Why do I think so:1) Territories fall even to an already inactive player;2) Territories go to a minor player. Who is not capable of territorially changing anything himself;3) Recovering territories is a unnecessary waste of time;4) Territorial rebellion - a complete misunderstanding. There were no such events in any war;5) Personally, it annoys me a lot.
The absurdity of rebellion
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
Insurgents, guerrillas, rebels, etc have always been a part of war. This isn’t a make believe mechanic.War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill
VorlonFCW
Retired from Bytro staff as of November 30, 2020.
>>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<< -
In addition to gold use or troops, morale can be improved with the building of fortifications and infrastructure improvements ...
-
Hmmmm, must have been a good reason that conquerors keep troops in cities/provinces/countries that they have conquered. Pretty sure it wasn't for the cuisine lol
-
Siegfrid Goth wrote:
. There were no such events in any war
-
gusv wrote:
In addition to gold use or troops, morale can be improved with the building of fortifications and infrastructure improvements ...
WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Siegfrid Goth wrote:
. There were no such events in any war
VorlonFCW wrote:
Insurgents, guerrillas, rebels, etc have always been a part of war. This isn’t a make believe mechanic.
-
I do think there should be rebellion. But there is a bit too much now. Maybe decrease the chance of rebellions.
-
Rebellions have been present in the game for some time now, and they add another layer of strategy as you're forced to keep your people happy, but I do have a suggestion to make.
Could rebels perhaps make their own country, and not choose to side with another. I was playing Poland and nearly everyone except 4 people became inactive, one of the inactive players was Germany, so I took him over. Then, one of the provinces rebelled and was given to Austria, but the thing is, since they're a bot country I can't make a deal with them, forcing me to declare war on them to get my territory back which was a hassle to have to take all of Austria.
I was thinking rebel states, would become an independent state, allowing a country to destroy them, but not declare war with another country. -
Siegfrid Goth wrote:
WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Siegfrid Goth wrote:
. There were no such events in any war
VorlonFCW wrote:
Insurgents, guerrillas, rebels, etc have always been a part of war. This isn’t a make believe mechanic.
Low morale = the people do not want you to be their ruler and if you don't give them a good reason why they should be (a few thousand soldiers pointing guns their way), they will refuse to accept your rule. -
Siegfrid Goth wrote:
and which of the mentioned countries joined Antarctica ?
As Antarctica is not a sovereign country, even though it is a continent, no countries "joined her" .......
-
eruth wrote:
Low morale = the people do not want you to be their ruler and if you don't give them a good reason why they should be (a few thousand soldiers pointing guns their way), they will refuse to accept your rule.
-
Archduke William wrote:
Could rebels perhaps make their own country, and not choose to side with another.
RiverWolf74 wrote:
I do think there should be rebellion. But there is a bit too much now. Maybe decrease the chance of rebellions.
WascallywabbitCDN wrote:
Siegfrid Goth wrote:
and which of the mentioned countries joined Antarctica ?
As Antarctica is not a sovereign country, even though it is a continent, no countries "joined her" .......
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0
-
Users Online 1
1 Guest