Rebellions again !!!

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Rebellions again !!!

      I have to say Bytro have got this rebellion thing so wrong it's not true. This post is about logic.

      If you accept the 'game need for rebellions' (which I dont really) then a rebellion should only go as follows IMO.

      1. At the start of a map game each player has land and that land contains provinces.

      2. If during a 'war' other land is won then there is, subject to various criteria a chance of that won province rebelling.

      3. A province should IMO ONLY rebel to either

      a. Its original owner or b any other owner that has conquered it.


      What we have now is provinces reverting to some ad hoc other country THAT HAS NEVER OWNED IT. Makes the game totally and utterly illogical.

      Please fix this at least to get some credibilty. It spoils an otherwise interesting product.

    • I dissagre the game would be very boring without rebellions and morale wouldnt matter except resource production. Which would make huge countries unstoppable. A rebellion though I think should only occur to the border nehgibouring nation or if its an island province to the closest neighbour. Removing rebellions is a terrible idea for the balancing of the game.

    • The rebellions are silly, because there are far too many of them.

      It disadvantages players who are not 'kids' who cannot permanently be on line playing the game especially around day change time.

      So you come home log on and find that 6 provinces have rebelled two to the country you are fighting against two to your ally who is hundreds of game miles away and who has never occuppied the province and two to someone else thousands of game miles away who attacked you 15 days ago and who has never occuppied the land you have just conquered.

      In that context it is stupid becase it is illogical.

      I can in theory cope with rebellions and can see the context but it appears it is just a means of penalising larger countries especially near the end game when few players are left and especially if there are no coalitions present or one coalition member is very small and wont 'fight'.

      Glad Bytro didn't invent Monopoly!

      It seems the designers want to spoil an essentially interesting but expensive game to extract what. . . . more money?

      We cant all pay mobile when not at home. Some of us have to pay attention when working.

    • BladeFisher wrote:

      The rebellions are silly, because there are far too many of them.

      It disadvantages players who are not 'kids' who cannot permanently be on line playing the game especially around day change time.

      So you come home log on and find that 6 provinces have rebelled two to the country you are fighting against two to your ally who is hundreds of game miles away and who has never occuppied the province and two to someone else thousands of game miles away who attacked you 15 days ago and who has never occuppied the land you have just conquered.

      In that context it is stupid becase it is illogical.

      I can in theory cope with rebellions and can see the context but it appears it is just a means of penalising larger countries especially near the end game when few players are left and especially if there are no coalitions present or one coalition member is very small and wont 'fight'.

      Glad Bytro didn't invent Monopoly!

      It seems the designers want to spoil an essentially interesting but expensive game to extract what. . . . more money?

      We cant all pay mobile when not at home. Some of us have to pay attention when working.
      Well Call of War is a war game about WW2. And rebellions happend alot in WW2 you can see the Partisans in Yugoslavia and see the huge territory they owned. So removing rebellions is terrible in my opinion and also big nations would have no problems. Morale is designed so that there are disadvantage to rapid expansion one of those is rebellions. Without rebellions you might as well remove morale completly.But i agree that provinces rebelling and joining a country across the other continent is stupid but removing rebellions is a terrible idea.To remove provinces rebelling to countries which are very far away which is unrealistic I would make it so that when rebellions happen that they can form their own nations if they dont have a country thats close to said province where rebellion happens.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by zecevi123 ().

    • Every province that revolts should just be named '----- Rebels', the blank the country that ORIGINALLY owned it, e.g. Japan Rebels, American Rebels, Soviet Rebels. that would be more realistic and easier.
      “I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior. I love only that which they defend.”

      “If you win, you need not explain!”

      “What difference does it make if destruction is wrought under the name of dictators or in the name of democracy?”

      War is Peace
      Slavery is Freedom
      Weakness is Strength

    • That's the point, it is who the province rebels to that is stupid. Surely it can only go back to the original owner or any subsequent owner and err ......that's it.

      In the case of Yugoslavia, Serbia didn't became part of France or Canada or Brazil. In CoW any of that could happen!

      Makes the game silly.

    • BladeFisher wrote:

      I have to say Bytro have got this rebellion thing so wrong it's not true. This post is about logic.

      If you accept the 'game need for rebellions' (which I dont really) then a rebellion should only go as follows IMO.

      1. At the start of a map game each player has land and that land contains provinces.

      2. If during a 'war' other land is won then there is, subject to various criteria a chance of that won province rebelling.

      3. A province should IMO ONLY rebel to either

      a. Its original owner or b any other owner that has conquered it.


      What we have now is provinces reverting to some ad hoc other country THAT HAS NEVER OWNED IT. Makes the game totally and utterly illogical.

      Please fix this at least to get some credibilty. It spoils an otherwise interesting product.
      I agree, especially when its a colony, or in the case of China in the historical map, its own damn provinces. Tell me how in a 25p historical map, Beijing would rebel to JAPAN away from China. The old rebellion system worked far better, this is just overkill. Far too many provinces rebel, even when I station units in them. Not arguing against the presence of rebellions, but rather the mechanics and frequency of them.

    • i like the idea of rebels and morale in general.
      But I would agree with others here, that the dynamic is not really realistic or working as i would expect it to.
      I don't like the fact that my own state, just go join some other random state, or even newly conquered states.

      i expect my states to remain mine, unless i mismanage my country (what exactly that means to be defined).
      Any conquered state, will rebel and if not suppressed, revert back to its previous owner.
      e.g If I say conquered a state from France, if I don't suppress revolts for say 10 days consecutive, it will revert back to France, and timer is reset).
      Once I held that state for 10 days, say, it is deemed to be mine, and will remain and perform like my own states, again unless conquered by someone else or mismanaged.

      Mismanagement of my country, will result in lower morale and eventually revolts of my owned states.
      Here are possible conditions I can think of which will constitute miss management.
      * a resource below a certain reserve level
      * no garrisoned armies in region (maybe we say closest garrison has to be within 4 hrs movement, or x number of states).
      * no more than say 1 country at war ( no penalty) anything above that, you need larger garrisons (think of more a police, communist or facist, monarchy states) vs democracy state.

      Maybe there are options we can select what type of government we want to have, select tax level (affecting morale and productivity/industry levels). So we can control more this.
      Or instead of making units for Police/Garrison, there is a selector we can control how much of money and "manpower" resources are spent to keep population happiness in check.