

[Re_Minder]

Taking cities early you get the money from that settlement, all of manpower (troops), +1 priest and (in case of cities with grain exchange) +1 merchant. You can also shape the settlement the way you want (for example, very few cities are built for siege works in my game, but AI goes for that in almost all settlements, wasting precious turns on semi useless buildings).

Rebels are usually taken quiet fast too, so if you don't take them, someone else probably will.

Buuut... you generally need money and troops, and the earlier you can raise nice armies, the stronger you can become later on. Good performance during the first few turns saves you tens of turns which you'd waste later on to do the same, and a rebel city is way less problematic to get than a city from another nation.

[ChivalrousKiller]

Im not saying that taking rebel settlemnts is a CON,im just asking what the advange over taking it early on or taking later on

sorry, I was talking to Diez, forgot to quote

[diez]

If you don't take them, your neighbors will. So I don't see any cons in taking a rebel settlement. After all, a successfull expansion needs to start somewhere

yeah ofc its good to take them...but many times maybe it will start a 2-sided war,which is not the best for a campaign.

[ChivalrousKiller]

yeah ofc its good to take them...but many times maybe it will start a 2-sided war,which is not the best for a campaign.

But if you don't take them, your neighbors will do it, and the two-sided war can start anyway.

[venraw]

Yeah, I think it is nice being able to shape the conquered rebel encampment. I usually have a ratio for castle to township in order to have good soldiers and a great market. I'm playing the Byzantines and took 4 outlying rebel bases immediately; they were missions too so I got some nice cash. The Venetians demanded I become vassals so now I have a bigger perimeter in my war against them.

[jbelaguas]

Take it early so you don't have to worry about them taking it. Unless they want war.

[crzyrndm]

Factions like the HRE really need to either smash and grab everything around them(quite possible even on VH) or consolidate with smaller armies. Denmark, scotland, and the moors(and others) have only one standard route of expansion so they tend to be a more average pace start, where there aren't enough rebels to avoid wars for long enough to become a larger empire and sitting back will result in being cornered (A consideration to be made, not that the AI will stop anybody).

If you expand to only one side as the HRE, the advantage would lie in the time that you gain to meet up with france while killing off the hungarians. This allows single front wars to be acomplished. The downside of this method is that you have less money flowing in and there are alot of rebel castles between HRE and france so it can be difficult to retake ground