Unit revolt

Mihai · January 23, 2001, 19:29

If a city revolts, what if the units based on that city will have a chance to revolt too?

DarkCloud · January 23, 2001, 21:16

If they do not revolt along with the city they should be displaced from the city like partisians.

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · January 24, 2001, 18:10

I agree with DC. I posted a thread on this subject a while back, check it out; Riots and Revolutions.

orange · January 25, 2001, 23:28

I actually feel that they should revolt as well, as Civ 2 has shown us. I mean, history has taught us that countries can split, and the armed forces often goes with it. The American Civil war is a great example...and if a country is that prone to revolt, it is because they want to retain their heritage/cultural identity. So I think that if a city/cities revolt or cause Civil war, the armed forces should go with it. The only problem I see with this is when Nukes are involved. I mean...you can't just have some upstart nation with a nuke. So maybe all nukes disappear.

The other problem is if you concentrate most of your military in that/those city/cities. Well...the home origin of that/those units should affect whether or not they go along with the revolt, or resist it.

------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr"

Mihai · January 26, 2001, 17:15

My mistake, I didn't explain it right.
What I want to say : If a city revolt, but not rebel, units that have that city as home origin should have a chance to rebel and became barbarian unit with the only agenda - pillaging. And that for all the units, not just those garnisoned in the city.

Diablo, I didn't manage to find that thread. Could you give me a link?

Orange - IMO if the city rebel and split ALL his units should come with it (anywhere they are). I don't have any idea at the moment about nukes.

January 26, 2001, 20:42

Humm, units which are based from a revolting (and I don't mean vile

) city having a chance of becoming barbarians... That is an intriguing concept. It would definately but a twist on the game.

Cannes · January 26, 2001, 22:07

This concept seems a little odd to me. I mean city revolts in civ is like the riots in L.A. a few years ago, right? I didn't hear about the L.A.P.d running around trashing farms, shops and factories. A city revolt is the citizens showing their dismay at the regime and it's way of handeling it's people. The military and police almost always side with the government in these isues. If they don't, however, then it's called rebellion, not revolt. This I believe is all covered in all the previous civ games. Maybe I misunderstood your concept...

Mihai · January 31, 2001, 17:49

Good point, Cannes!
When I came with the idea, I wasn't thinking at modern days. Perhaps only until 1800 (Frech Revolution)?

Cyclotron · January 31, 2001, 20:53

In addition, guys, it is possible that instead of military units fleeing a city, the opposite happens. In the siege of Boston, 1775 (American Revolution) discontented and armed citizens fled the city (or arrived from nearby cities) and laid siege to Boston, for the British troops were too powerful to be the ones displaced. Perhaps when a city revolts, instead of automatically becoming barbarian or whatever, the city is instantaneously surrounded with partisan units (or their time equivalent) that attempt to wrest the city from the still-loyal military forces. If they got the city, it would become independent and the city would begin developing itself (with defense as the foremost concern). Th partisans not defending the city would randomly pillage neighboring cities.

Pythagoras · January 31, 2001, 21:25

Well I kinda like how the morale is done in Age of Wonders, perhaps instead of race relations and pay having to do with it it could instead be a function of:

1 - Whether that unit was bribed, hence it working only for money...
2 - Its hit points
3 - Its pay status
4 - Its current strategic situation?
5 - The discontention of the units home city
anything else?

Cyclotron · February 1, 2001, 01:30

Pay status seems a little more in depth than most people probably want to go, but I think for the most part you are right on (that bit on bribing would help decrease the all-powerful spy's bribing feature).

AzNtoccata · February 2, 2001, 02:49

How about having to pay money + food to military units? And if the units experience is low and not enough pay, they turn into barbs and start looting and doing crazy stuff. If it is in city then city has increase chance of revolting

Krippled · February 6, 2001, 19:24

Ok. I reckon - yes military should be paid upkeep. If the military morale is low, then the units could go AWOL (disappear) or perhaps surrender/join any nearby enemy units.

Cities that have had civil problems (ie. drone riot) for long enough should either go a) independent (depose your rule on them), or welcome another leader (change to your enemy's control). This would add an interesting aspect of making sure that you keep your morale up, and that your opponents don't look to be "too good". Perhaps a propoganda device that raises morale? To recapture the city you must conquer it.