Rebels and Army Positioning

[saber]

I just recently thought of something:

Here's a thing which RTW has annoyed me, regarding rebels. Even though I may have several armies positioned within a certain province, rebel armies continue to pop up. I think that the rate or size of rebel armies popping up in provinces should be dependent on the size and strength of the field armies present within a particular area. For example, if you were the Roman Empire (I refuse to call them the Byzantine Empire) and you had a half stack army positioned in Greece, the rate or size of rebel armies should be relatively small. This way, it will be necessary to maintain field armies AND, if a certain province is rebellious, you will have to maintain a larger field army to supress these rebel armies. Not only will it make you decide if you want to invade a certain province, but you have to decide if its worth the extra cost to maintain the army that is needed to garrison that particular province. I think this makes it much better because not only do you no longer have to concern yourself with constantly fighting petty rebel army battles only to sustain larger than needed causlaties (I particularly am annoyed at fighting rebel armies because I want to concentrate my time on the campaigne map) and you no longer have to concern yourself with constantly haveing to movie armies around to fight rebel armies. If you position your field armies strategically, the number and rate that the rebel armies pop up should decrease.

Any one else?

[Tritio]

Hrm, you seem to suggest only one factor in the determination of rebel-spawning. I think there should be more than one factor.

Perhaps the:

Loyalty of generals stationed in the province,
command-level of the faction leader,
presence of rebel/enemy stacks in the province,
characteristic of region (be it a border/poor/unimportant province)
wealth of region

should all affect rebel spawn rates.

Logically, they are all linked to the possibility of having rebellious people on the land. I'd much prefer a logical system to a random one, thank you.

[Charok]

I agree, most of the rebel implementation in RTW wasn't realistic or FUN. The only rebel thing I liked was when they spawned after taking a city because it was fun killing them while I had an army right there, or challenging when I didn't have a big army. Also, it was nice to fight a field battle against rebels after fighting the constant seige battles.

Now that the MTW2 map looks so much like RTW, I bet the developers will be lazy and keep the rebel system mostly the same.

As I've said before, I'll be happy if I can edit their spawn frequency in MTW2.

[hsimoorb]

Yes, neither RTW nor MTW realy had a great rebel system. I second the ideas of Tritio.

[almeja]

And it IS Byzantine empire amigo, whether you like it or not. Life's tough.

[Tritio]

And it IS Byzantine empire amigo, whether you like it or not. Life's tough.

Not exactly :original:

The very first paragraph of Wikipedia's Byzantine Empire Page explains:
"Byzantine Empire (Greek: Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία) is the term conventionally used since the 19th century to describe the Greek-speaking Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, centered at its capital in Constantinople. ... To its inhabitants the Empire was simply the Roman Empire "

So if you want to be technical, you could still call them the Roman Empire.

Cheers

[Ringeck]

I'd go for a rebel system akin to that in many Paradox games: rebels don't spawn before the province is in open revolt. This happens without rioting or any of those godawful irritating RTW concepts of internal unrest (cloned from Civ1-3, which Civ4 dispensed of entirely, since it is so very boring to deal with) - when your general stability, unrest due to constant warfare and ravaging enemy armies (and so on) reach a certain point, the province, with all cities and buildings, rebel and spawn a little rebel army, which then builds on itself.

The result would be rebels with a punch, with "local" decent units - i.e., they'd need to implement "generic" knights, archers, etc, and with relatively few peasants unless we're spesifically talking about a peasant revolt, which should spawn enormous peasant armies (hopefully without pitchforks) in many of the player's provinces simultaneously, led by some better quality units - less of a problem to defeat, but more of a problem to deal with in the long run, since peasant rebellions would typically only occur when thing were really bad.

[Tritio]

I'd go for a rebel system akin to that in many Paradox games: rebels don't spawn before the province is in open revolt.

What do you mean?
In EU, plenty of rebels would spawn every turn (if your empire was big enough) based on a percentage of 'unrest' in your provinces. In essence, a die would be rolled against the (monthly) unrest percentage, and rebels would spawn if it 'hit'. This let to loads of rebels spawning in big empires, especially if lousy events hit you. It's a terrible system, believe me...

EDIT: I totally agree with the rest

[Giurza]

yeah, that feature in RTW when you had 1/3 stacked rebbel armies poping up everywhere, was so goddamn anoing.
what I would like to see is as follows
when it comes to rebelion it is either big and aggressive or it ain't at all.
and if we look at medieval history we see that only real rebbelions that bothered king's mind were those which threatned kingodm as whole or at least a part of it.
if you argue that even small rebbelion can grow into a big one, well let CA do that. I would wellcome it with outstretched hands. just the most important thing is GET RID OF THOSE PETTY BURGLAR AND THIEVES ARMIES WE HAD IN RTW

[John I Tzimisces]

If anything...rebels as units to fight should only exist if a province is rebelling. Bandits and the like should only impede an army's movement or supply efficiency or whatever. Do you really think bandits without any cohesion at all could stop an army? MTW is more like this than RTW.

(as I just notice Ringeck holds a similar view)