Rebel Cities

I have an idea, also from my favorite game EVAR.


Secret Society. A Society Center that forms in secrecy and lays low, completely self-sufficient. These would be used for minorities that are facing criticism in their own societies, and dare not risk a rebellion.


It is possible that once these Secret Societies grow enough, that they'd reveal themselves to the world and act as their own seperate nation.

InvaderZim wrote:

I have an idea, also from my favorite game EVAR.


Secret Society. A Society Center that forms in secrecy and lays low, completely self-sufficient. These would be used for minorities that are facing criticism in their own societies, and dare not risk a rebellion.


It is possible that once these Secret Societies grow enough, that they'd reveal themselves to the world and act as their own seperate nation.

I'm not sure about this... I think maybe having their own SCs is a bit much. Maybe when enough rebellion and disorder is present, the rebels could make their own organisations. Even run for government in SCs. Say the player chooses a governor that has rebel allegiances, then that might ease the rebelliousness but cost the player resources and even the way they run things. A rebel-controlled city might even try to declare it's independence.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

InvaderZim wrote:

I have an idea, also from my favorite game EVAR.


Secret Society. A Society Center that forms in secrecy and lays low, completely self-sufficient. These would be used for minorities that are facing criticism in their own societies, and dare not risk a rebellion.


It is possible that once these Secret Societies grow enough, that they'd reveal themselves to the world and act as their own seperate nation.

I'm not sure about this... I think maybe having their own SCs is a bit much. Maybe when enough rebellion and disorder is present, the rebels could make their own organisations. Even run for government in SCs. Say the player chooses a governor that has rebel allegiances, then that might ease the rebelliousness but cost the player resources and even the way they run things. A rebel-controlled city might even try to declare it's independence.

I agree with that. No need for this thread anymore; delete it, please.

InvaderZim wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

InvaderZim wrote:

I have an idea, also from my favorite game EVAR.


Secret Society. A Society Center that forms in secrecy and lays low, completely self-sufficient. These would be used for minorities that are facing criticism in their own societies, and dare not risk a rebellion.


It is possible that once these Secret Societies grow enough, that they'd reveal themselves to the world and act as their own seperate nation.

I'm not sure about this... I think maybe having their own SCs is a bit much. Maybe when enough rebellion and disorder is present, the rebels could make their own organisations. Even run for government in SCs. Say the player chooses a governor that has rebel allegiances, then that might ease the rebelliousness but cost the player resources and even the way they run things. A rebel-controlled city might even try to declare it's independence.

I agree with that. No need for this thread anymore; delete it, please.

I think it's better it stays. Just change the name to 'Rebel cities' or something.

Alright. Changed.

Now regarding Declaring Independence, I would find it Ironic if an American player had a really good income source in a distant country area he colonized . But to pay for a war he got into with his rivals he had to tax the civilians in the colonies. Those colonies would proceed to declare itself Independent and loses the war he had with his former colonies to take back his great revenue source in which he proceeds to go rant on in the forums about how it was so stupid and should never happen. Which then all other forumers proceed to lol at him for irony of the situation.

Falthron wrote:

Now regarding Declaring Independence, I would find it Ironic if an American player had a really good income source in a distant country area he colonized . But to pay for a war he got into with his rivals he had to tax the civilians in the colonies. Those colonies would proceed to declare itself Independent and loses the war he had with his former colonies to take back his great revenue source in which he proceeds to go rant on in the forums about how it was so stupid and should never happen. Which then all other forumers proceed to lol at him for irony of the situation.

...Okay then.

i like the idea but it seems incredibly complex.

Falthron wrote:

Now regarding Declaring Independence, I would find it Ironic if an American player had a really good income source in a distant country area he colonized . But to pay for a war he got into with his rivals he had to tax the civilians in the colonies. Those colonies would proceed to declare itself Independent and loses the war he had with his former colonies to take back his great revenue source in which he proceeds to go rant on in the forums about how it was so stupid and should never happen. Which then all other forumers proceed to lol at him for irony of the situation.

I wouldn't. I cannot comprehend it. Also, stupid player, it's their fault.

What was the point of this post? All it's doing is showing how the player could get conquered because they were a bad player, and that is somehow ironic. That is not relevant!

If the game will be how we envision it now, then it will be possible without any special scripting.

