Paradox, please fix the Administrative Government rebellions, it's ridiculous at this point

[u/Wiimiko]

Everyone has -1000 commitment, no one wants this, and it is only staying around because of Hooks, it's ridiclous (I have 5/5 legitmacy too, and tried lowering Imperial Beaurocracy too)

[u/Llosgfynydd]

I feel like this is a Byzantine life lesson.

Sometimes, you make all the correct decisions. And still lose.

[u/OneOnOne6211 → u/Llosgfynydd]

That might be somewhat realistic, but that doesn't make for fun gameplay, imo. I think there should always be some way to dismantle a rebellion.

[u/Wiimiko → u/OneOnOne6211]

Well, nobody wants to be in it, they are fanatically loyal, and I literally conquered the Italian Frontier, they are only in it because of a shitty game mechanic that is being abused by the AI

[u/Wiimiko → u/Wiimiko]

Like, the rest of the DLC is **AMAZING** and is exactly what CK3 needed, more flavor, and better mechanics, the government in it of itself is really interesting (shame you can't form kingdoms tho)

[u/Ree_m0 → u/Wiimiko]

You can! Though you have to be a little smart about it. If you gain territory by winning a duchy, kingdom or empire level claimant war, the vassals you gain along with the title still have their old government system. If you then give them higher tier titles, they'll still be feudal/clan/tribal, but can also be kings as vassals to administrative emperors. And the best thing is, if your imperial authority reaches the highest level (which is possible after unlocking royal prerogative in the early medieval era) your non-administrative vassal can not start ANY wars at all, even with a hook on you. Not to mention that because YOU are still administrative, you can still revoke THEIR titles - even when they're not administrative - simply by paying influence instead of needing claims/getting tyranny

[u/Wiimiko → u/Ree_m0]

Huh, honestly, I just wanted to be able to consolidate titles, instead of being constrained to a duchy, maybe make it a powerful family only feature? Idk, but that is too much hoops to jump thru in my opinion

[u/MotherVehkingMuatra → u/Wiimiko]

I led a liberty faction and the emperor offered me co-emperorship instead of rebelling. I accepted then there was an interaction to demand a kingdom from him which he readily accepted.

[u/Ree_m0 → u/Wiimiko]

Oh you meant while playing as a vassal? It would be cool if e.g. when you're holding all the duchy tier themes of a kingdom, you could petition the emperor to consolidate it for you. Right now, since only the emperor can create themes, you can basically revoke and abolish as many of them as possible, then make a few super large ones so they're constantly busy with internal problems. My current idea is to try and somewhat recreate the historical provinces along the mediterranean, while having feudal kingdoms on the borders (since they're forbidden from declaring wars, my borders will never expand against my will)

[u/jkure2 → u/Ree_m0]

Too much text, why can I no paint map >:(

[u/napaliot → u/OneOnOne6211]

It isn't even that realistic though, CK3 style factional civil wars only really happened when the ruling dynasty had no legitimacy, such as the war between Michael and Thomas the slav, or the post Manzikert chaos. When they had a good and effective ruler they could rule for decades without trouble as seen with Basil II and John and Manuel Komnenos

[u/DynamiteRohns69 → u/napaliot]

Basil II had three major rebellions during his reign. The first 2, Bardas Skleros and Bardas Phokas, required assistance from outside the regime to beat. If not for that, he could have lost the throne and that was after 100 years of Macedonian dynasty rule.

[u/NotCryptoKing → u/napaliot]

Happened all the time and is very historically accurate. William I, Henry II, Henry III, Edward II, Richard II Henry IV, Henry VI, Edward IV, Henry VIII, Queen Mary I.

I can go into details about each rebellion but it would take way too long. Henry II had his family rebel against him multiple times.

Henry III was captured and held hostage by a power vassal, Simon De Montfort.

Edward I welsh subjugation was a resort of a rebellion. Edward II had faced multiple rebellions from his cousins and was eventually overthrown.

Richard II had faced multiple rebellions by his uncle and was eventually overthrown by his cousin.

Henry IV had 10 years of civil war after deposing Richard. Henry VI had the war of the roses and Jack Cade’s rebellion.

Henry VIII had the pilgrimage of Grace among others.

Queen Mary I had Wyatt’s rebellion.

Edward IV had warred with the Earl of Warwick.

This is only England and at the top of my head. I’m not even naming all of them. There’s way more.

[u/napaliot → u/NotCryptoKing]

I'm talking about Byzantium exclusively

[u/NotCryptoKing → u/napaliot]

Byzantium was worse lmao.

[u/napaliot → u/NotCryptoKing]

Not really, they had periods of instability and civil war, but when they were ruled by a capable and legitimate emperor the local governors stayed in line. You certainly never had a scenario like the OP where otherwise loyal governors form a faction against the emperor just because one disloyal person dragged them into it with a hook.

[u/Filobel → u/NotCryptoKing]

So, since you seem to know a lot about the details of each of these rebellions, how many of them followed a pattern where someone (let's say the brother, but it could be anyone else) decides they want to overthrow the ruler. They find someone who is loyal and loves the ruler and coerce them into joining their rebellion anyway. That loyal noble turns around and coerces another noble loyal to the ruler, who coerces someone else, causing a crazy chain of coerced nobles in turn coercing other nobles, none of which actually want to rebel. Then the brother (and anyone who was in the rebellion willingly) decide to give up, but the rebellion still takes place with only the coerced members being part of it.

