Can someone give me a good reason why revolts are a thing. And if there is a good reason, I wish it was implemented better. Instead of having it revolt to some random country, why not have it spawn in 1-3 militia units (Based on the province/city population) that that are named "Rebels" and you either give them money(No more than 20,000), resources(No more than 5,000 to 7,000 combined resources), or destroy them.
The reason I bring this up is because its annoying when revolts just give away a city and a few provinces to a random neighbor that you really can't fight so you just have to deal with it.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
40 Replies
24 Jan 2023, 09:34 (edited)
DxC wrote:
Lord Crayfish wrote:
Nevertheless, I think the element of chance should be there (I would say damage should be affected to around 20 per cent on each side of the nominal value).
I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, but a random +/- 20% is already applied to the damage potentials in each round of battle. This is in the wiki. I'm not sure what the actual distribution is, but in my experience it is below expectation more often than above.
I have asked about the existing element of chance before, so no, I am not trolling, but I was under the impression that this had been removed in 2.0 (the wiki has barely been altered to accommodate the update). Thank you for clearing this up.
In light of this, perhaps it should be increased even up to a quarter or more, but that's another matter. Certainly not over 30% though. I am always of the opinion though that the game is fine, if not perfect, the way it is and no improvement to the mechanics would make it better without downsides.
Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. ā Marshal Foch A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines. ā Lord Kitchener, on tanks
24 Jan 2023, 15:21
I think it used to be higher and was decreased. Maybe it was 20% and is now 10%? I think I remember a past update addressing it, just can't remember which
25 Jan 2023, 02:34
DxC wrote:
Lord Crayfish wrote:
Nevertheless, I think the element of chance should be there (I would say damage should be affected to around 20 per cent on each side of the nominal value).
I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, but a random +/- 20% is already applied to the damage potentials in each round of battle. This is in the wiki. I'm not sure what the actual distribution is, but in my experience it is below expectation more often than above.
Let's look up the mathematical term Probability distribution.
The cumulative result of repeatedly tossing coins with different odds of getting heads is sometimes called ā Ī² distribution ā.
The probability that an unpredictable accident will not occur ā just now ā is sometimes called the ā Poisson distribution ā.
All of them tell us interesting truths.
In the future, if you enter an insurance company and are involved in the design of insurance itself, these knowledge will be very useful.
25 Jan 2023, 03:23
Dude.
I just want rebellions removed from the game.
25 Jan 2023, 08:07
z00mz00m wrote:
Dude.
I just want rebellions removed from the game.
lol
25 Jan 2023, 12:43 (edited)
Armymac3000 wrote:
But why would you want the chance of defeat when your troops/vehicle are clearly better.
Because war is not even a battle, and it doesn't always end with just a fight with enemy soldiers.
In other words, BECAUSE some spies slips into the one's own country, terrorists appears, economic stagnation occurs, leakage of classified military information, be damaged facilities, local residents may turn into guerrillas, friendly soldiers may stage a coup, neutral countries may antagonize, and friendly countries may switch sides.
Of course, it is rather unlikely that all these events will occur at the same time.
However, it is so exciting, because in order to keep it from happening, the efforts of the enemy and the ally are competing.
But if it can't happen in the first place the fun will be reduced.
25 Jan 2023, 22:14
pod_than wrote:
[...] local residents may turn into guerrillas, friendly soldiers may stage a coup, neutral countries may antagonize, and friendly countries may switch sides.
And it also simply makes sense, especially if you are invading a country and they revolt back to the original country. Too many historical examples to cite.
Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. ā Marshal Foch A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines. ā Lord Kitchener, on tanks
26 Jan 2023, 11:43
DxC wrote:
Lord Crayfish wrote:
Nevertheless, I think the element of chance should be there (I would say damage should be affected to around 20 per cent on each side of the nominal value).
I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, but a random +/- 20% is already applied to the damage potentials in each round of battle. This is in the wiki. I'm not sure what the actual distribution is, but in my experience it is below expectation more often than above.