The Uteen wrote:

Falthron wrote:

Now regarding Declaring Independence, I would find it Ironic if an American player had a really good income source in a distant country area he colonized . But to pay for a war he got into with his rivals he had to tax the civilians in the colonies. Those colonies would proceed to declare itself Independent and loses the war he had with his former colonies to take back his great revenue source in which he proceeds to go rant on in the forums about how it was so stupid and should never happen. Which then all other forumers proceed to lol at him for irony of the situation.

I wouldn't. I cannot comprehend it. Also, stupid player, it's their fault.

What was the point of this post? All it's doing is showing how the player could get conquered because they were a bad player, and that is somehow ironic. That is not relevant!

Its Ironic because an American player got angry at a colony of theirs declaring independence.

It only seems complex, it really boils down to unhappy citizens getting to unhappy will start a revolution. the farther away from the home city it is the more of an advantage it is has, to simulate the knowledge they have of the land.

Falthron wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Falthron wrote:

Now regarding Declaring Independence, I would find it Ironic if an American player had a really good income source in a distant country area he colonized . But to pay for a war he got into with his rivals he had to tax the civilians in the colonies. Those colonies would proceed to declare itself Independent and loses the war he had with his former colonies to take back his great revenue source in which he proceeds to go rant on in the forums about how it was so stupid and should never happen. Which then all other forumers proceed to lol at him for irony of the situation.

I wouldn't. I cannot comprehend it. Also, stupid player, it's their fault.

What was the point of this post? All it's doing is showing how the player could get conquered because they were a bad player, and that is somehow ironic. That is not relevant!

Its Ironic because an American player got angry at a colony of theirs declaring independence.

I think I'm missing something here.

The Uteen wrote:

Falthron wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Falthron wrote:

Now regarding Declaring Independence, I would find it Ironic if an American player had a really good income source in a distant country area he colonized . But to pay for a war he got into with his rivals he had to tax the civilians in the colonies. Those colonies would proceed to declare itself Independent and loses the war he had with his former colonies to take back his great revenue source in which he proceeds to go rant on in the forums about how it was so stupid and should never happen. Which then all other forumers proceed to lol at him for irony of the situation.

I wouldn't. I cannot comprehend it. Also, stupid player, it's their fault.

What was the point of this post? All it's doing is showing how the player could get conquered because they were a bad player, and that is somehow ironic. That is not relevant!

Its Ironic because an American player got angry at a colony of theirs declaring independence.

I think I'm missing something here.

The American colonists, as much as we hate to admit it, were whiny Belgiums.

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Falthron wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Falthron wrote:

Now regarding Declaring Independence, I would find it Ironic if an American player had a really good income source in a distant country area he colonized . But to pay for a war he got into with his rivals he had to tax the civilians in the colonies. Those colonies would proceed to declare itself Independent and loses the war he had with his former colonies to take back his great revenue source in which he proceeds to go rant on in the forums about how it was so stupid and should never happen. Which then all other forumers proceed to lol at him for irony of the situation.

I wouldn't. I cannot comprehend it. Also, stupid player, it's their fault.

What was the point of this post? All it's doing is showing how the player could get conquered because they were a bad player, and that is somehow ironic. That is not relevant!

Its Ironic because an American player got angry at a colony of theirs declaring independence.

I think I'm missing something here.

The American colonists, as much as we hate to admit it, were whiny Belgiums.

Hmm...
Okay.
(I've gone and killed it now :bashhead:)

Falthron wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Falthron wrote:

Now regarding Declaring Independence, I would find it Ironic if an American player had a really good income source in a distant country area he colonized . But to pay for a war he got into with his rivals he had to tax the civilians in the colonies. Those colonies would proceed to declare itself Independent and loses the war he had with his former colonies to take back his great revenue source in which he proceeds to go rant on in the forums about how it was so stupid and should never happen. Which then all other forumers proceed to lol at him for irony of the situation.

I wouldn't. I cannot comprehend it. Also, stupid player, it's their fault.

What was the point of this post? All it's doing is showing how the player could get conquered because they were a bad player, and that is somehow ironic. That is not relevant!

Its Ironic because an American player got angry at a colony of theirs declaring independence.

It only seems complex, it really boils down to unhappy citizens getting to unhappy will start a revolution. the farther away from the home city it is the more of an advantage it is has, to simulate the knowledge they have of the land.

