Simcountry Home   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Documentation   Simcountry Terminology
online games, multiplayer games
spacing
bullet Simcountry is an Online Digital World where you are the President of a country.
spacing
bullet No download needed!
spacing
What is Simcountry?
Beginners Info
What is Simcountry?
| | | | |
Previous Thread: High Quality Corp.Shares for offer
Next Thread: BUYING AND SELLING SHARES:

REBELS

Simcountry: Simcountry Bulletin Board  REBELS

MaBo

Friday, November 28, 2003 - 07:46 am Click here to edit this post
Very close. It's actually the Welfare Index which determines the severity of rebellions. Also, the very first country that you owned under your current account (your "main") is immune to rebel attacks.

MaBo

Friday, November 28, 2003 - 07:47 am Click here to edit this post
Damn, never mind. You said Welfare Index.

Erehwon

Friday, November 28, 2003 - 11:31 am Click here to edit this post
I agree with Matty - rebellions are a game convention and not necessarily realistic.

Hectors Dream

Friday, November 28, 2003 - 08:00 pm Click here to edit this post
yes.

I think the current rebellion rules are about perfect, although I suppose that would fit as I wrote in ths suggestion they actually followed (they used to read my emails! :D)

Imperio, you werent around in the time when people easily controlled over 100 countries. It did not make for a good game (speaking as someone who once controlled 65 out of the top 100 countries on FB...)

For the record, it is still possible to build such an empire, and keep it stable, just incredibly difficult. Only one player has attempted to do something like that-Tyr (and he was in the process of succeeding when he got bored by the complete lack of plausible conflict, and quit.Served him right, it was his fault :P :()

from my own experience with the current rebellion rules, welfares of greater than 150 all but stoped corporation destructions with an empire of 25 countries (the size of my FB empire, before I started my half-assed transfer to GR)

Facilities are pretty expensive, but its doable for those who have the discipline to hold off from buying weapons for the required time.

Imperio Colombiano

Friday, November 28, 2003 - 11:51 pm Click here to edit this post
Well, wouldnt it be a good idea to introduce some type of rebel control.


Here's an idea.

A president decides to wage war on a C3. After conqering the country, the rebels in that country will go into hiding. The rebels come from the army that was defeated. The number of rebels should depend on how many units were not destroyed when the conquest ended.

After a few months go by, the rebels start to regroup. They began to get weaponds, or anything they can get their filthy little hands on.

In the meantime, while the regrouping is going on, the new president would have had to be buying weaponds, and sending reinforcements to the newly conqered land. This way he will be prepare to defend the capital and its presidential palace from the oncoming rebellion.

Once the Rebels are ready to retake their land the will rush the capital with all their strenth, or rather series of attack untill they drive the new president out of the country. Of course the amount of weaponds and army personel would determine if you keep the country or not.

It the rebels should succed, you would loose rights to that country. If the rebels do not succed and there is sufficient weaponds to repell the little boggers, they will once again go into hiding, but with lesser amounts. Then again will plan for the next rebellion. Each time they are driven out of the capital by force, they will loose more people, and their regrouping abilities will be lesser and lesser untill there are no rebels left.

The rebels should attack the president and not the corporations keeping the country alive.

Just an idea.

Hectors Dream

Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 01:51 am Click here to edit this post
thats much more realistic, but the function of rebels is to stop presidents from gaining an unlimited number of countries and ("easily") individually dominating the game.

If you could remove rebels through military strength, this function would fail.

There already are effective forms of rebel control: increasing the welfare, or using CEO corporations to fuel your economy. The latter is definitely workable here on golden rainbow gicen the ability to relocate corporations. Maybe you should talk to dule, victor :), sinec CEOs can benefit from it as well. Its a shame the materials penalty was reduced, since that made CEO-president cooperation very important and effective indeed.

That said, rebels attacking other things besides mere corporations would be useful as well. Attacked countries would consequently have a lower war index, and be more vulnerable in war.

The idea of using miltiary force to counter the rebels would work if it required massive miltary forces to do so, if these forces needed to be defensive, and if the number required increased with each country in an empire.

But why go to all that bother when the system works fine the way it is?

Thats how I see things anyway :)

Like I said...get that welfare above 150, and youll hardly notice them until you hit 30 countries or more.

Land of Lorien

Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 05:23 pm Click here to edit this post
The whole point of asymetrical warfare is to make use of the strengths one has instead of the strengths one's opponent has.

A rebellion strategy based upon removing an opponent by open military force will fail if the conquering opponent has more traditional military forces. For a classic example of trying to do this in history, look up the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by US-backed rebels.

Instead, a rebel force that is militarily weak will strike where the enemy is weak. If they make controlling the country a money-losing proposition, the conquering country's power -brokers will not want to invest - because they will lose money. If they attack Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that provide social services, they will drive out those NGOs and the welfare index will drop, providing them with more recruits.

And, of course, they pick off enemy troops here and there where they are weak.

This is a multi-pronged approach: financial, pyschological, and military.

As the occupying power gets more retributive and violent in their countermeasures, they inevitably kill or main innocents - whose friends and relatives become new recruits for the rebels.

I'm sure the US White House wishes the rebels in Iraq and Afghanistan would come out in the open and stand there to be shelled and machine-gunned for the convenience of US forces like good rustics, but they aren't likely to do so.

Two loonies, a used car, and a rifle with a scope were sufficient to cause huge amounts of concern and expense in the Washington, DC area last year.
It took months and about $50,000,000 to track them down and catch them. If they had had an apartment to live in instead of sleeping in their car, they might still be at large. Had rebels been funding this, their money outlay would have been around $1,000, for a 50,000 to 1 cost ratio.

Without a Face

Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 07:49 pm Click here to edit this post
Nice post. This also draws parallels to the American Revolution. It really pissed off the British that we fought like Indians instead of standing in formation, marching towards each other, and firing. Oh, and that reminds me...I've got a poem in the works for you Erehwon. =]

Anyway, what I think this all boils down to is that we're going to have to become a much more compassionate society if we're going to survive our own technology (which will only become more deadly, and can never be sufficiently regulated.) A more psychologically beneficial school system, culture, and programs for the older of the two snipers (programs he could have been put in when he was threatening his wife for example) could have circumvented that $50M and saved all those lives. Unfortunately programs like that will not be getting funding here in the U.S. anytime soon. But I suppose that's just the bitter, disenfranchised former psych student in me speaking... =]

new skin for old ceremony

Saturday, November 29, 2003 - 09:12 pm Click here to edit this post
here, here!

:(

This issue is a bit too close ot my personal experience to be comfortable, but it only makes me more evanglical.

A quote from chomsky in Manufacturing Consent:

Freedom and democracy are by now not merely values to be treasured. They are quite possibly the prerequisite to survival.

Um, continuing along this line of thought would be straying From SC though :P

And Lorien..I must say...while I fuond your post cogent, I also found it disturbingly cold.

As the occupying power gets more retributive and violent in their countermeasures, they inevitably kill or main innocents - whose friends and relatives become new recruits for the rebels.


The calculated expense of the blood and lives of innocents in order to manipulate public opinion. Blood as political currency.

I just cant wrap my head around that all the way. ugh.

Simcountry Introduction