Rebellions

[Emperor Ruizhong]

My suggestion is to allow the people to rebel when the citizen's satisfaction rate of the government is too low or completely depleted for a few days. In my suggestion, rebellions cause a nation to lose money, decrease population, and infrastructure and improvements destroyed during each rebellion.

 

Thank you for your time.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Emperor Ruizhong

[Ukunaka]

kinda simular to my half- suggestion of it increasing crime, but most dont want to see an actual effect from the approval rating unless the approval rating is changed completely because some have like -1000 or +1000 approval points, so for them they'd neve be able to get out of the problems without a cap or reset and tweaks.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Ukunaka

[Sir Scarfalot]

The fastest way to lose approval rating is to lose wars. This suggestion would therefore make it possible to wholly annihilate players beyond any hope of recovery, which will directly, inevitably, and immediately lead to the game becoming unplayable for everybody.

Yes, approval rating currently means nothing whatsoever, but right now it is such an absurdly imbalanced mechanic (I personally have had as high as 600% approval rating and as low as -800% approval rating, and that doesn't even make sense) that attempting to make it mechanically relevant is impossible to do fairly without resetting it and heavily rebalancing how it goes up and down and how far it can go up and down.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Sir Scarfalot

[Mohammad]

Approval rating should be tied with crime rate, if crime in a city goes above 10%, or if approval rating goes below 25% then a rebellion occurs, which in my mind would just be a city that forms its own nation away from your and declares war on you. If your approval stays below it for 3 days another rebel nation will popup. And if the rebellion is destroyed then you get your city back, but if the crime rate goes above 10% then the city will rebel again.

In effect if you have 30 cities, then one city breaks away ,then you can crush them within the day, however this will make you have to fight on one more front, so it is good in cases fo large wars, an enemy will lose their cahs and will have to fight their own population.

 

other small notices

1) this "rebel" nation cannot be declared war on, its name will literally be "Rebel Nation of X"

2) this rebel nation takes whatever resources its city's share is, (30cities then one city gets 1/30th of the resources and cash you have as well as armies, even those not stationed in the city)

3) in the war you will not have resistance, only the rebels will have resistance

4) casualties for the rebels will include civilians

5) if you do not fight the rebels then a state of war will remain until you defeat them

 

I guess it would be a good system, but should only be for nations with 4 cities or more, it would be unfair to a 2 city nation to fight another nation on equal footing

 

do you think this is a good idea, or is it too harsh? too lenient? comment below

[Emperor Ruizhong]

I believe it may be too harsh?

[Sir Scarfalot]

10 hours ago, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

Approval rating should be tied with crime rate, if crime in a city goes above 10%, or if approval rating goes below 25% then a rebellion occurs, which in my mind would just be a city that forms its own nation away from your and declares war on you. If your approval stays below it for 3 days another rebel nation will popup. And if the rebellion is destroyed then you get your city back, but if the crime rate goes above 10% then the city will rebel again.

In effect if you have 30 cities, then one city breaks away ,then you can crush them within the day, however this will make you have to fight on one more front, so it is good in cases fo large wars, an enemy will lose their cahs and will have to fight their own population.

 

other small notices

1) this "rebel" nation cannot be declared war on, its name will literally be "Rebel Nation of X"

2) this rebel nation takes whatever resources its city's share is, (30cities then one city gets 1/30th of the resources and cash you have as well as armies, even those not stationed in the city)

3) in the war you will not have resistance, only the rebels will have resistance

4) casualties for the rebels will include civilians

5) if you do not fight the rebels then a state of war will remain until you defeat them

 

I guess it would be a good system, but should only be for nations with 4 cities or more, it would be unfair to a 2 city nation to fight another nation on equal footing

 

do you think this is a good idea, or is it too harsh? too lenient? comment below

10% crime rate or 25% approval rating does not result in a failed state... Not at all.

It would definitely be interesting to expand the role of individual cities in larger-scale wars, but this is way, way too extreme for how stupidly easy it would be to reach those thresholds.

[Mohammad]

as for approval rates i woudl assume Alex would reset them so you do not have -600 approval rate

crime rates rarley go over 10% so it is not "stupidly easy", and besides i did not mean that the naton would collapse, just that a city would rebel, Syria did not happen cause of a bunch or robbers on the streets, it happend casue of the robbbers being thr rulers

 

anywyas what what you put as the threseshold, 

 

and the point of rebelliosn is for them to happen, they will nto ruin your nation, but they will be good flavour mechanics that can allow for more reaisim, perphas espionage could plant rebels and cause a rebillion

[Sir Scarfalot]

On 8/1/2018 at 6:27 PM, Mohammad.badawy4 said:

as for approval rates i woudl assume Alex would reset them so you do not have -600 approval rate

crime rates rarley go over 10% so it is not "stupidly easy", and besides i did not mean that the naton would collapse, just that a city would rebel, Syria did not happen cause of a bunch or robbers on the streets, it happend casue of the robbbers being thr rulers

 

anywyas what what you put as the threseshold, 

 

and the point of rebelliosn is for them to happen, they will nto ruin your nation, but they will be good flavour mechanics that can allow for more reaisim, perphas espionage could plant rebels and cause a rebillion

If you build infrastructure before you build land, you would instantly lose a newly built city. And Syria is much, much more complicated than that; amongst other things, nations with robbers as rulers can often be stable and wealthy. This happens in the Middle East more often than recent history may lead you to believe.

Now, espionage to cause rebels would be a neat thing; kind of an indirect form of the current sabotage operation. I'd like to see that

[Mohammad]

not instantly, it could be after a day or two with that crime rate

as for Syria, it started due to existig unpopularity of thge ruling alawite religous group, an dthe abthist poitical ideology due to them cracking down on dissnet, torutue of political prisionoser, and for elitism 

 

the arab soring then unleahsed this in darea

 

after a few soldiers defected the FSA formed and civil war