Guerillas popping out Civ2 style

Ancyrean · February 13, 2003, 17:12

My apologies if this is an already discussed idea

I wonder if, as a logical consequence of resisting citizens, guerillas should pop out when you enter the city of an enemy civ/an enemy civ enters one of yours, a la civ2?

Say, the number of guerillas that pop out will be 1/2 or 1/3 the number of resisters (let's call this number X). To put more relevance to the regard of one nation of the other, maybe X should be further multiplied by, say, 0.2 for 'the defenders admire the culture of attackers' to 1.2 for 'defenders dismiss the culture of attackers'....I totally made up the numbers...

I maybe wouldnt like to see those extra troublemaker guerillas myself in the middle of a war, but does it make sense to have a city resisting so strongly to invading troops and this has no military consequences? Apart from the ultra-drastic culture flipping?

To add more spice, how about a random chance of a number of guerillas popping out after resistance ends in a city but the culture you fight against still holds you rather in low regard? I wonder how this would affect the game balance....

Sure, culture flipping is debated extensively but I dont know if guerillas were put in context...

PLATO · February 13, 2003, 23:37

There are military consequences in the fact that units must be tied down to quell the resisting population. Remember, the cities military has been destroyed...these are civilians tying down military units by resisting with their bare hands!

Once the resistance is put down and the conquering Civ moves units from the city, I can then see a guerilla unit being formed by the captured population, or in today's environment possibly a terrorist unit.

Would make an interesting complication to occupation though.

Ancyrean · February 14, 2003, 05:04

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Once the resistance is put down and the conquering Civ moves units from the city, I can then see a guerilla unit being formed by the captured population, or in today's environment possibly a terrorist unit.

That's what I mean, Plato1003

I cant imagine people shrgugging off and go about their own business after the initial 'resistance' is put down, and NEVER make an effort to change things, especially if they despise the culture of the invader...Just imagine Taliban occupying NY...Would people just go on producing those shields and trade revenues once the initial 'resistance' is over?? Hell no

My guess is it would be 'where's my gun, I've got some Talibutt to kick' party

Maybe at least the 'culturally superior' city should tie up more than that one rifleman you leave behind to watch things inside town...I wonder how should the mathematical formula for this be though...

ivujosev · February 14, 2003, 07:43

True but don't forget that there are many types of war. Some invaders are not resisted, and even welcomed initially. I'm not going to list examples here, after reading the 'Salonica' thread I don't want anyone to say 'not true my country did resist so and so'... Well thats true some people would probably resist no matter what but its the majority that should be taken into account in a model such as Civ3.

My point is that not every conquest of a city should produce resistors.

In Civ3 this could be modelled as follows:

When you capture a city any Happy people would turn to Resistors. Content stay content. Unhappy turn to Content or maybe even Happy. This would have to wear off after a few turns to go in line with other mood effects. i.e. city improvements.

Ancyrean · February 14, 2003, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by ivujosev

My point is that not every conquest of a city should produce resistors.

In Civ3 this could be modelled as follows:

When you capture a city any Happy people would turn to Resistors. Content stay content. Unhappy turn to Content or maybe even Happy. This would have to wear off after a few turns to go in line with other mood effects. i.e. city improvements.

Good idea, ivujosev. My point in this thread is probably complementary to your suggesion above.

I'm trying to figure out if the concept of cultures despising or admiring oneanother should factor in. That would, for example, translate into something like "the more a culture dismisses the invaders, to more the likelihood of guerillas popping out". If they already admire us, not only the number of resisters would be low, but also the likelihood of a guerilla pop-out will be lower (during the pacifisation of a city AND after).

This can even happen even when a culture is eliminated. In this setting, even if you wipe out the Babylonians you are still not sure if the general resentment and despise of the conquered babylonians will produce "instability" in the newly conquered lands. Of course, as you suggest, as more and more culture improvements are built in the cities, resentment will lessen over time and acceptance of you increase...

PLATO · February 14, 2003, 12:35

Quote:

This can even happen even when a culture is eliminated. In this setting, even if you wipe out the Babylonians you are still not sure if the general resentment and despise of the conquered babylonians will produce "instability" in the newly conquered lands. Of course, as you suggest, as more and more culture improvements are built in the cities, resentment will lessen over time and acceptance of you increase...

Excellent idea! Perhaps even some new encampments (similar to barbarian encampments) appearing near remote cities with a small military presence by the conquering Civ. A good real world example would be the Kurds in Norteastern Iraq

Quote:

Maybe at least the 'culturally superior' city should tie up more than that one rifleman you leave behind to watch things inside town

I agree with this also. If you leave to small a garrison, resistance should crop up again. A gureilla appearing here is not an unrealistic idea at all. Perhaps even a "resistance unit" that attacks city improvements of terrain improvements ( ex: the French resistance in WWII).

Quote:

When you capture a city any Happy people would turn to Resistors. Content stay content. Unhappy turn to Content or maybe even Happy. This would have to wear off after a few turns to go in line with other mood effects. i.e. city improvements.

This is a good idea. If a culture admires your culture their should be more unhappy faces appearing in their city as you armies approach and the population anticipates a transition to the better culture.

