hoof
10-17-2004, 06:40
I've been doing some thinking about the existing revolt modelling in RTW. I think the majority of players agree that the existing revolt system is a little unrealistic. A dozen high-tech high-valour units showing up in town in one turn is as believable as Falluja suddenly spawning a thousand tanks, a couple dozen Mig-29 fighter squadrons, a hundred-thousand ground troops, and a slew of SCUD missiles.
So I came up with an idea of how to deal with the revolt situation without having to resort to such unrealistic drastic measures.
Most of us are familiar with the current insurgency in Iraq. There is no reason I can see why a rebellion in Roman times couldn't have many similar aspects.
When a city/town goes into revolt, rather than generating a huge stack of unrealistic units, the town should suffer the equivelant of an earthquake or plague. The effects of the insurgency should cause casulties in the garrison, cause buildings to be damaged, and income to be drastically cut. If the garrison is too small, then it is kicked out, and the town can generate units, but at a much more realistic rate (based on town income, and the 1-unit-per-turn limit). In addition, before the garrison is kicked out, the growth rate should be severely impacted, representing the loss of life by the insurgency and the garrison's attempts to keep control. Also, if the revolt is severe enough, but the garrison too big to kick out, recruitment/building could be limited like when the town is under siege.
Heck, why not apply siege rules to a city under revolt? Throw in some building damage and income reduction, and you have an effective model of rebellion.
All of this would get the desired result (that unrest is bad and undesirable) without having the suspension of disbelief shattered by MTW-style super-rebellions.
IMO, the primary problems with the existing revolt system ar that (a) there is so little one can do to prevent it (especially just after siezing a poorly run AI town on the frontier), and (b) the consequences of a revolt are so dire (suddenly the Army of Iraq is reborn in Tikrit overnight). Either we should be given some tools for unrest-control, or the revolts should be changed to be more believable.
Thoughts?
So I came up with an idea of how to deal with the revolt situation without having to resort to such unrealistic drastic measures.
Most of us are familiar with the current insurgency in Iraq. There is no reason I can see why a rebellion in Roman times couldn't have many similar aspects.
When a city/town goes into revolt, rather than generating a huge stack of unrealistic units, the town should suffer the equivelant of an earthquake or plague. The effects of the insurgency should cause casulties in the garrison, cause buildings to be damaged, and income to be drastically cut. If the garrison is too small, then it is kicked out, and the town can generate units, but at a much more realistic rate (based on town income, and the 1-unit-per-turn limit). In addition, before the garrison is kicked out, the growth rate should be severely impacted, representing the loss of life by the insurgency and the garrison's attempts to keep control. Also, if the revolt is severe enough, but the garrison too big to kick out, recruitment/building could be limited like when the town is under siege.
Heck, why not apply siege rules to a city under revolt? Throw in some building damage and income reduction, and you have an effective model of rebellion.
All of this would get the desired result (that unrest is bad and undesirable) without having the suspension of disbelief shattered by MTW-style super-rebellions.
IMO, the primary problems with the existing revolt system ar that (a) there is so little one can do to prevent it (especially just after siezing a poorly run AI town on the frontier), and (b) the consequences of a revolt are so dire (suddenly the Army of Iraq is reborn in Tikrit overnight). Either we should be given some tools for unrest-control, or the revolts should be changed to be more believable.
Thoughts?