Initiating revolution...

[Jorge.PT]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I just don't see this being the problem people see it.

If you have more than 50% of your colonists outside of the city (garrisoned or walkabout), I think you simply aren't playing the game the way it is intended to be played. I can't imagine a reason to have even 30% of my colonists not doing useful things. A soldier holding a gun sitting in a city is a useless unit unless you are actively engaged in hostilities. This is NOT Civ4, people. You can swap between worker and military unit instantly with no penalty whatsoever.

Imagine in Civ4 if you took 1/3 of your population and kept them as citizen specialists. Then you posted on the boards complaining that you couldn't win. How long would it take for the rest of the boards to mock you senseless? Five minutes? Ten?

I can't agree with you. Every time you get 200 food you will get a new colonist, and that is a welcome feature, but what happens when all the working tittles are full? Should I put them into non producing tasks? (like a weaver shop in a city that as no cotton?) Should I found a new city in the near end of the game? Or should I start building a army to protect me from those angry Indians and a more arrogant king?

If you want to put this in a realistic perspective, in the American war of independence a continental army was formed with regulars and militia, before the independence was declared. They did know there was going to be a war! And after that, colonies where still producing, to fund the war effort. They were not empty, the women and some men, did not participate in the war.

You can't give some touches of realism and them ignore others, this is still just a game and is lacking the fun factor, that the original had.

When I say you have only one strategy to win this game, I'm talking about the "leave to the end the produce of liberty bells, and stock up guns and horses in wagons". This seems to be the way of winning this game until now, so where is the strategy part in this game?

And how can I fight the expanding borders feature, from the other civilizations, if I do not produce liberty bells? Should I lose all my precious resources, so I can win the war of independence?

What about the Spanish conquistadores, in the original I would have a large army to destroy the Indians and get their gold, and still be able to make the declaration of independence.

This game just don't works how it is now.

[Felch]

I gotta say, snoopy's right about this. I think it's both more realistic and fun to have the guns in storage at revolution. America was founded by citizen soldiers who armed themselves after the war began. While it would be cool to have other models of independence, this game is clearly designed to follow U.S. history.

I almost never have soldiers garrisoned. Even veterans will be put to work in a field somewhere. The only problem there is Indian attacks.

[CWRice]

I think the idea of the game is that you're supposed to be quietly working toward Revolution.

If you're being obvious about it (large standing army, banging away on your liberty bells all day long) the King is wise to you (very large REF) and the people don't really like your attitude.

If you think historically, the founding fathers did a brilliant job at playing the colonists as the victims.

If you're clearly amassing an army, your colonists probably don't see you as the victim against your rightful king, but the agressor.

Anyway, it makes sense to me, and I found the game fun. YMMV.

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by Felch
I gotta say, snoopy's right about this. I think it's both more realistic and fun to have the guns in storage at revolution. America was founded by citizen soldiers who armed themselves after the war began. While it would be cool to have other models of independence, this game is clearly designed to follow U.S. history.

I almost never have soldiers garrisoned. Even veterans will be put to work in a field somewhere. The only problem there is Indian attacks.

If it's a system you can ignore, it's not a system. The REF is broken.

[alh_p]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Standing armies generally discourage independence/revolution, except when the revolution puts the leader of the army in power. That's in fact the way it works - some leader of the army decides to have a coup/revolt/etc. and takes his branch of the army with him. Think Napoleon, or Chavez, or Musharraf. Soldiers generally stay out of politics - but generals don't, and it usually comes down to whether the revolution will give the general significantly more power or not. Loyalty is drilled into a soldier every day, to the point that it is fundamental to their identity.

Have you ever heard of the Russian revolution of 1917?

The rank and file were famously & predominantly in league with the Bolsheviks. Entire garrisons & sections of the front revolted or mutineed and turned away from the Tsar's enemies, against the state itself.

In the Spanish civil war, soldiers & civil guards turned to either side of the conflict. Others were trapped on the "wrong side" for them and served throughout the war untill they could defect or desert -from either side.

So to say that a standing garrison or even troops activley on campaign constitute 100% support for established authority is plain rubbish.

Furthermore, the point that has been extensively made here about 2nd generation settlers in the army holds true.

And comments as to non-indigenous mercenaries present in the army are misplaced. They would be plausible if the King sent his colony defensive troops as aid in a colonial war, as happened in the original game. However, it doesn't happen in civ4:col.

Garrisoned troops should be influenced by LB production in the settlement they garrison.

Finally, using the wagon train exploit as the only stockpiling strategy smacks of poor game design. Its also innacurate and unrealistic. Did colonists in the US stockpile weapons in warehouses, wagons or ships at anchor? Maybe, but surely they predonminantly stored them in secret caches - or in their houses.

