Making every unit a partisan
Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:26 pm
What I mean by "making every unit a partisan" is partisan in the historical WWII sense, not the sense of the in-game Partisan unit. Hear me out:
It's kind of a shame that when a city is conquered, all of the units it supports die. It would be much more interesting if there there was a randomization process following the conquest by which the computer decides which units become "collaborators" and switch to the "occupation" government (become units for the other player) and which join the "resistance" (become city-less like starting units that remain under the control of their original player). That would make for a much more interesting situation.
Imagine if two players X and Y are at war, each with their own Maginot Lines filled with Musketeers and Workers or Riflemen and Engineers, even a few Settlers doing double-duty building forts and roads. Then X finds a way around to conquer the cities of Y. The latter is not yet vanquished because after the turn change, the computer decided 75% of his/her Maginot Line remained "loyal", including one all-important Settler, with which he/she can build a mountain-top redoubt and try to reconquer the fallen homeland.
Such a change might make for some pretty dramatic endgames, yeah? Players could literally fight to the last man, maybe even become freedom fighter/terrorists if there was no hope for reconquering the homeland. That one lone Mechanized Infantry surviving "behind enemy lines" could turn the tide in favor of a massive allied invasion. Epic stuff like this.
Also: adding a few turns of discontent in newly conquered cities could make things even more dramatic. I don't know where Freeciv developers stand with respect introducing cultures and religions to gameplay, but the notion that a city needs to first be pacified before it can be used makes intuitive historical sense.
This change could also make for interesting midgames, if a player is unlucky enough to be conquered at that point. He/she could migrate across the board, invade other players, conquer an idler, and/or provoke (*ahem) a refugee/migrant crisis somewhere (with small networks of forts serving as the in-game equivalent of refugee camps).
On a related but different note, I also think it would be amazing if players could give each other units and even cities, not just tech, shared vision, and maps. That would make the geopolitics much more realistic... (And is it wrong that as a political liberal, I get so much glee from the notion of hordes of armed Freeciv refugees rampaging into other civilizations? ... Yes, it's probably wrong ... )
It's kind of a shame that when a city is conquered, all of the units it supports die. It would be much more interesting if there there was a randomization process following the conquest by which the computer decides which units become "collaborators" and switch to the "occupation" government (become units for the other player) and which join the "resistance" (become city-less like starting units that remain under the control of their original player). That would make for a much more interesting situation.
Imagine if two players X and Y are at war, each with their own Maginot Lines filled with Musketeers and Workers or Riflemen and Engineers, even a few Settlers doing double-duty building forts and roads. Then X finds a way around to conquer the cities of Y. The latter is not yet vanquished because after the turn change, the computer decided 75% of his/her Maginot Line remained "loyal", including one all-important Settler, with which he/she can build a mountain-top redoubt and try to reconquer the fallen homeland.
Such a change might make for some pretty dramatic endgames, yeah? Players could literally fight to the last man, maybe even become freedom fighter/terrorists if there was no hope for reconquering the homeland. That one lone Mechanized Infantry surviving "behind enemy lines" could turn the tide in favor of a massive allied invasion. Epic stuff like this.
Also: adding a few turns of discontent in newly conquered cities could make things even more dramatic. I don't know where Freeciv developers stand with respect introducing cultures and religions to gameplay, but the notion that a city needs to first be pacified before it can be used makes intuitive historical sense.
This change could also make for interesting midgames, if a player is unlucky enough to be conquered at that point. He/she could migrate across the board, invade other players, conquer an idler, and/or provoke (*ahem) a refugee/migrant crisis somewhere (with small networks of forts serving as the in-game equivalent of refugee camps).
On a related but different note, I also think it would be amazing if players could give each other units and even cities, not just tech, shared vision, and maps. That would make the geopolitics much more realistic... (And is it wrong that as a political liberal, I get so much glee from the notion of hordes of armed Freeciv refugees rampaging into other civilizations? ... Yes, it's probably wrong ... )