Resistance

[Roundman]

The current events in the occupation of Iraq bring to light an element that should be included in Civ 3: violent resistance. The current system of resistance is a good start, but I feel that it doesn't entirely reflect the nature of a violent resistance. I think that all units occupying a city in resistance should be vulnerable to taking damage from the resistors. The more resistors, the more likely a unit is to be damaged or destroyed. If the resistors destroys enough of you units that they could overwhelm the rest, then the city flips back to its original owner.

This could be tied in with the idea of cultural reversion, as cities most likely to flip back to their original civ would be giving more damage to their occupiers. This would be more realistic and take the surprise element out of cultural reversions and would add another level of srategy to occupation, as you would have to be more conscious of where you are keeping your forces and how much damage they are taking

What are your thoughts?

 

[redstoner]

I really like the idea. To have a little warining before a city just goes and jumps to another CIV would be cool. You'd have the chance of avoiding the flip.

You could also have unhappiness/civil disorder cause a similiar effect. If too many citizens in a city are unhappy, they could incite a revolt and either join another CIV, or become independant.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Nice idea roundman I like it.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Also how about the idea of looting as well, where a city with lots of resisters can steal money from your treasury in the form of looting.

 

[Sarevok]

it would be cool to have guierilla's pop up

 

[Atotarho]

I can see the point of guierilla's, like in CivII, prob better if they had armed camps where they could breed, like Barbs with attitude and armour, that poped up in territory you have taken.

Units in an ocupied city are vunerable. They dont take hits each turn but if the city flips then there go your units.

 

[warpstorm]

Iraq probably isn't the best example of resistance though. While it is a shame for the people involved and their families, the resistance isn't materially weakening the troop strength there (think about how many thousands of troops are stationed there).

Also like Atotarho says, you can lose a lot of troops if the city flips (and cities with resisters are much more likely to flip).

 

[puglover]

Originally posted by Atotarho
I can see the point of guierilla's, like in CivII, prob better if they had armed camps where they could breed, like Barbs with attitude and armour, that poped up in territory you have taken.

Units in an ocupied city are vunerable. They dont take hits each turn but if the city flips then there go your units.

I remember in Civ 2 where in the Modern Age, guerillas (partisans in Civ2) would pop up and try to retake the city.

 

[Al Zan]

Originally posted by puglover


I remember in Civ 2 where in the Modern Age, guerillas (partisans in Civ2) would pop up and try to retake the city.

those were the good old days!

 

[Sarevok]

indeed thwey were, i used partisand to take cities and force the enemy to stay back. they need to return. the action anyway of making them pop up after a city is taken

 

[CenturionV]

Ya thats one thing i've always wanted in civ3, In real life civilizations don't just die just because there cities are taken by the enemy, It would be cool to have resistance forces controllable by both ai and human players that could try and retake cities, If you have a huge stack of warrior 2 squares from your home city and the enemy takes it it should not be instant game over, you should be able to run back and attack the city aslong as its people still resist.

 

[EHRMARU]

I posted something about resistance in the "2 Things I'd Like to See in Civ 4" thread. This is what I said-

Originally posted by EHRMARU
I would also like to add the ability for guerilla warfare. If I remember correctly Civilization II had this feature. The people would not accept invasion calmly they would rebel and use guerrilla tactics.

Also, when your nation is in disorder some paramilitary organizations could form. Like in Columbia today with the FARC and the Self-Defence groups. They take matters into their own hands and have control of certain parts of the nation.

 

[Globetrotter]

Originally posted by CenturionV
Ya thats one thing i've always wanted in civ3, In real life civilizations don't just die just because there cities are taken by the enemy, It would be cool to have resistance forces controllable by both ai and human players that could try and retake cities, If you have a huge stack of warrior 2 squares from your home city and the enemy takes it it should not be instant game over, you should be able to run back and attack the city aslong as its people still resist.

Agreed.
In other words, if you loose your last city, you should keep control of all the outside units you had, hoping to capture a city and survive.
The only problem for their disappearance is because of unit support i believe. No gold, no units... Too bad...

 

[Reynoulds #]

I think the violent resistence is already in the game. Essentially, all the "resistors" have done is be upsetting to us. Every pole I've seen of Iraqis shows them being the most infavor of what the US is doing. Far more so than any Europeans and to a lesser extent, Americans.

The resistance causes the citizens to be unwilling to work. They can also cause disorder in the city which leads to the destruction of city improvements. I think this has been something they did an excellent job on for the Oct. 2001 release.