Initiating revolution...

[Guynemer]

...I must not understand how this works.

My last game just ended without ever getting the change to declare revolution. I had three cities, with between 67% and 85% each in the Sons of Liberty, but I maxed out at 43% supporting revolution on the revolution adviser.

This sucks. I was well stocked with military to fend off the bastard George, too.

[snoopy369]

Your troops, if not actively working in a city (ie, NOT garrisoned with guns, but working a building or a tile), count against your rebel sentiment.

[DarthVeda]

Let me get this straight:
Soldiers are not counted in the revolution % display per city, but ARE counted against it globally? Either if they are garrisoned or outside?

[snoopy369]

Soldiers don't belong to a city, so they don't count towards or against that city's internal percentage.

"Garrisoned" doesn't mean anything other than "standing on a city tile". It's outside for all intents and purposes other than defensive bonus.

[Aerion]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Soldiers don't belong to a city, so they don't count towards or against that city's internal percentage.

"Garrisoned" doesn't mean anything other than "standing on a city tile". It's outside for all intents and purposes other than defensive bonus.

That's just wrong. I'm really starting to get soured on this game.

[Guynemer]

So if I'm understanding you correctly, building up a revolutionary army will make attaining revolution more difficult?




What kind of sense does that make? Perhaps this is an issue that you should take a look at for the patch? It could be scaled to some extent... soldiers fortified in a city have half the revolutionary sentiment as the colonists up to x number of soldiers, or something?

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Soldiers don't belong to a city, so they don't count towards or against that city's internal percentage.

"Garrisoned" doesn't mean anything other than "standing on a city tile". It's outside for all intents and purposes other than defensive bonus.

Ughh.... yeah that's bad. The player has no way of knowing what % of the citizenry are soldiers without doing a manual count. Furthermore, why would they count against the player if they can't even be converted?

Under the current system it becomes impossible to attain revolution in highly militarized nations.

In the original they were counted against your revolution score, but you could also convert them to your side like any other citizen in your colonies. The more soldiers, the less your bonus in the actual colony, and the longer it would take to convert to the revolutionary mindset. So it's not like they were a free ride anyways.

[Guynemer]

I agree with the esteemed Sith Lord.

It is appearing more and more that the game just was not tested very much at all. And not from a bug standpoint, but from a game mechanics standpoint. It is a shame, because the basic concept and gameplay are sound.

[Krill]

Is anyone thinking MoO3 yet?

[DarthVeda]

Heh not yet. The initial experience of this game and mid-game are still way better. They're actually quite enjoyable.

However, it's the late game where things seem to slog along. There are a number of easy ways to fix this.

[Krill]

I'm just pissed off that it is such a shallow game compared to CIV. Very little complexity, just alot of MM, comparable to going back and playing Civ3

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I agree with the esteemed Sith Lord.

It is appearing more and more that the game just was not tested very much at all. And not from a bug standpoint, but from a game mechanics standpoint. It is a shame, because the basic concept and gameplay are sound.

The problem is you guys are thinking Civ (re: unit garrisons). You are not supposed to keep large unit garrisons. Small garrisons if anything. Think minutemen... you are supposed to keep your soldiers working until the moment they're needed (ie, the DoI). Pre-DoI there's little reason for soldiers unless you're going Spanish Scorched Earth route, in which case you have enough money to buy more bells (ES's).

Having dozens of soldiers sitting around doing nothing is just silly. Silly from a realism perspective, silly from a gameplay perspective. Soldiers in America didn't just sit around polishing their guns all day; those that did were generally Tories. Heck, think Romans, even... they worked as well.

They probably should notify you more clearly, I won't disagree with that, but the fundamental mechanic is entirely reasonable. If you're keeping a large standing army around, you can't DoI, because ... the standing army won't let you. Which is just about right.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Krill
I'm just pissed off that it is such a shallow game compared to CIV. Very little complexity, just alot of MM, comparable to going back and playing Civ3

While I consider Civ4 to be more shallow than Col... different strokes for different folks I suppose

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Having dozens of soldiers sitting around doing nothing is just silly. Silly from a realism perspective, silly from a gameplay perspective. Soldiers in America didn't just sit around polishing their guns all day; those that did were generally Tories. Heck, think Romans, even... they worked as well.

This reasoning is flawed. So it's "silly" to have lots of soldiers hanging around, but not silly to have giant stockpiles of weapons to arm said soldiers once the revolution begins.

It's not an intuitive strategy. And it's not a strategy people should HAVE to employ to win. It's just plain bad.

They probably should notify you more clearly, I won't disagree with that, but the fundamental mechanic is entirely reasonable. If you're keeping a large standing army around, you can't DoI, because ... the standing army won't let you. Which is just about right.

So by that logic, it's completely unreasonable for George Washington to have ever joined the colonial side.

It's the colonial militia you're building, not the King's army. If the game had a concept of "storing away minutemen" then perhaps it would make more sense to have the forces tucked away. If the king had sent soldiers to defend my colonies and they were occupying me, THAT would make sense.

But it doesn't make sense in its current form. The game otherwise copies so many other things from the original colonization that this twist just makes no sense whatsoever. Especially because it's impossible to read, you have to have "secret" knowledge on how to even beat the game on easy.

[snoopy369]

You keep arms around in the sense that people kept muskets in their homes. It's how it worked in real life... just abstracted to the level of Col, and made to work with a slightly quirky game mechanic of storage (the wagons of guns).

Some soldiers might support the rebel cause, but the far majority wouldn't; because until you declare independence, any actual professional soldier is a soldier in the European army. They have funny things about loyalty and such, even despite overwhelming proof. The soldiers who DO support the rebel cause likely are colonists anyway (colonists who also happeneed to work as an army when it was needed), like Washington.

The game does have the concept of storing away minutemen. It's called stockpiling guns.

It definitely needs to be made more clear, that I agree with 100%. I do think, though, that you're objecting to the game because it does not fit with your strategy, rather than adjusting your strategy to fit the game, as is what I would generally expect of a strategy game ...