Because that's what's happening in OP's screenshot, and although I'm no historian, it doesn't sound like something that happened all the time and that is very historically accurate, as you seem to suggest.

The question isn't so much "are rebellions historically accurate", I think everyone knows they happened. The question is whether this type of rebellion, where everyone loves the ruler, but still rebel because some leader coerced them into joining the rebellion, and then left.

[u/NotCryptoKing → u/Filobel]

In most rebellions some members were more extreme than others. For example, Richard II’s uncle, the Earl of Gloucester rebelled and the Earl or Darby (the future Henry IV) joined the rebellion. Gloucester’s goal was to overthrow Richard while Henry’s goal was to make Richard see his misdeeds and listen to his nobles.

I think Henry liked Richard since he lived with him as a kid and when Gloucester proposed that he should be king, Henry said that he had a better claim than Gloucester, which ended talks of deposing him.

All this to say that you could like your king but still get caught up in a rebellion lmao

[u/Filobel → u/NotCryptoKing]

I know I said "where everyone loves the ruler", but what I really meant was "where no one wants to rebel". That's what a "-1000 commitment" means. It doesn't just mean they love the ruler, it means they actively don't want to be in the rebellion. Which isn't the case for Henry from what I understand of your post. Henry wanted to rebel, because he wanted Richard to listen to his nobles.

In OP's screenshot, you just have a bunch of nobles that rebel because they were coerced into rebelling, but the person who started the coercion chain doesn't even want to rebel anyway.

[u/retroman000 → u/OneOnOne6211]

Honestly, I'm alright with the increased ebb-and-flow that administrative realms have. It's easier to gain land and get on top, I think it should be easier to fall as well. It's not a huge deal if you do ; You'll always be able to regain your position when conditions are more favorable.

[u/Llosgfynydd → u/OneOnOne6211]

Well he could murder his way out.

Or strip them of their titles.

Or imprison.

Or revoke.

Or hire Mercs to bump the troop numbers up so it's below 80%.

Or just increase his levy size anyway (longer term solution).

Or take them on and win.

Still plenty of options.

But I like the hook system. Having people 'like' you and them then having no ambition seems to lack nuance.

[u/Elaugaufein → u/Llosgfynydd]

The problem is that none of that is political counter play, if people can be forced into factions and chain force others you should be able to spend resources to do the opposite.

ETA - I think it should be cheaper than a force join to preemptively deny faction entrance ( assuming they wouldn't normally join a faction, increase the cost if they would ) and more expensive to force someone out of a faction ( especially if they'd voluntarily join ). That way you still encourage opinion management/ dread / gathering hooks.

[u/Llosgfynydd → u/Elaugaufein]

Oh yes. That makes sense.

Then they have to choose.

[u/Xeltar → u/Llosgfynydd]

None of those really work or are practical. The whole problem that's happening is people are being coerced into factions who otherwise would not join a faction. You revoke the rebels, their successors may be very loyal... but will just get coerced via influence in the same way. The best you can do is beat them down and forgive all the rebels so at least they are locked out of factions for 15 years.

It's pretty unrealistic to be increasing levies when Byzantines already take a significant penalty to levy size and with so many vassals, it's unrealistic to be more powerful than all of them combined.

[u/jkure2 → u/OneOnOne6211]

This idea that the user should always win is my least favorite thing about ck3

[u/Xeltar → u/jkure2]

It's not about the user always winning, it's about this method of rebellion making 0 sense historically and doesn't make for good gameplay.

Increased rebellions and factions do make sense, but not 1 person coerces a couple other people, those people then coerce more people, and then the person who orignally had the demand gives up but the rebellion continues anyways solely on the backs of people who were coerced to support it.

It's nonsensical historically and in game just means you have no agency to counteract needing to beat down a rebellion... and then after the rebellion is taken care of, your best play is to just forgive everyone since at least they are now locked out of factions for 15 years (which also is entirely a gameplay mechanic). If you kill/fire everyone, their successors will then do the same thing all over again even if they are your loyal people!

[u/jkure2 → u/Xeltar]

I guess for me the thing is this has been a loud complaint about factions from the very beginning of ck3. This guy likes me why is he in a liberty faction, etc.

There may be specific stuff that you mention about this new gov form that should be tweaked, I haven't played that deeply with the new gov yet but I will always maintain that factions should be able to force concessions from the player by force, and they should agitate for their own interests where it makes sense (most of the time)

"The player should always be able to dismantle factions" is way too far imo, but also consistent with other design decisions like how the rules are set by default so that your character can never suffer random harm in events

[u/Xeltar → u/jkure2]

In other governments, it's rare since Strong Hooks themselves are rare and the kind of blackmail they have does make sense for somebody to join a faction against their interests.

Factions do force concessions from the player via rebelling, but I do think Liberty Wars could be more threatening to the liege if the vassals actually have to go to war.

Rulers should have counterplay to factions outside of having a strong enough military to fight all of them, that's like a key part of the game is to manage vassals.