Rebels - why are they so weak and are they worth the trouble?

[Germanicus75]

1) There's something I don't understand about rebels.

They seem to be naturally weak. I can beat them with weaker units. For example, my spear militia (no upgrades or experience) can beat a unit of viking raiders.

But stats-wise the viking raiders should chew them up.

But when *my* viking raiders attack AI (rebel or not) spear militia, they totally own them.

How can this apparent disparity be explained?

Is it merely the presence of my general that makes all the difference and means weaker units can overpower stronger ones?

2) Are rebels worth the trouble? Most of the time they don't cause devastation (actually never? in my campaigns). Is it worth having your valuable units depleted on rebels (then taking valuable turns to replenish them) when they could be better used attacking the faction AI?

All for a command star for your general?

It seems to me the trade-off doesn't generally pay off.

Thoughts?

[Germanicus75]

PS - has anyone ever seen rebels attack a settlement? I never have...

[MWY]

In original SS they dont ever attack. If you want more active rebels, try SSHIP. In SSHIP, if you don't take care off them, they will become a real problem.

[ludizoki]

They actually do attack when revolts happen in Bulgaria

[Grabbin_Megroin]

Either you're playing on an easy difficulty, or you have major advantages such as morale, terrain, unit experience, etc. for your spear militia to beat viking raiders. In a fair 1v1 the better unit will always win, at least in my games.

[Duck of Death]

Rebels will cause devestation (and their numbers get larger) over time if you dont take them out soon after they pop up.

Mainly though, they are just an anoyance (kinda like they were in real life).

[Strengelicher]

1) There's something I don't understand about rebels. They seem to be naturally weak. I can beat them with weaker units. For example, my spear militia (no upgrades or experience) can beat a unit of viking raiders. But stats-wise the viking raiders should chew them up. But when *my* viking raiders attack AI (rebel or not) spear militia, they totally own them. How can this apparent disparity be explained? Is it merely the presence of my general that makes all the difference and means weaker units can overpower stronger ones?

2) Are rebels worth the trouble? Most of the time they don't cause devastation (actually never? in my campaigns). Is it worth having your valuable units depleted on rebels (then taking valuable turns to replenish them) when they could be better used attacking the faction AI? All for a command star for your general? It seems to me the trade-off doesn't generally pay off. Thoughts?

Thoughts:

1) A general always makes a huge difference, even if he has no command stars. If commanded by a general, weak units can beat otherwise stronger units.

2) In SS 6.4, rebels do not cause much trouble if you let them be. But they are really gold for upgrading your generals. In that respect, every rebel army is an asset. Use them wisely, making sure that each victory is a heroic victory. A couple of heroic victories, and your general of choice is the man.

[Germanicus75]

Thoughts:

1) A general always makes a huge difference, even if he has no command stars. If commanded by a general, weak units can beat otherwise stronger units.

2) In SS 6.4, rebels do not cause much trouble if you let them be. But they are really gold for upgrading your generals. In that respect, every rebel army is an asset. Use them wisely, making sure that each victory is a heroic victory. A couple of heroic victories, and your general of choice is the man.

Thank you!

[Melooo182]

Vanilla SS6.4 has devastation turned off because of a ageing script bug that makes devastated areas stay like that forever.

[Germanicus75]

Vanilla SS6.4 has devastation turned off because of a ageing script bug that makes devastated areas stay like that forever.

I see...

[accapulco]

I just ignore small rebel bands, or fight them with a general and a small band of men for RP purposes. Full stack rebels do siege settlements though and those have to be dealt with.

[Melooo182]

yea the simple 2tpy mode included in the bugfix compilation adds back devastation though

[Efstratios]

Well to be honest,rebels are worth the time and the trouble,killing them and taking their cities.

By the way,I 've stopped playing SS for a very long time now (I am a "Hardcore" player...only though whenever I lose I just give up/restart the campaign hoping that I won't do the same mistakes.

Anyway,back to the point. I really like maps with cool borders,I just hate ugly borders. That's why I always capture rebel settlement as long as it looks "cool" on the map.Because I always play as the Byzantines and the Frenchies,conquering *historical provinces is my ultimate task. That's why I try capturing these rebel settlements.
But there is just one thing that makes me wonder...how the hell do you find "easy" destroying with just a couple of *low/noobish units those darn Vikings huh?

I always use my millitia soldiers and they seem to get wiped out fighting any kind of unit. Even if I use late/proffesional(or whatever the heck they are called) soldiers,they always seem to lose and die. My general is always near them (approx. 6-7 stars) whereas the rebel general has no stars at all.

Oh and also,capturing rebel settlements and not burning/looting/pillaging them boosts your reputation among your allies/neutral guys and even bad ones. You will be honourable instead of a miserable king. Try "embiggering" (my word don't ask why) your faction by capturing rebel settlements that are near you (and also capture ISLANDS).

For e.g. if you play as the Mamluks,try conquering Egypt/Libya-Tripoli/Jerusalem/Syria/Cyprus and even the Greek Island of Crete or Peloponessus. Don't go for Sicily if you haven't capture Libya or Carthage yet. It will make the map look ugly. And think of this,capturing rebel settlements boosts your economy. Why wouldn't anyone want that? IT'S WORTH THE TROUBLE TRUST ME.

As mentioned before,I like playing on VH/VH on any game (even if I lose and then become desparate to change the difficulty). I assume you are playing on a medium-like difficulty and that's why you think rebels are that easy. But trust me they are not(always).

Hope this helped you!

*P.S.

Now that I re-read your replies,you mentioned that it ain't worth killing rebels with your best units. Please don't do that,just use your general (always have 1-2 in an army) and aim for their general,while your army distracts them. Kill their general first,and then you can kill the rest of their army. If you think rebels are easy,wait until you see these OP Hungarians. In my old Byzzie campaign,with just 2 generals I managed to defeat 4 armies consisted of 3-4k men (WITHOUTH A GENERAL-That means they had a captain).

So I always aimed for their captain,while my other general usually distracted the enemy-killing him and then watching the rest of their army fleeing and dying. So,if you ever meet a rebel army with a general,it basically means you are going to have a lot trouble killing him and destroying his army. If you like challenges and you are up to the task,try conquering Georgia(with half of the units they have) and try conquering that city above Cyprus (Antioch-Pergamum? I don't really remember,and I mistake them often because I play RTW too).

[Lord-too-fat]

I only see rebels as a way to keep loyalty a litte up for some generals..

[Larsel]

Rebels will often stay on roads, which mean they block the trade between cities and reduce ur income. They also cause unrest in the region they are at. so they are actually quite important to get rid off

[_Elysium_]

I've seen the rebels in Antwerp abandon the city and head for Paris. I don't know if they'd have sieged it though.

[RobotGonzo]

I wish 'rebel' settlements were just little petty kingdoms/fiefdoms that I could negotiate with but it's just bribery or nothing.