Rebellions Suggestion

Hm, well, what else could you call it?

Wait… a food riot? I don’t know. Rebellion just seems to make the most sense for me.

No no, it’s fine, call it a rebellion should you wish, as I said, this is all just semantics.

Riots would probably be a more suiting description, but I really don’t actually care on the issue, it had just caused me some confusion initially :wink:

social meltdown… community distress… riotous anarchy… Christmas at @Geoffers747

3 Likes

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.

1 Like

[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.

1 Like

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.

It should happen in late game or middle game so like renaissance science saris becoming popular 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.

1 Like

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…

1 Like

Total agreement. We don’t want people pillaging houses just because they wanted another field.

Maybe have pirates ninjas and politicians bribe,threaten blackmail your villagers to join their side but then soldiers are hard to turn

For the rebellion to start I would imagine it could not be solved by one field and you would need another 20 or something minimum to stop a rebellion. Im talking you would need like -100 food for a rebellion to start

I do like the idea of rebellions. That would give us a reason to install execution devices such as the gallows and the guillotine, which would be pretty interesting and still qualifies as “City Management”.

EDIT: What would be even more interesting is if the rebellious forces would become a faction of their own. So lets say a bunch of settlers decide that they don’t like starving to death because you forgot to make any farms. They could wander off and start their own settlement as units under the control of the dungeon master. Then, you would have to worry about fighting off goblins AND the rebellion that was created as a result of your mistakes.

It’s ideas like that that keep on getting me more and more excited for this game to come out, haha.

2 Likes

I think the ratio should be x amount of people and -x amount of food = rebellion. It should be more ratio-wise than just -100 food, one size fits all.

But if they just build their own city, why would they hate you? Ok you were bad at giving them food but now they produce their own goods. I would like to have the choice: Ignore those guys, but maybe other people will leave your city and join them (other way round: they maybe come back if you build a big city and beg them to come back), or you send military forces to reclaim the land and start a little war. Whoever wins will get the rest of the food and survive the next winter.

I really like the idea of execution devices but wouldn’t they just increase hatred towards you like when the British killed the leaders of the Easter Rising and everyone thought they went too far.

Why do they need to wonder off? Why don’t they take over a district/part of your settlement? 'Cause if I was one of them I would think that I built this settlement, Why do I have to leave? So you would basically have to either kill all of the rebels to take back part of your city and risk angering the people who stayed with you or will you let them keep part of your city or maybe there might be a diplomatic option where you can bring them back into your power.

It was just an example.

How can you ignore these guys?, They shamed you, said you were a bad leader and bit the hand that fed them (Figure of speech, just want to point this out because they left because you didn’t feed them.)

Winter is coming John Snow,

This could be sort of an early warning system like crew rolling cannonballs across the deck as an early sign of mutiny…That just gave me an idea! In the game maybe you could also have rebellions on your ships and the ship would join the rebellion faction or become pirates or something.

I don’t need to worry about food, I’m ordering out for pizza :stuck_out_tongue:

remember pirates are hired and then they become real pirates who fight for themselves with women gold and rum

Actually I have also a mod in my mind with a “rebellion”-aspect in it. I like the idea of an “end game”-mod which can lead to the situation where the player loses his game and has to re-start. For sure there have to be some warnings to give the player a fair chance and significant benefits for playing the mod (apart from the challenge). However, I guess such a game could be very different in the way you play it and it might not be as relaxing as vanilla Stonehearth might be.