Riots Model 2.0

[LDiCesare]

Why can't they revolt as say their home cities unit?

Because the way ethnic groups are set up, they have a single nationality. If I want to have one ethnic group for all Greeks (to make the distinction Greeks/Barbaroi), then, with the model as it is now, when they riot, they will riot towards the same civ whatever their previous civ was. Furthermore, they may not have a home city: If the Greeks migrated from several squares or were settled by several cities one after another (or just put there at the beginning of the scenario file), they don't have a home city and have always been under the yoke of the Persians.
And what if the Spartans have been conquered by Persia and immediately afterwards, Sparta and Persia declare peace. What should revolting Spartans do?

Anyway, I checked the nationality stuff more and understood I need to code the nationality shift equation right now, but htat will still not solve the problem because nationality shift is only towards the government's nationality, never towards an enemy of this government, which is what I think we need in this case.

[yellowdaddy]

If the Greeks migrated from several squares or were settled by several cities one after another (or just put there at the beginning of the scenario file), they don't have a home city and have always been under the yoke of the Persians.

then i suppose they become a new nationality,

or... oppose the regime (and thus military units) of Sparta, but not the civilians (and thus non-military units) of Sparta.

can they do that? you have opposition movements to the goverment within each nation don't you? (regardless of gov type)

they will attack spartan military units, but not non-military ones?

they become "spartan rebels"!?

[Lord God Jinnai]

Wouldn't they be then Greeko-Persians? Greece being the dominat ethic origin, but persian being the nationality and influencing factor? Thus over time they could become more like Persian-Greeks (persian being the dominant ethic fator and greek being the lesser point, until eventually they become just pure persians, unless of course their greek ehtic quality has a high resistance to absorbtion, such as jewsish people.

[LDiCesare]

over time they could become more like Persian-Greeks (persian being the dominant ethic fator and greek being the lesser point, until eventually they become just pure persians, unless of course their greek ehtic quality has a high resistance to absorbtion, such as jewsish people.

Yes, that's what I wanted to do with the nationality shift equation, but it doesn't really allow nationality shifts early on because of the lack of a nationalism tech, which makes the Government Nationality Factor be almost zero. So with the current model, that doesn't work, even if there was a majority of Persians in the province.

"spartan rebels"!?

That's probably what they should be. Looks like I'll have to code that first then.

[LDiCesare]

Here's what I coded:
Spartans who riot against Persia while being at peace with them create a new kind of civilization, a 'sub-civilization', of spartan rebels. This civ is limited in the sense it cannot possess land, only units. If it conquers territory, this territory becomes regular Spartan land. Units thus created will try to disband immediately in order to join the civilian population in a Spartan controlled-square.
This also allows riotting units of a civ to be at war against their own civ (feudal lords).
(The same code could be used to allow for privateer units.)
Technically, the units created are not considered as Spartan, are not controlled by the Spartan player (be it a player or computer), but by an independant ai, which gives them an order to disband in friendly territory. 'Feudal lords' never disband since they are at war with their own civ. Note these are not the definitive version of feudal lord units, but a first spike. It's just if you have policies that your people don't like, they may revolt, causing these guerillas to appear in addition to the damage to existing infrastructure.

[Mark_Everson]

Sounds like a decent solution to me! We can see from playtesting if it works out right or not.

[Lord God Jinnai]

How long do the sub-spartans exist for? And what if Spata is destroyed?

also shouldn't they be able to settle if they find some relatively unclaimed land?

[LDiCesare]

Sub spartans last for as long as they are in a non Spartan square or a Spartan square with enemy units.
If Sparta is destroyed, they can refound it, though there will not be new sub spartans if Sparta is destroyed (could be, though, which would make resurrection of civs possible, but I am not sure about such a feature).
They don't settle, but indeed they should be able to. Finding an empty square could be a possible goal for them, probably of lower priority than rejoining their civ.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well that can be a problem if you have some wandering sub-spartan units wandering for several hundered years.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai
Well that can be a problem if you have some wandering sub-spartan units wandering for several hundered years.

That might be a problem for realism, but not for gameplay or fun. I know that a balance must be struck and that this might bother others more than me, but for my $0.02 I wouldn't be bothered if a nation reforms 200 years after its defeat.

[yellowdaddy]

That might be a problem for realism... ...if a nation reforms 200 years after its defeat.

...Romany gypsies, the Jews, most Southeast Asian peoples... and plenty of pre-mediaeval Southwest Asian peoples like Iranians, Phoenicians, Turks... don't they fit that model?

[LDiCesare]

Well that can be a problem if you have some wandering sub-spartan units wandering for several hundered years.

You can also see them as Spartans who went nomadic.
I don't think these units will last for long, though it's indeed a possibility. Again, a nation reforming after being conquered is something that did happen quite often, though usually not after centuries.

[yellowdaddy]

I think they're going to have to be susceptible to the same model which causes the ethnic groups to evolve, split and merge... If these Rebel Spartans are still seperate from the Spartan government after 250 years, they should be beginning to become a distinct EG, defined by a dialect. After say 500 years, then they should certainly have a distinct language, and be a descendent of the Spartans.

I doubt they would be able to wander that long unless they became nomadic or hilltribes. They'd have to settle eventually, and then they'd either be absorbed by a bigger nation or set up their own nation.

reminds me of this:
In the Balkans you get communities of "Aromunes" aka "Vlachs" they are little enclaves of Roman descended peoples - their dialects like Romanian

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc97/edoc7728.htm

in addition, if you are either really crap at, or unlucky in the game and get bummed by the other nations, it gives you the chance to make a comeback.

[Lord God Jinnai]

...Romany gypsies, the Jews, most Southeast Asian peoples... and plenty of pre-mediaeval Southwest Asian peoples like Iranians, Phoenicians, Turks... don't they fit that model?

You can also see them as Spartans who went nomadic.
I don't think these units will last for long, though it's indeed a possibility. Again, a nation reforming after being conquered is something that did happen quite often, though usually not after centuries.

I'm not saying nations shouldn't reform, but that is almost always because of overthrowing current rulers from within, political redrawings of the map, refugee/nobility recaputing the terrioty with support. Wanding groups never have except isreal which was not done in the manner you describe.

In fact almost every example you've given are countries captured, but not absorbed by the new nation, not a displaced and wandering nation.

[yellowdaddy]

the Romanys haven't formed a state, but they still persist.

off the top of my head
Southeast asians:
Thais were the Nanzhao state, displaced by the chinese, reformed as Sukothai etc... the thai were nomadic, and some still are.

The Mons Dvaravati state, displaced by Thais, and Burmese Pyu state, reformed then was sort of absorbed,

what about Madagascans and Maoris sailing across oceans to set up states after being displaced.

I thought the Parthians weren't the only Iranian tribe to form states and be nomadic inbetween?

The Jews were conquered by the Romans, dispersed, and then reformed a state.

Phoenicians, were conquered but spawned the Carthaginians, and some people claim that the Maltese are descende from them.

I ought to look up more on the Turks, but my vague memory is of them being not only quite nomadic, but forming and reforming a multitude of states.
Attila the Hun being a fairly classsic example.

In fact almost every example you've given are countries captured, but not absorbed by the new nation, not a displaced and wandering nation.

are you sure?