Better RoM

[konradcabral]

But I think Afforess' point was more that those efforts' success rate is near nil.

I get it, my reply was a little strong... But maybe wouldn't be so difficult, dude!

 

[Afforess]

I strongly disagree here. We have a separatist movement happening now in Belgium. Scotland would love to be separated from UK, if I'm not wrong. It's not armed revolution attempts, but it's revolutions still.

And Colombia isn't medieval at all, and they have militarily strong Narc Guerrillas, who have political motivations too. And they have AK-47s and smartphones (which I haven't).

Certain people in Scotland, usually the ones with the biggest traps, want to separate from their alleged arch-enemy. This being the UK, most people couldn't care and don't want to make a fuss anyway.

And don't forget the IRA, the Free Quebec movement, and here in the US you'll still hear folks talk about the South rising again, though they don't tend to plan on it. Outside Texas, anyway. And Hawaii. And Alaska, I hear. But I think Afforess' point was more that those efforts' success rate is near nil. Assuming the central government doesn't foul things up to the point of ending our 1st world status.

Thanks Cyrusfan, spot on!

 

[Killtech]

Firstly Happiness and revolutionary sentiment are 2 completely different things in revolutions and are not to be confused as the same thing, this is stated within revolutions and often comes up on the hints during the loading screen. Citizens willing to take up arms are always there an are merely waiting for the right conditions to take action. Whereas Unhappy citizens are the ones who will go on strike or protest against the government.

No, sir i have to disagree. most revolutions rised unforseen form massive strikes: french revolution started with many hunger strikes, the fall of communism in many east block states ariesed form worker strikes and movement. and so i think it's a very valid point: revolution sentiment should directly reflect in the peoples happieness. i think revolution sentiment should even only rise or fall depending on the happyness-unhappyness value! thus small cities would not pose much difficulties while large conquered metropolis will by hard to peacify.

It's not a flaw. As a I said earlier, Revolutions is a representation of reality. Reality is, there are very few (none basically) Revolutions that occur in 1st world countries. 3rd world countries are a different story, but most third world countries are in the equivalent of the medieval era.

ok, so let's assume - in a very Civ game thinking - the USA would spontainously decalre war to Saudi Arabia to conquer Mekka because there's some Oil around the city and it's a religous capital. then the USA would try to intergrate it into the american state after Saudi Arabia became a Vasal...
i think there is no conquest policy in our modern time because through mass media among others the revolutions effects are too high to even think of it. revolutions effects should become excessive after discovery of Nationalism if we want to simulate realtiy, IMHO. not sure we want that though.

 

[konradcabral]

Thanks Cyrusfan, spot on!

I think this topic (late revs) deserves a little more discussion before we bury it. Maybe simulating a little more non-acceptable separatist requests by minorities, maybe creating terrorism-related revs like the IRA.

No, sir i have to disagree. most revolutions rised unforseen form massive strikes: french revolution started with many hunger strikes, the fall of communism in many east block states ariesed form worker strikes and movement. and so i think it's a very valid point: revolution sentiment should directly reflect in the peoples happieness. i think revolution sentiment should even only rise or fall depending on the happyness-unhappyness value! thus small cities would not pose much difficulties while large conquered metropolis will by hard to peacify.

But unhappiness already is a factor on Revolutions mod. If we should to rise its weight is another discussion.

 

[Retrospect]

No, sir i have to disagree. most revolutions rised unforseen form massive strikes: french revolution started with many hunger strikes, the fall of communism in many east block states ariesed form worker strikes and movement. and so i think it's a very valid point: revolution sentiment should directly reflect in the peoples happieness. i think revolution sentiment should even only rise or fall depending on the happyness-unhappyness value! thus small cities would not pose much difficulties while large conquered metropolis will by hard to peacify.

Without getting into an argument about this. Firstly I made no reference to real life on this point. I merely stated what is written in the Revolutions mod.

Secondly you have stated exactly what I said. Revolutionaries on most occasions are already there just waiting for the right circumstances to act. Like worker strikes, hunger strikes. The revolutionaries are the ones who have plotted the downfall of the government long before those strikes took place. When the time comes to act they will take up arms against the government and sometimes the striker/protesters will become involved. I'm not saying that revolutions never happen spontainiously i'm saying that 9/10 there is more to it than just pissed off workers.

Military coups are another example. A general wont just suddenly decide to order his army against the state because he isn't getting paid enough. It will be planned long in advance putting people he trusts in the right places ready for when the time is right. Perhaps when there are worker/hunger strikes.

So I say again unhappy citizens are not to be confused with revolutionary sentiment. They are a factor yes but not the whole sum.

 

[Retrospect]

I strongly disagree here. We have a separatist movement happening now in Belgium. Scotland would love to be separated from UK, if I'm not wrong. It's not armed revolution attempts, but it's revolutions still.

