In the first year when you try to grab as much lands as you can, you sometimes leave lands empty in the first turn after you take them, since they can't revolt anyway. The result is though, that in the next turn rebelion will be (close to) 25%. So most people, including me most of the times, send in a number of armies, usually equivalent or close to the number of farms. Now the rebelion rate for this turn is still 25%, or 1 in 4.

Let's take a 30k primitive +0 as an example. rebelion 25% and you send in 3. It revolts anyway. So you lose not only the land, at least 2 turns of production, but also 3 armies + the number of armies you need to get it back. OK, then you get a little gold, but what is it, 7? On the other hand if you leave it empty, you have a slightly larger chance for revolt, namely exactly the rebelion % as there are no armies to save it, but at least you don't lose the armies. Now as long as it's not a key frontland and you left it on farns, there's no big problem. Just wait 4 turns for it to farm, and then take it, and it will start making 1 army/turn, or if already a bit influenced, you can start developing it.

Any thoughts?

I understand the concept you are trying to tackle but the example you gave does not make sense given the situation.

As you say people only leave lands empty in the first few turns of the game because armies are at a premium. All lands around your capital are key and they farm/develop faster if you own them than if they are held by locals, due to influence. However your argument for leaving them empty for more than one turn and risking a rebellion seems to be that you should wait for it to farm itself. There are a number of problems with this;

a) Wasted moves
b) Wasted armies taking it back after rebellion
c) Slower development speed in province
d) The number of armies you lose fighting rebels are (ignoring variance) equal to the number you lose taking it back anyway, except with the added bonus of often not losing the province.

Therefore logic dictates that one should aim to lower the risk of losing a province, balanced against the value of using the armies for another purpose. This balance is different for each player and situation.

In addition, as I'm sure many of you are aware, rebellion percentages are not accurate in any way, i.e. 25% rebellion does not equal an average of 1 rebellion in 4 turns, and Devoted or Supportive lands never rebel at all regardless of stated % chance.

Also "rebellion" has two l's.

I hereby conclude my thoughts.

Well, I was painting an extreme example, to make it as clear as possible. U make some valid points, but not all are, for example wasted moves. if you don't move in armies, and the land doesn't rebel, you actually saved one move.

Can you ellaborate on rebellion % not being accurate?

Xi hinted at the % thing but didn't explain it all that well. A devoted land next to your cap often still has a "3%" chance of rebellion... but it will will never revolt, not 1 rebellion in 1,000,000 turns. So Xi extrapolates that a "25%" chance of rebellion is in reality less than 25% real chance of rebellion.

I don't agree with Attila or Xi in the moves category... You save 1 move by not moving into the provence in the first place, but you may save 1 or more moves by not having to move into it later. On average you probably save a slight bit more than 0 moves.

1 other thing to think about Attila: If you don't move 3 armies into that 30k 25% rebellious land, then it will probably still be 25% next turn and if it revolts within the next 2 or 3 turns then you've completely wasted those turns with that land instead of starting to farm or develop it.

If it weren't for that last point, I'd say you might be on to something in some cases... but with that in mind I can't imagine letting it revolt is ever worthwhile.

With bad luck at start/slow start I just leave countries empty up to 30k if need be.

Exactly Paars, that's when I applied it too a few times recently, and it worked out better than expected I must say. I remember having 1 army in 6 lands at one point and eventually winning that game :)
Of course, once I can I will put armies in a land, but sometimes need breaks law :)

Thx for the ellaboration on the %, Squoob. But I would love to see the exact algorythm there, maybe Paars can offer us some insight?

Always a bad idea to leave a country without any armies if its not supportive or devoted. Unless, as Paars points out, the start is crappy, and one need to take chances in order to recover. A note here could be, that most players these days use their cap the first year at 30k - if you get that extra farm before, you spread influence faster and reduce chance of rebellion - but of course it gets harder to get those super starters, so its about choosing what way to go.

And taking the countries right next to cap ASAP is always the best. You gain influence, build faster and you save the moves later on when you need them more in order to expand.

attila may have a point if u let it rebel and have enough armies in reserve to take it back afterwards then the gold income from u taking it and the increased probability of loyalty might help

M-K

But taking it back as you say Malakira will mean that you will spend armies on that rebellious province that could have been used to get more provinces elsewhere. So the extra gold and the wasted armies will even each other and nothing is gained.

or have i completely misunderstood what Attila and Malakira is talking about?

if that country is lets sat 40k or above the risk may be not worth it also if you leave lands on gold if they rebel they will still farm

M-K

but why let them rebel in the first place? unless you really really cant avoid it. cant see how taking a province and then letting it revolt so it can use 3-4 turns to farm and then take it back is going to help you out?

money gained and plus if u farm when a land is not supportive wats the use if the higher the population and higher the culture that harder it is to make it loyal with a 40k developed capital

M-K