AI is abit overpowered

[Samuel Pidgeon]

I think the AI is abit too overpowered as some small nations like saxony have like 4 full stack armies and Hannover was the same I was playing as Prussia I'm now playing Britain would be good if units were cheaper and not cost too much to retrain.

I noticed its alot harder to keep cities happy as I have to leave armies in them for a while to increase public order and then tax them otherwise they end up rebelling

[Goutlard]

This has to do with the income bonuses that the AI get.. And these bonuses are the same for big and small factions allowing city-states to have as large armies as huge continental empires !
Am I wrong ?

[Samuel Pidgeon]

The AI income bonuses seem to be making the smaller nations too rich lol and overpowered I once played as a small state. I Only managed to recruit one full stack army otherwise I would go bankrupt and the AI have at least 5 armies and then some of the city states declared war on me one after the other. Some of the city states had only one region under thier control but still managed to field full stack armies fast and I can't.

I like this mod but I find it quite hard lol

[Don504]

That's the point!, it makes it rather interesting...

[Grislok]

You must win your battles and in good fashion! It takes a long time to gain full control over a conquered territory as well. I quite like this mod, except I feel I have to play as Russia to stop them from making cannon armies.

[PikeStance]

I can only see one other possible option

Reduce the income bonus BUT
increase the resistance to occupation.

This would make the game more realistic, but since people already cry about the resistance in "vanilla" I can't imagine too many people being in favor of this alternative.

I am curious what the fans of IS thinks of this????

---

[Goutlard]

I can only see one other possible option

Reduce the income bonus BUT
increase the resistance to occupation.

This would make the game more realistic, but since people already cry about the resistance in "vanilla" I can't imagine too many people being in favor of this alternative.

I am curious what the fans of IS thinks of this????

---

Sounds OK to me.. But I wonder about... Did the resistance for occupation create as many rebellions as ingame ?

[PikeStance]

Sounds OK to me.. But I wonder about... Did the resistance for occupation create as many rebellions as ingame ?

This is a difficult question to answer. There were very few take over or occupation of "foreign" territories. The word, "foreign," is in quotes for a reason: The idea of nationality was not a concept understood by many. So an objection to foreign occupation would be an odd concept for this time period.

There were certainly peasants uprisings. However, they tended to be local and were primarily based on hardships suffered (long wars, high taxes, recruitment for armed services, etc,...) and had little to nothing to do with "foreign" ownership or occupation. It was much more likely for a rebellion to take place within a territory already owned than one recently conquered. We can examine some examples;

Examples

The Pugachev's Rebellion while mainly a Cossack rebellion had nothing to do with the fact they were ruled by Russia and everything to do with their plight as peasants.

An interesting case is the Rakoczi (Hungarian) War for Independence. Which was both a peasant uprising and an independence movement to separate Hungary from the Hapsburg Empire. In this case, it had a lot to do with the sale of recaptured Hungarian lands. A more "fair" policy would had likely prevented the uprising.

The Kosciuszko Uprising was a popular uprising that attempted to save Poland from occupation from Russia and Prussia. A similar example would be the long war the Russians fought in Circassia.

There were about dozen such rebellions that took place throughout the time period. One thing I am certain; I seriously doubt whether newly conquered or not that entire regions were defended or guarded with a single regiment of men.

I am pretty sure that most of the causes of uprisings in the 18th century are not even moddable. I know high taxes and recent occupation are two such factors, however incessant recruitment and/ or constant warfare in one regions are not factors that can be modded (I am not actually sure, but I doubt it- gotta ask wangrin ) [desole' mon ami ]

Anyway, I know I digressed from your question.

In my personal experience, I have not had a lot of rebellions in my games. Generally, it occurs early on then nothing for a long time even when I leave it virtually unoccupied by forces. What I understand people do this regularly in the game. In this case, the peasants would see this as a weakness. and revolt. So, it should happen more often, not less often.

So, I would rather have an increase chance of rebellion in general and not necessarily in only recently conquered regions. It will certainly make "world domination" an impossible feat as it should.

