Well, I was thinking about SH one day and about the population’s contentedness. I hope that in the future you’d have to keep your population content or else workers would get mad, etc. Well, my idea kind of relates to that. Let’s say, if your farm production is low and people aren’t getting enough to eat. What would you do in this situation? Eat your arm? Nay! You’d get mad and organize a rebellion!
So, if you’re lacking in your duties, like the example scenario above, then your population (or a part of it) would rebel. If your infraction is minor, maybe they’d only go on strike. However, if this infraction is serious, you’d see a bunch of people with pitchforks and torches, looting and pillaging, and you’d have to put an end to the armed rebels.
I kind of imagined the rebels would look like this:
Well, I’m on mobile (again) but I believe we’ve had something similar crop up in regards to settler happiness and stuff … For some reason I have it in my head that the discussion led to ‘who are they actually rebelling against?’ Seeing as you take on the role of ‘orchestrator’ rather than a god.
If I remember rightly comparisons were made to dwarf fortress and how your dwarves can become sad ( I don’t think that’s the right word) and they go insane and all he’ll. breaks loose, so perhaps there is something to work with there!
Would definitely be an interesting scenario if worked rightly, my worry would be that it perhaps steers gameplay in a certain direction you know?
I think if the rebellion takes over your city or your empire and you have a scout or spy out of your cities then you can take back what is rightfully yours
There would be a problem if you were basing it off the happiness system, in that Radiant aren’t looking to implement such a system.
However, using your example of lack of food, sure! Maybe just conflict with each other which leads to deaths of citizens (which could be the end of you, if all your farmers died whilst they rioted over lack of food). As @Geoffers747 said, rebelling against what? I’m fairly sure they’ve rejected the idea of a government system in-game, as that’s your job. However these workers don’t know about you, so they can’t strike out against you. Insanity might be cool though. Or just crankiness. In which case I think a character named Steve Adamo should have the base value for crankiness increased by 50.
A rebellion would be cool, but the player doesn’t have an avatar that could get killed (mayor, king, …)–> when is the game lost? So I think the little guys should turn into very aggressive thieves and fight against each other and everything (they could try to storm the granaries etc and eat all of your food stored for winter) until you restore order with troops or more food.
While there are going to be guards and soldiers as a profession, they have not been put there to protect from anything going on from inside society. As it stands, I haven’t seen a single indication that such things like crime or corruption would be implemented. Along that note, I have also seen no indication by the developers that your people are violent in any way, either to each other or to the player him/herself.
So, rather than a riot, I would guess that the lack of food would just lead to… well… death from starvation. Lack of water would lead to dehydration, and abundant sewage would lead to disease and a plague. In either case, the end result would be the utter destruction of your population. That is something a player doesn’t want to happen, as he/she will have to build up his/her population again, or if all the people die then have a game over.
[quote=“Kickstarter”]Pirates, Ninjas and Politicians: Your wealthy, thriving communities will draw the attention of the dread Order of Applied Equivocation. Unlike the straightforward aggression of goblins and trolls, these new enemies will cheat, kidnap, and blackmail their way into your citizen’s homes… and coffers.
A secret panel in the dead merchant’s desk reveals a cheerful crest chased with the following motto: The OAE: Backstabbing You for Our Better Tomorrow.
[/quote]
There is definitely evidence to suggest crime, if there is blackmail/crime you might get some form of rebellious actions, however the very idea of them rebelling against you is bad. Their existence pretty much revolves around doing what you say, of course they could always just work slower or something. Tricky issue.
Just to draw back to this idea of rebellion, personally I’m not a fan of it within my own settlement and my own settlers but, drawing on some discussions in this thread:
I can definitely see it working in regards to capturing other settlements or capturing enemy forces.
A scenario where that goblin labour force you have rise up and wreak havoc from within would definitely be an interesting experience.
I have no idea whether the use of other factions in forced labour is part of the core game … Might be one for mods.
Well, I would think that a rebellion would basically mean you lose control of your workers and all types of units except soldiers and you would have to take back your city with those solders but if all your soldiers die or you had none in the first place you have no units you can control and you lose. As to how the rebellions start maybe the OAE would start it or you could have a lack of food or something.
Well, I wanted rebellions to be kind of a small thing. I didn’t want it to be necessarily game breaking, just kind of an annoyance. But if the grievance is too extreme (no food, no shelter…), then they could act that way.
Perhaps I should have clarified in that I saw no indication of things like crime and corruption being done by your own citizens. The Pirates, Ninjas and Politicians are not members of the player’s society, but outside workers, much like the goblins or other npc nations.
In any case, the idea of rebellion has both merits and demerits to it, and I might also quote the developers in the idea that they did not want to implement constant annoyances, or having to constantly be attending to every whim of a character lest they wreak havoc and destroy hours or weeks of work on a save. At the same time, players cannot just set up a city without making sure to supply them with enough water, food, clothing for the winter, etc. So my vote would be to implement a soft version of rebellion: if you the player do not properly take care of your settlers, then they could die or start a migration of similarly unhappy people out of your settlement, leaving you with naught but a few holders-on.
right, its a difficult balance to strike… you dont want too many things happening that the player isnt aware of… “hey! why are these units setting fire to my carpenters workshop?!?”…
either way, if your units start misbehaving, or perhaps just performing poorly at their jobs (failed work attempts, etc.), the player needs some sort of alert or notification, so they have a chance to correct the issue…
