Fanatics/Partisans

June 13, 2000, 19:09

Fanatics -

Certain circumstances, such as strong religious beliefs or a totalitarian system of government, can "inspire" citizens or factions to nationalism that approaches maniacal fervor. Fanatical groups can often succeed in seemingly hopeless situations, fighting and defeating superior enemy forces. Often, fanatics pursue military and terrorist activity for years, even decades, before they can be caught or stopped. Their strength for both attack and defense comes from their willingness to fight for the ideals they believe in, and, if necessary, sacrifice their lives in the name of their cause.

Partisans -
Partisans are militant groups who pledge their support to a leader or a system of government. Partisans differ from fanatics in their methods. Whereas fanatics are usually radicals prone to use terrorist tactics, partisans are usually trained soldiers who practice the more organized tactics of guerrilla warfare. Partisan groups have existed at various times throughout history. Partisans were particularly active in the Nazi occupied countries of Europe during World War II, where their acts of sabotage against their conquerors often kept German troops busy quelling partisan uprisings while they should have been fighting on the front lines. Because of their unflagging dedication to their cause, partisans make formidable opponents.

I feel if you build (or assign a pop unit) to be Partisans or Fanatics, they should be independant units that can do as they please, and should they attack an enemy civ that you are not at war with, it will not cause the nation to declare war on you. It would be labeled a terrorist act. This way, after a city is captured, the partisans that "jump out" are not under your control, but if they take the city back, the city is under your control again. If you sign a cease fire though, (In Civ 2) the units must disband or go to the nearest city. This isn't right, the Partisans, cease fire or not, will attack the city to recapture their land! But this shouldn't affect your cease-fire if they fight to get the city back. if not, I would like to see a "terrorist" unit or ability for Fundamentalist governments in order to attack without having diplomatic consequences.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Par4 · June 13, 2000, 20:13

Fanatics should be independent. They can join your army but will turn on you too. New advances, religions, religious figures(random maybe?) could change stances of fanatics. I would also like to see a holy war option, call it a Jihad. I've recommended this before and it should give all units in your army that are of that religion a bonus in combat, maybe +25% damage. Also if the holy war is against a religion of which some of your army is in you will need to seperate people into specific units, just add a button. Seperating will not be good for others or if your civ is tolerant and doesn't like seperation of certain religious supporters. They could also desert. Fanatics don't need a holy war to be declared and can join your army anytime. If you start a war with a nation that is prodominately their religion they could desert or sabotage if MP isn't good enough. Bonus in attack and sabotage(weakening units and attack). Maybe only fanatics could be able to use kamikaze tactics, or suicide runs.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

June 13, 2000, 20:47

well I don't know how many Islamics turn on their own religious states, so I don't agree with what you said about units turning on you. But I'm glad you agree that they should be independant. And I agree about the Jihad. It might make combat a little more in depth, but I think it could be worth it if done right, Par.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Par4 · June 13, 2000, 23:21

They are always loyal to their religion if you go to war with a nation that is their religion they will turn on you unless you are too so if Japan is Islam but China has no national religion then the fanatics will turn on you to be with their religion, well maybe. Also if you aren't on their religion's list of good guys during a holy war they will turn on you, maybe. Only the fanatics though.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

UltraSonix · June 14, 2000, 02:24

The statements above then links in with whether civ should have a national religion or not. That was in another thread, I think.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

The Kaiser · June 14, 2000, 16:59

I think the old Privateer unit from Colonization almost fits your suggestions. You should be able to produce a unit which had the same undeclared war effect, as it did. If you over used them a rival would eventually get angry and declare war, or a least bring it up as a threat in negotiations.

Whether in Civ3 you would have any cargo to steal remains to be seen, because the trade system is going to be overhauled. Even if this is not to be, I still think there is a case to be made for including a Pirate ship unit of some kind. Apart from perhap's the modern age, they appear in one form or the other all through history.

Getting back to the main topic, the principles of a Privateer unit would spill over to land unit's i.e Partisan's or Fanatic's. Just like a Privateer, these would be nationally sponsered but only provoke an aggressive reply if used in a sustained campaign. Which in the real world would be after they've had time to figure out which Civ's supplying them with arm's & ammo etc.

June 14, 2000, 18:30

Is Colonization a game? I never played it. But that sounds like what I was going for. Thanks for the info. I also agree that if over used the other Civs should be able to declare war or make threats via diplomatic screen.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

UltraSonix · June 15, 2000, 00:50

Kaiser, the privateer idea is really good - and why not stop there? Maybe there should a real privateer unit?

And the privateer principle would apply really well to partisans because governments often covertly fund groups in other countries. In civ3 this could be represented by you building a unit (eg partisan), and being able to control it inside your borders, but as soon as it leaves your borders, it becomes semi-independent.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

June 15, 2000, 11:36

That's a great idea UltraSonix. I think being able to control them inside your borders and giving them independence outside your borders would be a great addition. BTW: Ignore my comment on your UnderGround RM thread. I hadn't read this one yet

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Quartz Dragon · June 15, 2000, 14:01

In Colonization the privateer would capture as much cargo as it could off of a ship it just deveated. How about a land version (aka bandit) that seises control of wagon trains or caravans (like SMAC's ability to capture alien artifacts).

June 15, 2000, 16:45

That sounds good, but should it affect your civ diplomaticly (e.g. cause war?) Maybe it could act like the Partisan in that you don't control it and it may or may not bring you money...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

Par4 · June 15, 2000, 18:43

I would like to see units prey on trade routes, especially important ones like maybe food or raw materials. Good policing or something should be needed. US marshalls!!

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

UltraSonix · June 16, 2000, 18:33

Having units prey on trade routes could be workable, but it must be implemented carefully so the gameplay doesn't get unbalanced. Perhaps then the idea could be linked to my idea on inside/outside borders (above) so that if you prey on caravans/etc inside your borders then you loose reputation. But if a privateer-like unit is working for you outside of your borders, then you get a chunk of the stolen goods, with no loss of reputation.

But I was also thinking that privateers could severly unbalance the game if they're left to roam free, so how about them requiring progressively more shields to support the further they are away from the nearest friendly town?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...