And Colombia isn't medieval at all, and they have militarily strong Narc Guerrillas, who have political motivations too. And they have AK-47s and smartphones (which I haven't).

I have to agree with this. I would say that conquring new lands in present times is not really possible anymore due to this fact. In past times rebelious populations would be treat harshly to attempt to stop uprisings but in modern time this is no longer possibe (for thos countries who adhere to the geneva convention). As such where ever there is an invader, it will always be met with harsh resistance long after the invasion. I dont want to mention any countries that are experiencing this at the moment as I dont want this to become a political debate but i'm sure you can see the evidence for yourselves.

As for Scotland and the UK. This is indeed happening and has been in the pipeline for a long time (to reinforce further my last post) I beleive its called devolution. Where the British empire has 'colapsed'. Scotland is almost at the very end of a long list of colonies and countries that have broken away. India is a good example, there was once extensive british holdings there but after the financial doom of word war two britain could no longer afford to keep those holdings and any military action to try and do so would have failed. As a result Britain handed back peacfully while at the same time keeping good relations.

 

[Killtech]

Without getting into an argument about this. Firstly I made no reference to real life on this point. I merely stated what is written in the Revolutions mod.

Secondly you have stated exactly what I said. Revolutionaries on most occasions are already there just waiting for the right circumstances to act. Like worker strikes, hunger strikes. The revolutionaries are the ones who have plotted the downfall of the government long before those strikes took place. When the time comes to act they will take up arms against the government and sometimes the striker/protesters will become involved. I'm not saying that revolutions never happen spontainiously i'm saying that 9/10 there is more to it than just pissed off workers.

Military coups are another example. A general wont just suddenly decide to order his army against the state because he isn't getting paid enough. It will be planned long in advance putting people he trusts in the right places ready for when the time is right. Perhaps when there are worker/hunger strikes.

So I say again unhappy citizens are not to be confused with revolutionary sentiment. They are a factor yes but not the whole sum.

i really disagree. a very happy population will never think of a revolution. why risk your life if you are already happy with the staus quo? in case of a putch a content population will be probably more people backing the government than fighting it. but if you occupy a city in Civ the population isn't very unhappy about this. they seem even more happy in my empire then before and yet they'll rebel??

and no, except for the october revolution most revolutions were not planned. and ususally there were not just workers pisssed off from the sitaution. political coups again a very differnt factor that indeed is independent from the population. but these do happen in the capintal and not very very far away from it: national Revoulution, ok it's not happiness related; but local stability is all happiness related!

 

[Retrospect]

i really disagree. a very happy population will never think of a revolution. why risk your life if you are already happy with the staus quo? in case of a putch a content population will be probably more people backing the government than fighting it. but if you occupy a city in Civ the population isn't very unhappy about this. they seem even more happy in my empire then before and yet they'll rebel??

and no, except for the october revolution most revolutions were not planned. and ususally there were not just workers pisssed off from the sitaution. political coups again a very differnt factor that indeed is independent from the population. but these do happen in the capintal and not very very far away from it: national Revoulution, ok it's not happiness related; but local stability is all happiness related!

Well i'm afraid we will have to agree to disagree. I will however say that I think you have missed my point entirely. I do not believe for one second that say the french revolutionaries for example. Did not plot the downfall of the government for a long time. Waitinng in the background for years, occasionally speaking out to the general public about how harsh the aristocracy treats them, causing maybe one unhappiness face. That they never sowed the seeds of discontent kick starting the riots and civil unrest that was to become the full blown revolution.

My point is that revolutions do not just suddenly happen over night. They are arranged and plotted over time by the hardcore revolutionaries who have their own agendas against the present rulers. The civil unrest is just the catalyst to throw the country/city/area into anarchy so that the revolution can take place. There is always someone who dislikes how things are run and willing to take action no matter how happy the general population is. Those people will never act untill the time is right and there are enough of them. While those unhappy faces you see are people who are paying too much taxes, or dont like the immigration laws or whatever. These people will unlikely ever take up arms against the government about these issues. But when they strike about it out come the revolutionaries from the woodwork to sow more seeds of discontent. They dont necessarily care about what the strike is about, all they want is to see the overthrow of the government. So while the strike could be the start of the revoltion they are not really what the revoltion is about.

 

[Retrospect]

Sorry to keep posting but I feel very strongly about this.

Another example is the miners strikes that occured in britain during the 80s. The miners had a very strong workers union and the government didnt like the fact that they had to keep the miners 'sweet' all the time or they would strike more or less bringing the country to its knees (no coal = no electricity). This eventually came to a head in the strikes where there was violence and poverty. Those miners hated the governement and what they did to them but I guarentee that not one of them had any idea how to actually overthrow the governent. All they cared about was putting food on the table. I will also guarentee that there will have been other parties involved working in the sidelines to sow as much seeds of discontent as possible those few who want to see radical change but are not directly related to the strikes.