Additionally, I feel that the type of improvements you make should lessen or increase not only the discontent, but resistance and liklihood of gurilla appearing as well. i.e. temples, cathedrals, libraries, etc = less resistance; arms manufacture = more resistance.

Azeem · February 14, 2003, 13:25

Lots of good ideas you have here.

I like the idea of happy citizens of a city being conquered become unhappy when their city is conquered by an enemy civ and. Makes a lot more sense.

Too bad Firaxis may never implement these.

PLATO · February 14, 2003, 13:32

Quote:

Too bad Firaxis may never implement these.

Therein lies the true problem

Ancyrean · February 14, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Additionally, I feel that the type of improvements you make should lessen or increase not only the discontent, but resistance and liklihood of gurilla appearing as well. i.e. temples, cathedrals, libraries, etc = less resistance; arms manufacture = more resistance.

Another good idea...The editor is too primitive for the level of conversation we have here, I guess

I wonder how would the warmonger guys react to the happy-citizens-into-unhappy-ones-and-guerillas idea we came up with here...Would this encourage more and more razings?

If the raction is a predictable "I dont care, I'm gonna raze it all anyway", then why not, for example, make this razing act produce an automatic pop out of some numbers of guerillas immediately around the razed town, plus an increased factor of likely guerilla activity in future occupied towns?

Master Zen · February 14, 2003, 17:37

And make conquest even MORE burdensome???

Who knows, they are very good ideas!

PLATO · February 15, 2003, 03:21

Quote:

And make conquest even MORE burdensome???

Conquering another nation may be the single most difficult human endeavor. To ensure that it would go smoothly, you would need to leave a reasonable garrison and build to please the people. This being said, nationalism of the conquered country should still produce some tendency to resistance. (If a culture has not researched Nationalism then this tendency should be much less or non existent)

Quote:

Would this encourage more and more razings?

To make razing a less attractive option, you could make all happy and possibly all content citizens into gurilla units. (This could be a special Resistance guerilla that gets extra defensive bonus operating within its city's old cultural influence to reflect their familiarity with the area and support of the rural population((One would assume that their is some sort of rural population...We could make another whole thread on that discussion though!!))) Additionally, the prospect of being enslaved versus assimilated should cause an increased defensive bonus for all of the remaining units of the civ that just lost the city. The conqueror that provides a superior culture and builds to the will of the people should see less of defense put up by these units. Again nationalism should have some impact on these units defensive capabilities in eithier event.

Ancyrean · February 15, 2003, 06:10

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

To make razing a less attractive option, you could make all happy and possibly all content citizens into gurilla units. (This could be a special Resistance guerilla that gets extra defensive bonus operating within its city's old cultural influence to reflect their familiarity with the area and support of the rural population((One would assume that their is some sort of rural population...We could make another whole thread on that discussion though!!)))

That would be a consistent approach to the underlying logic we are discussing here

. Therefore, you would think more than twice to raze Babylon with its pop 20, lest that you do not face, umm, 19 guerillas all over your invading army!

Additionally, about the 6/6/1 value of guerilla, I was also thinking whether those statistics are relevant in the era of MI or MA. Too high a value (like 9/9/1) would make many conquests a Deity challenge, as Master Zen points to. Maybe 6/7/1 as you imply, Plato1003, or even 7/7/1. Thinking on this, I also tend to agree with the 'Special Resistance Guerilla' distinction you make above, as different from the ordinary guerilla that you can build under normal conditions. The ability to build a 7/7/1 guerilla sounds like it may have an adverse effect on the overall game balance.

Master Zen · February 15, 2003, 14:01

I think the major problem with conquest in Civ is that it is too black and white, you either "conquer" the territory or you don't. There should be some intermediate options like "occupy" or "colonize".

"Occupy" would, for example, give you control of the city, much less resistance, but may not build military units and the city goes back to its owner when the war ends (and no military units to the owner for the next 20 turns). Culture is maintained

"Colonize" would be like a joint occupation, all culture is maintained, you may use the city in all its functions. Resistance is minimal, however there is the posibility that if there is much unhappiness then a city or many may revolt (i.e. return to its previous owner).

"Conquer" would remain as it is, yet resistance should be greater as to discourage this type. Resistance should be proportionatly less the closer the conquered city is to your own (so conquering a neighbouring city is nowhere near as bad as conquering a city halfway around the world)

Ancyrean · February 16, 2003, 07:51

Good point, Master Zen. When a country occupies someplace else, it doesnt immediatley become an integral part of that country. In some cases, it does so, like Hawaii and Alaska, in some cases the statuses of the place remains less, like Puerto Rico, or Guam. The same was true for Napoleon, he incorporated some of his conquests outright into France, left others as 'protectorates', and remained in an occupying position in yet more others.

Therefore it makes sense to have the option, say, in the right click menu over a newly occupied city, to 'administer as colony', or 'annex the city', or failing both, leave the default situation of the city as militarily occupied. I'm sure history is full of similar examples that I cant recount here.

