Rebellions

[Alpha]

How do the militia in a region fight if the lord of that region joins the rebellion? Do they join with their lord, or the realm?

[Bedwyr]

How do the militia in a region fight if the lord of that region joins the rebellion? Do they join with their lord, or the realm?

Only example I've seen was one rebellion at the end of Abington's days when the Duke of the capital joined the rebellion.  The militia appeared to be split.  Each turn the Duke would note which militia had fought for the loyalists and disband them.  I think it changed each turn, though.

[Alpha]

I've heard they do, they don't, and about everything in between. Unfortunately, all the rebellions I've seen have either had the militia previously disbanded, or the Capital Duke never joins.

[Velax]

What about the militia of other regions? Does it stay neutral, fight for the Crown or fight for whichever side its lord joins?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Militia of other units shouldn't matter, because if you have rebels not in the capital, your rebellion is inferior.

But to answer the question, probably the same thing happens for militia in all regions as the capital.

[ó Broin]

I find it said that the only "correct" way to hold a rebellion is to mass all your troops in the capital before declaring.

[Indirik]

I don't know that I would call it the "correct" way, but surely the most likely to succeed. The objective of the rebellion is to capture the capital. So why would you gather anywhere else? OK, maybe in the region next door, and make an immediate move to the capital. But nothing else really makes much sense.

[ó Broin]

Of course it makes sense in the context of the game mechanics, and that is my problem. Rebellions need to be more then just grabbing a single region. Otherwise we will just see the same cookie cutter method, recruit General, mass in capital, have general dismiss militia, win.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Add two more methods to the one mentioned:

1. Wait until the ruler position is empty and rebel. There you win.

2. Rebel, then make the ruler lose his position. Win again.

At least I think the above two work.

[Indirik]

So what would you suggest as an alternative?

[De-Legro]

The most obvious would be a true civil war, each Lord declares for the rebels or the loyalist, and each side needs to take over the regions of the other.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

That would give the loyalists a clear advantage unless the rebels have a much larger force initially. Remember, loyalists can still recruit, rebels can't. That means under De-Legro's suggestion, unless the rebels have what it takes to defeat every loyalist at the time of rebellion, there is virtually no way for them to win.

Furthermore, most rebellions don't have more rebels than loyalists, but in the competent ones, the few rebels are more skilled or better organized, and are rewarded by being able to storm the capital and win. Without any advantage for timing attacks and location awareness, then in almost all cases of rebellions the loyalists would win, more so than they probably already do.

[Indirik]

The most obvious would be a true civil war, each Lord declares for the rebels or the loyalist, and each side needs to take over the regions of the other.

Which would be like a secession?

[Forbes Family]

That would give the loyalists a clear advantage unless the rebels have a much larger force initially. Remember, loyalists can still recruit, rebels can't. That means under De-Legro's suggestion, unless the rebels have what it takes to defeat every loyalist at the time of rebellion, there is virtually no way for them to win.

Furthermore, most rebellions don't have more rebels than loyalists, but in the competent ones, the few rebels are more skilled or better organized, and are rewarded by being able to storm the capital and win. Without any advantage for timing attacks and location awareness, then in almost all cases of rebellions the loyalists would win, more so than they probably already do.

Actually this makes total sense. Most rebellions failed to succeed without vast amounts of bloodshed. There would be a fight if a rebellion were to happen. I think your onto something here.

[De-Legro]

Which would be like a secession?

Yes, I won't be against rebellions being removed in favour of secessions becoming the vehicle of rebellion.