If standing armies are discouraged, a game mechanic should be added to enable the clandestine stockpiling of weapons.

Perhaps a certain quantity could be stored in each settlement per inhabitant (even sufficient for a 1:1 settler:soldier ratio would be reasonable). Perhaps this could quota be linked to the production of LBs?

The stockpile would be only for guns (not horses) and would be seperate from the normal wharehousing capacity. Once stashed, guns would not be retrievable untill DOB to avoid exploiting the extra capacity.

*Edited for sp & grammar.

[Jorge.PT]

Originally posted by Felch
I gotta say, snoopy's right about this. I think it's both more realistic and fun to have the guns in storage at revolution. America was founded by citizen soldiers who armed themselves after the war began. While it would be cool to have other models of independence, this game is clearly designed to follow U.S. history.

I almost never have soldiers garrisoned. Even veterans will be put to work in a field somewhere. The only problem there is Indian attacks.

There was a army before the declaration of independence, it was the continental army and the reason that George Washington was called general....

Let me just quote something from BBC History

"The war often known in Europe as the Seven Years War was known in North America as the French and Indian War. It involved several countries, with France and Britain on opposing sides, and North America was one of its many theatres of operations. It was ended by the 1763 Treaty of Paris, by which the French ceded territory to Britain in North America and elsewhere."...

"The descent into armed conflict between patriot (anti-British) and loyalist (pro-British) sympathisers was gradual. Events like the Boston 'Massacre' of 1770, when British troops fired on a mob that had attacked a British sentry outside Boston's State House, and the Boston 'tea-party' of 1773, when British-taxed tea was thrown into the harbour, marked the downward steps. Less obvious was the take-over of the colonial militias - which had initially been formed to provide local defence against the French and the Native Americans - by officers in sympathy the the American patrios/rebels, rather than by those in sympathy with pro-British loyalists/Tories."...

"In mid-1775, patriot representatives of the 13 colonies of America, meeting in Philadelphia as the Continental Congress, appointed George Washington, a well-to-do Virginia landowner, as commander in chief of its military forces. Washington, who thought militias fundamentally unreliable, set about raising a regular force, the Continental Army, and as the initial skirmishes between the patriots on the one hand and the British and their loyalist supporters on the other turned into a full-scale war, both sides were to use a mixture of regular troops, militias and other irregulars."...

This is historical accurate: There was a army with militia and regulars, called continental army, plus French support, at the time of the declaration of independence.

Has I stated before, the current liberty bells and REF system is not working and leading the players to a 1 only way to win the game. And that, for me, is completely against the spirit of a strategy game.

I can't be forced to play in a way that someone judges, that is more "historical accurate".

[snoopy369]

He sought about raising the army in 1775 ... and I have no idea why you bring the French into the matter, they were not in the picture until the RW was half over. 1775 was during the War of Independence, even if the Declaration wasn't actually signed at that point.

In any event, historical accuracy isn't even the point here; it's the better gameplay mechanism. You're not forced to play it; you can not play, after all, if you don't find it fun, or you can mod it however you like. There are several ways to win the game, and the fact that you are expected to have most of your colonists actually working in colonies is not a significant factor in that. I happily agree that the REF system does not work perfectly as it currently is - hence the patchmod Dale and I are working on - but this is not part of that problem.

[Jorge.PT]

@Snoopy369

He sought about raising the army in 1775 ...

Washington, who thought militias fundamentally unreliable, set about raising a regular force(...)

Regular force, not a army.

(...)Less obvious was the take-over of the colonial militias - which had initially been formed to provide local defence against the French and the Native Americans(...)

Militias are part of a army!

You're not forced to play it; you can not play, after all, if you don't find it fun, or you can mod it however you like.

For that I don't have any arguments.

[wmartyn]

It's great to see someone from South America commenting here, because North and South America had very different revolutionary histories. (In Canada, it ended up non-revolutionary, but that's a different story.)

In the English colonies, the militia were NOT part of the regular army. They were instrumentalities of the individual colonies, and pretty uniformly part-time. Soldiers and officers really were farmers and shopkeepers who would generally serve for short campaigns and return to work. There were very few English regulars stationed in North America until the French and Indian War, and after that they were almost uniformly British rather than American in origin. (At one point in his youth, George Washington wanted to be commissioned as a British officer, but could not because he didn't know the right people in England.)