---

[Goutlard]

So, I would rather have an increase chance of rebellion in general and not necessarily in only recently conquered regions. It will certainly make "world domination" an impossible feat as it should.

---

I disagree with you on this point. At the contrary invading another country becomes something impossible to me because, if I do not let one full stack per region and with extra huge religious troubles, I have one rebellion per region and it gets impossible to withstand such a trouble .

Religious unrest combined to resistance to foreign occupation ruined so many of my campaigns that I would rather tend to increase the resistance to foreign occupation to make it longer and stronger, but, on the other hand, tone down the amount of rebellions.

I doubt the Ottoman Empire would have arrived to the gate of Vienna.. Or even survived if all regions Soliman conquered had rebelled

[Flikitos]

As a submod it is an idea, but as the normal mod I am totally not in favour.

[PikeStance]

I disagree with you on this point. At the contrary invading another country becomes something impossible to me because, if I do not let one full stack per region and with extra huge religious troubles, I have one rebellion per region and it gets impossible to withstand such a trouble .

Religious unrest combined to resistance to foreign occupation ruined so many of my campaigns that I would rather tend to increase the resistance to foreign occupation to make it longer and stronger, but, on the other hand, tone down the amount of rebellions.

I doubt the Ottoman Empire would have arrived to the gate of Vienna.. Or even survived if all regions Soliman conquered had rebelled

As a submod it is an idea, but as the normal mod I am totally not in favour.

Firstly, the Ottomans had a very effective way to reduce the possibility of rebellions in newly conquered lands; they would take hostage of children of the ruling elite (nobility). As I mentioned previously, the peasants were less concern with who was ultimately in control and more concerned with hardship. Technically, the Ottomans should always have less trouble when conquering regions with religious differences.

The 18th century was not period where territories were exchanged a great deal except the trading of colonial possessions. There are exception to the rule; like Eastern Europe. We have a small sample size.

Rebellions: Increasing rebellions would not necessarily be historically accurate. Of the half dozen rebellions of this century, most took place in Eastern Europe. Moreover, the regions that did rebel did so for very specific reasons. Eastern Europe the serfs had the least rights and the greatest hardship. There were also regions of significantly distinct ethnic groups, Hungarians, Greeks, Circassians. The Poles, Estonians, and Finns were simply over powered by stronger states. Also, the Cossacks were mostly happy helping out the Russians. In the West there were no such comparisons. The Lowlands marking the only real example. Upon closer inspection, the Scottish Jocobite rebellions are not what they appear to be.

For the me the lone exception would be the conquest of capital regions- since it wasn't done, it should be very difficult to control.

So increasing rebellions would be a game play thing, not a historically accurate thing.

---

[Goutlard]

So, for historical realism we should make the high classes rebel instead of the poor classes making strikes for ages ?

[PikeStance]

So, for historical realism we should make the high classes rebel instead of the poor classes making strikes for ages ?

For historical realism relating to rebellions, you cannot achieve with the present game engine. In any event, you statement is little hyperbolic. I do not think you can draw any generalization about nature and causes of rebellions in the 18th century.

For the me the issue is not whether or not to have more rebellions based on historical record (which I think is more or less accurate), but on the alternate history that is created. For example, the conquering of Spain, France, England, etc,.... How would the people in these large region react to a foreign monarch like the Hapsburg taking France? My instincts tell me that it won't be as high as people think. The most likely scenario is this occurrence would raise fear and suspicion from other monarchs of Europe as this would threaten the balance of power and send fear throughout Europe. I believe the ganging up is part of the modifier and generally is not game situational. I ma not sure though... I haven't notice situational ganging up in the game.

---

[Goutlard]

For historical realism relating to rebellions, you cannot achieve with the present game engine. In any event, you statement is little hyperbolic. I do not think you can draw any generalization about nature and causes of rebellions in the 18th century.