I'm getting the idea that it's ironic because Americans declared independence from Britain

Well... enough about the irony. On with the thread.



How would the government react to a city rebelling and breaking free of it's rein? How much would government type affect this?


Also, Columbia. It's the new Rapture.

InvaderZim wrote:

Well... enough about the irony. On with the thread.

How would the government react to a city rebelling and breaking free of it's rein? How much would government type affect this?

I'm going to say... badly. Unless if the nation has a high liberty setting and a pacifist leader or policy, this would likely trigger a war. Ah! Herein lies another point! For in a civil war, people often flip sides based on ideology. We need to have this programmed in somehow.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

InvaderZim wrote:

Well... enough about the irony. On with the thread.

How would the government react to a city rebelling and breaking free of it's rein? How much would government type affect this?

I'm going to say... badly. Unless if the nation has a high liberty setting and a pacifist leader or policy, this would likely trigger a war. Ah! Herein lies another point! For in a civil war, people often flip sides based on ideology. We need to have this programmed in somehow.

Reminds me of when i was playing as britain in civ 4 beyond the sword and i had colonys in australia, india, upper africa, and even america and controled most of europe then i had a civil war because i was bankrupt and all that stuff. I was pretty mad when i found out its not really a civil war. its just all your towns VS your capital town. i basically ragequitted at that point

US_of_Alaska wrote:

InvaderZim wrote:

Well... enough about the irony. On with the thread.

How would the government react to a city rebelling and breaking free of it's rein? How much would government type affect this?

I'm going to say... badly. Unless if the nation has a high liberty setting and a pacifist leader or policy, this would likely trigger a war. Ah! Herein lies another point! For in a civil war, people often flip sides based on ideology. We need to have this programmed in somehow.

Whichever populations share the most with the rebels will lose a certain percent of the members to the cause, depending on how close their ideals are.

~sciocont wrote:

Whichever populations share the most with the rebels will lose a certain percent of the members to the cause, depending on how close their ideals are.

Maybe we could have it directly correlate to the unhappiness of SCs. Say the unhappiness of the SC is 55%, then 55% of the population would join the rebels? This could then go even further, directly relating to each specialist. This would mean that in a civil war scenario, the best thing to do would be to keep the armed forces happy. Because even if there was 60% civilian unhappiness, they would be near-powerless against the 96% happy military.

Also, terrorism. How would rebels create terror organisations?

@light: We definitely need to make sure that revolutions and civil wars are realistic but fair, unlike Rhye's of Mankind Mod tended to be.

Spoiler:

Hmmm... what if the army is miserable, but the people are happy as clams?

InvaderZim wrote:

Hmmm... what if the army is miserable, but the people are happy as clams?

Well.... how can that be? Unless the army is somewhat forced to do a lot of fighting...
Really, the people would give out to the government for letting their troops be unhappy.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Whichever populations share the most with the rebels will lose a certain percent of the members to the cause, depending on how close their ideals are.

Maybe we could have it directly correlate to the unhappiness of SCs. Say the unhappiness of the SC is 55%, then 55% of the population would join the rebels? This could then go even further, directly relating to each specialist. This would mean that in a civil war scenario, the best thing to do would be to keep the armed forces happy. Because even if there was 60% civilian unhappiness, they would be near-powerless against the 96% happy military.

Also, terrorism. How would rebels create terror organisations?

I think we'll have to read up more on sociology as the culture editor and Strat mode evolve. as for terrorism, those groups with extreme ideals want to bring attention to themslves to try and spread those ideals. They find the best way is to commit atrocities.

I don't want a big discussion on terrorism here, because we all know that will end in flames.

@Zim, YB: Unhappy army = defectors, deserters, revolts, revolutions

Basically, keep the troops happy.

@Scio: It's bordering on offensive that you think we can't have an intelligent discussion on terrorism without flaming, Scio. It's one game concept that we haven't talked about at all but is very important, especially in the modern age with anyone being able to use weapons (i mean the difference between the training needed to use a sword effectively and use a gun/bomb effectively).

Terrorism- groups of extremists of any beleif that choose to commit, as Scio said, atrocities to gain attention. It is possible to have an extremist faction choose other ways of promoting their beleifs- like the Jahova's Witnesses who are just so nice it's annoying as hell.