At the risk of further derailing this thread from the original "No more revolts" purpose (sorry zoom
since this randomness is applied at the battle ROUND level rather than the battle as a whole, this seeming 20% is diluted because the chances tend to fall one way in one round, and the other way in the second. This means that the "randomness" end result of a battle as a whole is much less than 20%. Compare it to rolling dice: when you roll one die, the chances of 1-6 are all equal; when you roll two dice the chances to roll 7 are much higher than either 2 or 12.
26 Jan 2023, 15:20
jubjub bird wrote:
I think it used to be higher and was decreased. Maybe it was 20% and is now 10%? I think I remember a past update addressing it, just can't remember which
It is still 20%. But the probability shape is a Bell curve, meaning results close to 0% deviation are more likely than results close to +-20% deviation.
z00mz00m wrote:
What about it, Freezy? Let's make the game more fun. Get rid of revolts.
This is a bigger decision with Pros and Cons that of course could also have some business impact, so it has to be analysed properly and decided by the whole product team (meaning I can't decide that alone). So no promises at all, but I will spark an internal discussion on it at least.
26 Jan 2023, 16:50
freezy wrote:
It is still 20%. But the probability shape is a Bell curve
Hi Freezy. I'm wanting to add an option for simulating the variance in the calc. Do you happen to know what the standard deviation is on the distribution?
31 Jan 2023, 12:43
DxC wrote:
freezy wrote:
It is still 20%. But the probability shape is a Bell curve
Hi Freezy. I'm wanting to add an option for simulating the variance in the calc. Do you happen to know what the standard deviation is on the distribution?
Uhm I can actually not tell you with absolute certainty because the documentation is a bit ambiguous in that regard It is either 1 or 0.1, and all results that fall outside of a 0.2 (20%) difference will be cut off (it will re-roll if it lands outside).
31 Jan 2023, 17:18
Yeah, I'm using a standard deviation of 0.1 meaning the +/- 0.2 is two standard deviations out, so 95.4% of the "rolls" are in the region of interest.
31 Jan 2023, 17:23
freezy wrote:
DxC wrote:
freezy wrote:
It is still 20%. But the probability shape is a Bell curve
Hi Freezy. I'm wanting to add an option for simulating the variance in the calc. Do you happen to know what the standard deviation is on the distribution?
Uhm I can actually not tell you with absolute certainty because the documentation is a bit ambiguous in that regard It is either 1 or 0.1, and all results that fall outside of a 0.2 (20%) difference will be cut off (it will re-roll if it lands outside).
Well you guys should be proud that there IS documentation)))
31 Jan 2023, 18:18
DxC wrote:
Yeah, I'm using a standard deviation of 0.1 meaning the +/- 0.2 is two standard deviations out, so 95.4% of the "rolls" are in the region of interest.
ok if that works mathematically then I think it is indeed 0.1, at least I checked the value in the balancing setup once more and there it is also 0.1. I was just confused because our documentation stated it as 1 but I think that was just an example value. I guess we can trust the value of 0.1 in the actual setup the most.
31 Jan 2023, 18:24
Not sure but the "1" could refer to the mean. I'm using a mean of 1 and a standard deviation of 0.1 so I get values between 0.8 and 1.2 that I can directly multiply the damage potentials by.
5 Feb 2023, 11:21
Well this thread appears to have sailed quite far off course.
Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. ā Marshal Foch A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines. ā Lord Kitchener, on tanks
5 Feb 2023, 16:10
It appears that my dislike of revolts pales in comparison to their love of statistics.
5 Feb 2023, 22:38
z00mz00m wrote:
It appears that my dislike of revolts pales in comparison to their love of statistics.
I am finding it very interesting.
Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value. ā Marshal Foch A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines. ā Lord Kitchener, on tanks
5 Feb 2023, 22:47
z00mz00m wrote:
It appears that my dislike of revolts pales in comparison to their love of statistics.
Perhaps your analysis might opposite causality.
Not because I already have a degree of like to dislike against civil rebellion at least me.
At first I love genuinely statistics, so I hope for civil rebellion.
8 Feb 2023, 00:44
This is like arguing with people who enjoy watching golf.
It is either 1 or 0.1, and all results that fall outside of a 0.2 (20%) difference will be cut off (it will re-roll if it lands outside).
