A Traitor to Our People!

[Krampus]

I'm so sick of this mechanic.

In EB1 you only had to worry about your units getting bribed, something that was at least somewhat predictable. But random units going rebel is entirely random, and incredibly frustrating.

Someone tell me how to get rid of it.

If it's hardcoded, there has to be a variable trigger somewhere that you can tweak such as it never happens.

[NapoleonMaster]

You need to put an agent (spy or assasin) in your armies that have generals and that will esentially keep your generals from rebelling.

[Ivir Baggins]

You need to put an agent (spy or assasin) in your armies that have generals and that will esentially keep your generals from rebelling.

Won't hard stop the defections - I had an FM defect on me avec his whole army despite having a spy in the stack - but it'll massively reduce the likelihood.

[Jurand of Cracow]

Won't hard stop the defections - I had an FM defect on me avec his whole army despite having a spy in the stack - but it'll massively reduce the likelihood.

That's new to my. So an agent traveling with a general doesn't prevent it's defection completely? I though its not possbile to defect if there's a spy...

[Rad]

That's new to my. So an agent traveling with a general doesn't prevent it's defection completely? I though its not possbile to defect if there's a spy...

In my experience, it wasn't. If the lad is telling the truth, the chance must be truly minimal.

EDIT: My statement above only refers to rebellions, not bribery. I can recall losing only one FM to bribery in my entire gameplay and he had a small army and no agents with him. So, I have no idea how much agents prevent FMs and troops from getting bribed away. Probably raises the overall price.

[Kull]

EDIT: My statement above only refers to rebellions, not bribery. I can recall losing only one FM to bribery in my entire gameplay and he had a small army and no agents with him. So, I have no idea how much agents prevent FMs and troops from getting bribed away. Probably raises the overall price.

In a related vein, I was running one of those tests that usually one does as Pritanoi (hit end turn umpteen zillion times until the test is complete), but decided to do it as Saka AND use my FMs to raid AND disband all my troops in order to have a small positive cash flow so I could try out some build tree stuff. Long story short, after 20 turns every raiding FM (i.e. 4 guys) except the FH and FL had become "traitors to the people". The playtest ended when one of the large Rover stacks attacked and conquered my lone camp, and although a Saka horde appeared, it was captain-led and the entire freaking stack defected on the very next turn! LOL. Oddly enough, that still left my wandering FH and FL, but it was time to move on.....

[QuintusSertorius]

It's random for low-Loyalty characters. I must admit in all the time I've played the game, I've never had it happen to me.

You'd have to edit the descr_campaign_db, under <revolt> change this:

<max_revolt_chance float = "50.0"/>

As usual, not savegame compatible.

[Krampus]

It's random for low-Loyalty characters. I must admit in all the time I've played the game, I've never had it happen to me.

You'd have to edit the descr_campaign_db, under <revolt> change this:

<max_revolt_chance float = "50.0"/>

As usual, not savegame compatible.

Thanks.

It usually happens to me when I'm moving small groups of un-led units from settlement to settlement, to join up with a larger army or garrison a settlement.

I have no problem with rebel stacks spawning, that's always been great fun to deal with because I can respond to it. Hell, even having opposing diplomats bribing your armies is fun and flavorful, but at least you see it coming, and can proactively stop it from happening via assassins. But when I'm sending a freshly trained group of troops to shore up my army, and they just up and decide to go rebel, I'm just not having any of that.

It's a really poor game mechanic in M2TW. Imagine a platformer game where 10% of the time the jump button just didn't work. No observable cause that's preventable, you just randomly fail because of RNG. That's what this is like.

If y'all derive RP value from it, that's great. I'm happy for you. But I'm turning it off.

Edit: if this was confined to low loyalty FMs, I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with this because it adds flavor and is at least something you can work around. But as it is, it makes it extremely difficult and unpredictable to perform a basic task in the game: moving units across the map. In my opinion, that is a flaw rather than a function.

[LusitanianWolf]

Personaly I do quite like this feature! In my ongoing Saka campaign my faction heir got in some kind of conflict with the old king and was dishonored and expelled from the court wenting rogue and taking with him another fm and my eastern army. A few years later my newly crowned and inexperienced faction leader decided punishing the traitors would be a great way to gain prestige and cement his leadership... and was humbled by the more experienced general due to a tactical mistake, bringing setbacks in his leadership.

To me that was great roleplaying internal struggles for power, rebellions, civil wars and traitors were quite widespread in this period and imho underrepresented ingame. And the game is already quite easy as it is without dumbing it more. My only complaign is that the rebels are to passive and the rebelious army just standed in my border not even causing much trouble or devastation. I was hoping they would siege the nearest town or at least try to ambush passing by armies but neither did happen. I'm not sure what is the difficulty I'm playing with though but pŕobably h/h or h/m, as i was expecting a to have a harder time with the Saka.

[Roma_Victrix]

To me that was great roleplaying internal struggles for power, rebellions, civil wars and traitors were quite widespread in this period and imho underrepresented ingame. And the game is already quite easy as it is without dumbing it more. My only complaign is that the rebels are to passive and the rebelious army just standed in my border not even causing much trouble or devastation. I was hoping they would siege the nearest town or at least try to ambush passing by armies but neither did happen. I'm not sure what is the difficulty I'm playing with though but pŕobably h/h or h/m, as i was expecting a to have a harder time with the Saka.