Taking all of these into consideration, with different pluses and minuses as you suggest, would make conquest more than an effort to pile up 100 cavalry or tanks and bring them over to a battlefield

PLATO · February 18, 2003, 19:26

Quote:

Good point, Master Zen. When a country occupies someplace else, it doesnt immediatley become an integral part of that country. In some cases, it does so, like Hawaii and Alaska, in some cases the statuses of the place remains less, like Puerto Rico, or Guam.

Hawaii and Alaska were fairly sparsley populated and both isolated. Neither had developed a culture near the level of the "conquering" country.

Puerto Rico was much more established with a strong cultural history of its own. (Don't know about Guam).

Perhaps, the distance to the core cities and the population size should figure into how you should be able to administer a captured city:

Low pop and distance to core = "Conquer"

Low pop and close to core = "Colonize"

Large pop and distant to core = "Colonize" w/resistance

Large pop and close to core = "Occupy"

Interesting thoughts...

Azeem · February 18, 2003, 20:07

PLATO1003, I'm from Guam myself.

Guam is very much "Americanized", though some of the old culture is being revived, but there still is a bit of distrust for the American government (thus the calls for Guam to become a "commonwealth", making it more politically independent from the US). As far as the US mainland is concerned, Guam is merely a base for the Air Force and Navy (actually, the Navy pulled out a while ago, but the island still serves as a refueling and resupply station).

Mad Bomber · February 19, 2003, 09:49

Master Zen:

Good ideas but you must add one option. A CIV should be able to "Liberate " a city for an Ally. This is by far the biggest drawback of the CIV model of conquest. Any time that you capture a city that once belonged to an ally (and never belonged to your civ) you should be forced to give it to the ally or cause a break in the alliance. Of course you can voluntarily gift it now but that's not quite the same.

PLATO · February 19, 2003, 10:48

Azeem: Kinda felt that was the way it is but wasn't sure enough to post it. Any good beaches?

Mad Bomber: This is a point I have often wondered about. How could this not create ill will with an allied civ?? Of course, their may be times you want to create ill will or the city is of great strategic importance so you may want to keep it anyway. Should be an option though. Allied Civ should then have option of breaking alliance or just dealing with it.

Jahi · February 21, 2003, 18:53

Mad Bomber:

i feel that civ3 was a step back in a few ways from SMAC.. there if you had a total alliance with someone you could put troops in their cities and if you re conquered on allies city from a hostile force your ally got it back and not you..

it was really cool the way they did that.

QuickGold · March 27, 2003, 10:49

While on the topic of guerillas, wouldn't it be nice if guerilla units could act like privateer units, in that they could cross borders and cause trouble in other countries? Or at least have the ability to "sponsor" guerillas in other countries?

Reinhard-Baer · March 27, 2003, 12:53

Yup the guerrilla option would be a good one. This way my army will have something to do after they conquered a city. Hunting guerrillas down the country wohooo

Willem · March 28, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by QuickGold
While on the topic of guerillas, wouldn't it be nice if guerilla units could act like privateer units, in that they could cross borders and cause trouble in other countries? Or at least have the ability to "sponsor" guerillas in other countries?

You can do that yourself if you like. Just give them the Hidden Nationality ability in the editor.

Ancyrean · March 31, 2003, 08:40

Quote:

Originally posted by QuickGold
While on the topic of guerillas, wouldn't it be nice if guerilla units could act like privateer units, in that they could cross borders and cause trouble in other countries? Or at least have the ability to "sponsor" guerillas in other countries?

Intriguing idea, QuickGold. That sounds like being able to launch "proxy wars". Of course, in that case guerillas shouldn't show their nationality so that their activities won't trigger an open war

.

In fact, this can cause a fundamental change on the way you wage war and on how much you care about "homeland security"

.

QuickGold · March 31, 2003, 11:24

Someone in another thread pointed out that guerillas with hidden nationality would lead to tons of units being pumped out by stupid AI so...

Going back to the "sponsoring" idea, I think it'd be nice to have an option, similiar to the diplomat or spy menu, where you can pick a country, and give either chunks of change or a certain amount of gold per turn to train and recruit guerilla forces. The more $$ you give, the better the guerillas are. Guerillas would then spring up in newly conquered areas or just sparsly populated colonies the select country would have.

This could then perhaps lead to something along the lines of what happened in Civ2 when you took over an enemy capital and the nation split. Just a thought.

Willem · March 31, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by QuickGold
Someone in another thread pointed out that guerillas with hidden nationality would lead to tons of units being pumped out by stupid AI so...

That's not necessarily the case. I've discovered that the AI has an "eye for an eye" approach when it comes to hidden nationality units; the more you use them to harrass it's borders etc., the more of them it will produce to use against you. If you use them sparingly though, it will favour regular troops.

Besides, what's wrong with having a horde of them breathing down your neck during peactime, it will keep you on your toes.

PLATO · April 1, 2003, 18:03

Instead of Hidden Nationality for Guerillas, I would rather see a new unit for these peace time adventures. The "terrorist" unit. Give it a 7/1/3 value and have hidden nationality. The rapid movement would necessitate keeping a watchful eye out for them. Additionally, they should be able to attack city improvements or production as well as troops and terrain improvements.