As it happens the miners lost and order was restored, but who knows what could have happened.

 

[Killtech]

Ok, i don't disagree on that there are people who utilize the unhappines in the population for their own purposes. although you overrate the these 'professional' revolutionaries. in the end an electrician - a simple worker - became Polish president after the fall of communism. the solidarnosc movement and revolution in Poland was mostly composed workers. but this is not the point here.

what annoys me is that there can hardly be any kind of rebellion agains a government if the population is totally content with the situation. realistically the only thing that could happen in such a case is terrorizm of a rebel faction. but although terrorizm might be annoying it woun't do much more damage than destroy some buildings and kill several people. politically it woun't do anything except cost (comparably little) money. but certainly no revolution and no rise of a new Civ!

lol, i just imagined the 'red army faction' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction) civilization arising form the Germany republic in 1970 and military overtaking berlin. a hilarious idea. especially because they had near to no backing form the population.

 

[Retrospect]

Ok, i don't disagree on that there are people who utilize the unhappines in the population for their own purposes. although you overrate the these 'professional' revolutionaries. in the end an electrician - a simple worker - became Polish president after the fall of communism. the solidarnosc movement and revolution in Poland was mostly composed workers. but this is not the point here.

what annoys me is that there can hardly be any kind of rebellion agains a government if the population is totally content with the situation. realistically the only thing that could happen in such a case is terrorizm of a rebel faction. but although terrorizm might be annoying it woun't do much more damage than destroy some buildings and kill several people. politically it woun't do anything except cost (comparably little) money. but certainly no revolution and no rise of a new Civ!

lol, i just imagined the 'red army faction' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction) civilization arising form the Germany republic in 1970 and military overtaking berlin. a hilarious idea. especially because they had near to no backing form the population.

I do understand that if there was 100% happiness in a population that there would be no one willing to revolt but i'm sure that you can see that 100% happiness is impossible. Our little disagreement proves that as although we both love civ and to make our similarities even closer we both love ROM, we still cannot come to an agreement on one small aspect of it. Hence you cant please everyone all of the time.

The 'proffessional' revolutionairies that you 'play down' are more real and powerful in this world I think than you realise. Some are just anarchists, some are political movements, some are paramilitary, some are powermongers and some are fanatics. All of which are ever present in any society albeit with varying goals, strength and ideology.

I wont comment further on this as I think I have said all that I need to without repeating myself or making it look like i'm preaching.

Killtech - 0
Retrospect - 0

Match result = Draw

 

[Killtech]

Well, ok but this doen't help us on Revolutions mod. i just want to point out that this mod should much more reflect on the populations happines than it does now.

to summerize: revolutions usually have something to do with some people beeing unhappy. this is not the case in Revolutions right now. and all i want is that with Revolutions option on conquered cities should become unhappy about being under foreign rule with a bit visible rebellious spirit - like unhappy populations with some people denying allegiance and thus not working.

hmm and then an idea for a new feature comes into my mind: even if there's more than you should be able to enfore order (no not working citizen) if you have say 3 military units per striking citizen stationed in the city.

The 'proffessional' revolutionairies that you 'play down' are more real and powerful in this world I think than you realise. Some are just anarchists, some are political movements, some are paramilitary, some are powermongers and some are fanatics. All of which are ever present in any society albeit with varying goals, strength and ideology.

well i thing that i just count most of them into the 'discontent' people category. i mean a socienty usually does not only consist of workers. furthermore i understand that an unhappy aristocrat counts much more than an unhappy worker. so only high ranked individuals in government, military or foreign agents are the only factors i woud not count into the population and therefore not see represented by the city happiness. so you see my understanding of the term revolutionaries is just much tighter.

 

[civ_king]

I would like to propose that if happiness exceeds unhappy by 5+ and no starvation/unhealthy then Revolution can't happen, because there would be no catalyst

EDIT: also: even if there's more :happy: than :unhappy: you should be able to enfore order (no not working citizen) if you have say 3 military units per striking citizen stationed in the city.

 

[konradcabral]

I think this topic (late revs) deserves a little more discussion before we bury it. Maybe simulating a little more non-acceptable separatist requests by minorities, maybe creating terrorism-related revs like the IRA.

Your looping discussion made you forgot to answer my post.

But unhappiness already is a factor on Revolutions mod. If we should to rise its weight is another discussion.

@killtech, what you trying to say is that we should rise the importance of unhappiness in rev calculations, isn't that so? This is customizable in *.ini, I think.