For the me the issue is not whether or not to have more rebellions based on historical record (which I think is more or less accurate), but on the alternate history that is created. For example, the conquering of Spain, France, England, etc,.... How would the people in these large region react to a foreign monarch like the Hapsburg taking France? My instincts tell me that it won't be as high as people think. The most likely scenario is this occurrence would raise fear and suspicion from other monarchs of Europe as this would threaten the balance of power and send fear throughout Europe. I believe the ganging up is part of the modifier and generally is not game situational. I ma ntot sure though... I haven't notice situational ganging up in the game.

---

I agree that it should strongly raise suspicion and fear within the other monarchs. For instance, we can look at Napoleon, how he threatened the balance of power, and how many european powers united to face him.

A conventionnal war at the time between European powers should be colonial (excluding the non-colonialistic powers). France should not invade Great Britain, and if it does so, it should face a huge controversy, and the suspcion of all the powers.

Still, without a strong repression, I think that patriotic fervour would create an opposition to the current leaders or a rebellion. The problem is that this rebellion would not necessarilly be 2 years after GB being taken, it may as well be 300 years later if France does not give them their nationnal identity.

[Whaler99]

is there any way army size can be tied to a nations population? I believe EiC mod for NTW did this and it worked very well. It would keep amry sizes proportionate to its countrie's population so nations like Saxony may only have one full army rather than four stacks of army's.

[TheRomanRuler]

is there any way army size can be tied to a nations population? I believe EiC mod for NTW did this and it worked very well. It would keep amry sizes proportionate to its countrie's population so nations like Saxony may only have one full army rather than four stacks of army's.

By changing National Prestige to Manpower, if you have 1 region you have (for example) 1 000 men, conguering another gives you another 1 000.

[PikeStance]

is there any way army size can be tied to a nations population? I believe EiC mod for NTW did this and it worked very well. It would keep amry sizes proportionate to its countrie's population so nations like Saxony may only have one full army rather than four stacks of army's.

The problem with this is nations during this time period would supplement their forces with mercenaries. The number varies from 20% to as high as 50%. Essentially, you are only limited to your ability to pay for the recruitment and equipping your army. In some cases, nations would trade for clothing, iron, and other important war materials in order to have a large army. This is the Achilles heel of APE, its a mod for the wrong era. Nations were not restricted by manpower, but their ability to finance them.


---

[Whaler99]

ok fair enough, but its historically accurate to have a small nation of one state make 4 times the army than a player who is playing as Britain? I keep getting history facts thrown in my face by those who know more than me on this subject, but when it comes to core gameplay its like "what we have now is perfect so no more suggections".

[ErikBerg]

Maybe the issue could be solved if one could make it so that mercenary units don't drain on manpower pool, only supply?

[PikeStance]

ok fair enough, but its historically accurate to have a small nation of one state make 4 times the army than a player who is playing as Britain? I keep getting history facts thrown in my face by those who know more than me on this subject, but when it comes to core gameplay its like "what we have now is perfect so no more suggections".

What you are referring to is part of the game play to make it challenging for you. If you play at a level higher than normal, this becomes bigger advantage.

Maybe the issue could be solved if one could make it so that mercenary units don't drain on manpower pool, only supply?

The vanilla game there is no restriction based manpower. At least not directly. A larger population will increase your tax base allowing you to afford more troops. Your ability to maintain a large army is restricted to your economy, not to population. The game allows you to choose to give the AI a "cheat" to make it more competitive.

Supply creates issues as well. The game has a relatively simple economics. In other words, you are not force to trade for specific goods to equip an army. For example, you do not need to to have "x" amount of iron in order to manufacture muskets and cannons. You only need to make the money. I know APE does this, but I am not sure you can use their system and still have mercenary count separate from the manpower. When I asked this question; I essentially ignored.

As an interesting side note,... I always find it humorous whenever someone complained that they should not have to pay to developed certain industry (or any at all) because they believed it was mostly private enterprise that owned them. In fact, it was the exact opposite. It was government leading the charge to industrialized because they needed the supplies to fight their incessant wars. The game even gives a bonus to "republics" and penalties for absolute monarchies even though the most famous industrializes were Peter the Great of Russia and Frederick the Great of Prussia. Two "absolute" monarchs.

Sorry, I think I strayed from your question... (2am here) I edit in the morning LOL

---