Therefore, the winning strategy outlined above closely follows the experience of the British colonies -- that the revolution was fought by amateur troops who literally picked up guns and left their homes to fight. It was only after the beginning that SOME of them entered the Continental Army and developed enough experience to be considered regulars. Even so, in most engagements, the local militia represented a huge portion of fighting strength.

In many parts of South America, local-born individuals could (and did) easily become part of the army. In fact, it was much more open to them than civil functions, which were often reserved for people born in the home country. As a result, the professional army contained large numbers of local born soldiers and officers. They often became highly radicalized, which resulted in the regulars changing sides to fight (very effectively) against the king. If the game really works as described, this kind of strategy would be pretty difficult to execute.

That said, I agree with those who argue that there should be some recognition in the game that the citizen who picks up a gun to defend his home does not immediately lose his "rebel sentiment." I hope the Firaxis folks will work it out in a patch.

[alh_p]

Originally posted by snoopy369
In any event, historical accuracy isn't even the point here; it's the better gameplay mechanism.

You might say that's what we are struggling with.

Originally posted by snoopy369
You're not forced to play it; you can not play, after all, if you don't find it fun, or you can mod it however you like.

I understand you exasperation (that's what this sounds like), but we all bought this game with certain expectations and are having a hard time reconciling them with what it turns out Firaxis produced.

We could do just as you said, pay our money but shut up and go and play something else, leaving you and your forum in peace and solitude.

However, perhaps we care about the original col too much to do that. For my part, I feel it has more depth and replayability than civ4:col.

Originally posted by snoopy369
There are several ways to win the game, and the fact that you are expected to have most of your colonists actually working in colonies is not a significant factor in that.

Are you telling me that you keep your colonists IN your settlements when the REF attacks? Come on Snoopy, you're on a sticky wicket here...

[CWRice]

That said, I agree with those who argue that there should be some recognition in the game that the citizen who picks up a gun to defend his home does not immediately lose his "rebel sentiment." I hope the Firaxis folks will work it out in a patch.

Im not sure what you mean.

As near as I can tell, having played the game all the way through to revolution several times now, armed colonists seem to count against your Revolution % only before you declare your independence.

This makes sense to me. The colonists ARENT behind you yet. Ergo, they're not going to be down with a standing army.

However, once the motherland declares war on you, arming your colonists actually increases rebel sentiment, because now you're at war.

[tommo1975]

One way to improve this game would be to allow you to build an army through the game and then upon declaring independance have some of that army revolt and side with the King. This would create a civil war element to the conflict. This I think matches the War of Independance which had American colonists on the side of the King, fighting American Colonists who wanted independance. Maybe throw in some Indian tribes who side with the King too - just to liven it all up a bit.

I'd also welcome outside aide at the beginning of the war - to echo the French support for independance. Maybe go one step further - although this would go against histroy perhaps - have one European power oppose your independance for fear of stoking their own colonies independance? It'd add a new dynamic to the end fight.....

Also, we could do with that nasty king of ours forcing us to war with some of the European powers to liven the game up somewhat. I've yet to play a game where I get into a war with anyone other than my own King at the end.

I'd also want the Indians to be a greater power and to actually seek to expand themselves - they just seem to sit back and happily give you their villages as your borders expand.

[peege]

I have to say that as wishy washy as it sounds. I agree with both sides of this argument.

The main thing here is that you are a European Colony, and are training troops to be loyal to the forces in power. It doesn't make sense to train troops under the premise of not following leaders.

Think of the LB's as sorting out the details of securing independence. Working out the little kinks of government so that everyone is convinced a better job can be done. If the soldiers are in the garrison doing their drills, they will be under the King until the DoI. That makes perfect sense. If they are working with the people losing all their money to taxes, they might feel the burden of the working commoner's plight.

It also makes no sense to have in a time of peace, a large standing army, when there is food and wood to harvest. Anyone can lay down arms and pick up a saw. Get to work. Why would you want a large standing army anyway? Any rebellion faces overwhelming odds. Hence, the Colony. Instead of the country.

Also, what about the choice to Bear Arms? Doesn't that effectively make all the colonists outside the settlement have 3 strength, the same as a soldier?

More Diplomacy is where the other options lie. Outside aid makes a big difference in a war, and this game seems like YOU vs. King. the other colonies aren't a big factor. Even in trade.

All in all, its a microcosm of a bigger game. for the bigger war strategies, CIV4 is the way to go. The fact that there are only three land units tells you that the game isn't supposed to be about war. Soldier, Dragoon, Cannon. simple stuff. I got the overwhelming feeling of "I hate this king, I wish I was independent" and I bet that's just what the people were saying back then. And today, in many parts of the world. Mission accomplished with getting that across. The game gave me a better perspective of the history of it all.