 

[Killtech]

I think this topic (late revs) deserves a little more discussion before we bury it. Maybe simulating a little more non-acceptable separatist requests by minorities, maybe creating terrorism-related revs like the IRA.

Your looping discussion made you forgot to answer my post.

nope. i've stated my position:

ok, so let's assume - in a very Civ game thinking - the USA would spontainously decalre war to Saudi Arabia to conquer Mekka because there's some Oil around the city and it's a religous capital. then the USA would try to intergrate it into the american state after Saudi Arabia became a Vasal...
i think there is no conquest policy in our modern time because through mass media among others the revolutions effects are too high to even think of it. revolutions effects should become excessive after discovery of Nationalism if we want to simulate realtiy, IMHO. not sure we want that though.

you see, my point is that our conquest policy in Civ in modern times is far beyond what the real world has ever expirienced! if my example happend in reality there would not be some childish IRA terrorizm but a full scale bloody war... like in afaghanistan when the scoiets tried to take it over or the US in vietnam. rebellious sentiment should really become an increasing problem with times passing.

 

[Afforess]

No, sir i have to disagree. most revolutions rised unforseen form massive strikes: french revolution started with many hunger strikes, the fall of communism in many east block states ariesed form worker strikes and movement. and so i think it's a very valid point: revolution sentiment should directly reflect in the peoples happieness. i think revolution sentiment should even only rise or fall depending on the happyness-unhappyness value! thus small cities would not pose much difficulties while large conquered metropolis will by hard to peacify.

Starvation is a big factor in Revolutions. If your people are starving, the chance of revolution goes straight through the roof. In which case, revolutions does a fantastic job with Starvation.

i really disagree. a very happy population will never think of a revolution. why risk your life if you are already happy with the staus quo? in case of a putch a content population will be probably more people backing the government than fighting it. but if you occupy a city in Civ the population isn't very unhappy about this. they seem even more happy in my empire then before and yet they'll rebel??

You're wrong. The reason is that you can't please everyone. Even the best presidents had dissenters. There is always a chance of revolution, even with extreme happiness.

 

[Cyrusfan]

Doesn't Revolutions already have an effect in conquest? "Foreign" population (of recently captured cities gets upset when you're (still) at war with their original civ. Which increases unhappiness, which then influneces local instability. And when you capture a city, the period of unrest really piles on the instability. Enough so that I tend to need to throw around the bribes for a while. Maybe it'd be better if such cities produced some kind of partisans (like in Civ 2) for their former civ more frequently than the open revolt which produces a new civ?

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

I think this topic (late revs) deserves a little more discussion before we bury it. Maybe simulating a little more non-acceptable separatist requests by minorities, maybe creating terrorism-related revs like the IRA.

Like in the White Lies, Black Ops mod? The only problem I had with that mod was getting a world wide terrorist group happening before anyone had found out that there was a world .

 

[Killtech]

Doesn't Revolutions already have an effect in conquest? "Foreign" population (of recently captured cities gets upset when you're (still) at war with their original civ. Which increases unhappiness, [...]

Yes, but this effect is neglectible. the population will never become unhappy about living under occupation. IMO after the invention of nationalism the unhappiness in conquered territory should really become a factor.

You're wrong. The reason is that you can't please everyone. [...]

yeah, and those i cannot please are the unhappy people i guess. problem is i never even got close having a single unhappy citizen. that's why i pledge there should be some discontent.

[...] Even the best presidents had dissenters. There is always a chance of revolution, even with extreme happiness.

on national level, yeah. this can result in a putch. and for this we have national stability. but on local level? and despite what's the senes in making an uprising against a government if you don't even have the support of the poeple?? a small group of extremist against my government and the population - so just agains everyone.

or let me put is a bit different: revolutions mod seems consist only of such political coups of neglectible minorities (small enough not to be noted on the city happiness). from where these rebels recruit such large armies remains a mistery, since it can't possibly be the population which is always content. this mod gives the impression the normal population has entirely no part in any uprasining or revolution.

 

[Pongu]

From Canadian perspective, I agree that distance to capital should be nerfed.

Distance to capital Ottawa:
-Montreal, Quebec 165km; strong separatist movement.
-Vancouver, British Columbia 3,538km; zero separatist movement.

And for sure the Canadian player would have to bribe that 2nd oldest city right beside the 1st city palace, or give in to its demands... this is roughly what's happening now.



Quebec separatists are basically happy too. They're not griping about local conditions or poor quality of life. Rather they feel powerful and capable of running their own nation. I think to make this work in Revolutions one would have to calculate a city's self-sufficiency. If it doesn't depend on the empire for resources (or trade access) wonder bonuses, military protection, etc. then it will seek autonomy.



Revolutions is pretty frustrating to island starts or where the "natural" expansion crosses ocean.