The point of those rebel troops and highway robbers is to damage your provincial economy. This is easily observable after ending one turn following the defeat of a rebel army in your territory; the income of your settlement immediately shoots back up, significantly. Sometimes this is in the amount of 1,000 or 1,500 MNAI! Essentially the rebel armies that spawn in your territories are something like target practice for your generals and troops, for them to gain experience points. Your generals can also fight more battles this way, lending them greater traits for command and governance. I've had roughly a dozen family members in my latest KH campaign fight enough battles to have "Seen the Elephant" (i.e. 25 battles or more), largely because I had them hunt down rebels and then serve long careers out in the field, conducting sieges of enemy cities. This particular trait earns them troop morale points, influence points, and like 3 command stars. It's awesome.

[parthian8]

People do rebel. Life-long friends and parents and children become lifelong enemies every day over a few words.
It isn’t always predictable. I’ve had four/five loyalty-pip FMs go rogue. I thought I could trust them, but, as it turned out, they weren’t completely trustworthy.
I always think of the loyalty rating as being “as loyal as I think they are.” It’s a Solipsist nightmare!
Your best general isn’t always your best friend. And soldiers without a leader aren’t ever going have the same discipline as those with one (just think how much more “relaxed” the office is when the boss is away.) Make sure they have one, even close to home.
An army that’s hungry, tired of campaigning or in the middle of nowhere, miles from home, might chuck the towel in at any moment. And even a network of informers in camp won’t always prevent it.
Stuff happens, as they say. And I think the game is better for a little bit of unplanned chaos being possible, even if it’s not in the script.

[QuintusSertorius]

Uh, that's for FMs, I thought you were talking about them. Captain revolts are a different one:

<captain_modifier float = "0.01"/>

It's already a tiny proportion. I'm not sure what happens if you make it 0.00 that might revert to the default setting for vanilla, so you might be better off making it 0.000000000001 or something.

[Krampus]

Uh, that's for FMs, I thought you were talking about them. Captain revolts are a different one:

<captain_modifier float = "0.01"/>

It's already a tiny proportion. I'm not sure what happens if you make it 0.00 that might revert to the default setting for vanilla, so you might be better off making it 0.000000000001 or something.

Wow, is it really that small of a chance for captains? I take back what I said above, 0.01% should be a pretty reasonable chance for something like this.

It's happened to me many times in my campaign, so I must be extremely unlucky. Do you know what in game variables affect captain revolt chance?

[Jurand of Cracow]

It usually happens to me when I'm moving small groups of un-led units from settlement to settlement, to join up with a larger army or garrison a settlement.
... But when I'm sending a freshly trained group of troops to shore up my army, and they just up and decide to go rebel, I'm just not having any of that.
... It's a really poor game mechanic in M2TW. If y'all derive RP value from it, that's great. I'm happy for you. But I'm turning it off.
... it makes it extremely difficult and unpredictable to perform a basic task in the game: moving units across the map. In my opinion, that is a flaw rather than a function.

Many mods make actually an implicit rule: no troops in the field without a general. If you want to send fresh troops - you need to have a general to lead them. In mod 1648 the probability of rebelion is 12% (max, afaik). In the Byg Grim Reality for Stainless Steel it was similar. Actually, in the recent TW games (Rome 2, Attila) this is forced by the mechanics of limited number of the armies (and each has to be lead by a general).
The only problem with the M2TW mechanics is that you cannot differenciate this %% between AI and the player (what I've learnt from QS :-). A high value would cripple the AI, unaware of this mechanics. Thus I simply have a home rule not to send any troops outside a settlement without a general.

I fully subscribe to this view:

I look at it as a degree of difficulty adder, and it does feel somewhat historical. Armed, unsupervised men did tend to see banditry as an option during this era.
To the extent that it especially harms those who are rotating experienced unit fragments out of a front-line stack and sending them home to refit (at the high experience level), well the AI doesn't do that at all, so it serves as a bit of balancing.

Wow, is it really that small of a chance for captains? I take back what I said above, 0.01% should be a pretty reasonable chance for something like this. .... It's happened to me many times in my campaign, so I must be extremely unlucky. Do you know what in game variables affect captain revolt chance?

This is actually another mystery of the M2TW engine. Things which are supposed to happen very rarely, actually happen quite often...

[Kull]

I've had several instances of the "captain" rebellions, and although annoying, it's not crippling (unless you are foolish enough to use large captain-led groups). I look at it as a degree of difficulty adder, and it does feel somewhat historical. Armed, unsupervised men did tend to see banditry as an option during this era. Plus you can work around it in most cases, simply by sending them from one location to another by way of cities, or perhaps (assuming this helps) by including an agent in the stack.

To the extent that it especially harms those who are rotating experienced unit fragments out of a front-line stack and sending them home to refit (at the high experience level), well the AI doesn't do that at all, so it serves as a bit of balancing.

[Krampus]

To the extent that it especially harms those who are rotating experienced unit fragments out of a front-line stack and sending them home to refit (at the high experience level).

Is this a thing that works? I've never done this before, may have to send a few elite boii retainers back to the capital for retraining. With a few diplomatic escorts, lest they get any ideas about setting out on their own...

[Maniac21]

\data\world\maps\campaign\imperial_campaign\descr_strat.txt
;rebelling_characters_active

[Brihentin13]

I put the whole agent shebang in a stack when I can. Spy, assassin, and diplomat can be helpful. I don't know where I got this idea or even how true it is, but keeping a diplomat with high influence in an army lessens the chances of bribery. As I said, I'm not entirely sure that's true, but it gives me a nice placebo effect feeling, and we all know how important placebos are!

[parthian8]

It's not a fair criticism of the game. It's just stuff you can't be bothered with and don't want to think about.

[parthian8]

Krampus,

If you are playing a major faction like Rome, and I suspect you are, there are, like a million, bored young men of military age standing around hoping to get a bit of experience escorting a detail of recruits from Capua to Tarentum. It's their rank and it's what they are for.
Recording that you are switching stuff off 'cos you have to think about it is just not worth bothering people about.