Civ 4 resistance - Partisans or resisting citizens?

[Optimizer]

I really missed the Partisan units that popped up around a conquered city in Civ 2. The resisting citizens in Civ3 might be a challenge for the offensive player, but they are too random, and you can't interact with them.

You should still have some control of the citizens in enemy-occupied cities. You could be able to open a city window though you had lost the city. Then you could pay your fellow-countrymen to go on strike, to become Partisans or to carry out spy missions.

Are there any other ideas about how to spice up the resistance model?

[Fosse]

I really like the thought of having control of "your" former citizens! The other guy's military manpower in the city would effect the cost of the various tactics at your disposal.

That's an interesting new way to look at it. Happiness before takeover could come into play, as well as government types, etc.

Neat idea, Optimizer.

[patcon]

The creation of partisans who leave a captured city to continue the fight against the invaders is a civ2 idea I'm sad was dropped. It is realistic.

They would be formed from the original population of the captured city, decreasing its population. Tweak the formula which now determines how many resisters, etc. you get to include partisans. Perhaps allow the possibility of all the original civilians becoming partisans, leaving a ghost town and maybe attempting sabotage on the way out. ("You may take away our city, but you can never take away our freedom! We're outahere, and let's trash the place on the way out. )

They should have weak attack, medium defense, and medium bombard as they are just really mad and dedicated civilians (think "spearmen with some dynamite").

They should have 2 MPs and treat all terrain as grassland.

They can:
(1) pillage tile improvements (disrupt production)
(2) directly attack units (pick off weak, unprotected units) - workers are killed, not captured (payback is a b***h and we don't take prisoners)
(3) suicide attack units (think "underpowered cruise missile attack")
(4) sabotage production or city improvements with 4 outcomes (succeed and get away, succeed and die, fail and get away, fail and die) whose probabilities are determined by number of defenders present and a ratio based on civilians present (something like a 2x2 pundit square - remember genetics from biology? )
(5) flee to the mother/fatherland to become trained soldiers (at upgrade from warrior cost)

They are invisible except:
(1) when attacking units
(2) when an "unfriendly" unit occupies their tile
(3) if "unfriendly" units occupy an adjacent tile there is a probability of discovery based on terrain, number of unfriendly units, and number of partisans (more of either = easier to spot)

They are controlled by whatever civ they belong to. This may be unbalancing as I'm not so sure the AI could handle the subtleties. A human should be much better able to handle this.

The civ which lost the city has knowledge of the city screen and a 1-tile field of view from the city as long as there are any resisters in the city. Partisans give a 1-tile field of view.

I'd want the occupier to have the option of depleting the native population other than the standard "make them all specialists and let them starve" method. Perhaps executing resisters in response to partisan attacks. Of course there would be negative consequences to this: content/unhappy->resister, happy->unhappy, their captured workers go on strike the next turn, more trouble in future catured cities, etc.

[lajzar]

My take on it:

From the start of the game, unhappiness a la CTP comes up. Once you have certain peacful protest/political expression techs or nationalism, resisters come up. Once you get the guerilla warfare tech, guerillas come up. This way, as you advance and your peoples' sense of national identity improves, you get more and more compoensation for a captured city.

Guerillas should be roughly equal to riflemen in stats, with the following special attributes:

flagless (doesn't show national ID)
can pillage
invisible until attack
can be upgraded to [riflemen].
Special - suicide bomb attack (requires fundie gov)
Special - destroy building (spy type function)

Note that guerillas should not result in massively depleted population. If the entire population of Paris became guerillas, n*zi germany might have noticed something amiss. Most would have been resisters in this model, not active freedom fighters.


The capturer should equally have the following options:
Send to death camp (fascist gov only)
Sacrifice to blood cult (blood cult gov)
Enslave (if slavery is implemented)

Governments that allow population rush building will sacrifice hostile nationalities first.

[Optimizer]

You should also be able to incite uprisings in civs conquered by yoour enemy. There are many examples of this in the real world history.

[joncha]

I voted banana... but only because I agree with 3 (or 4!) of the 5 other options.

Yes to guerrillas! Yes to resistance! Yes to more options!

Viva Banananistas!

jon.

[Kuciwalker]

I think there should be BOTH systems. A certain number of Guerillas should be spawned no matter what (so you can't block them by surrounding the city). Guerillas should be about as powerful as in C3 (with the AU mod). If an enemy unit is in a square where a Guerilla is spawned, the unit should have to defend against the guerilla (basically, the guerilla attacks all units in the square until it dies or there are no more enemies). Also, each time a unit moves into an enemy tile there should be a % chance of a Guerilla being spawned.

[GhengisFarb™]

I vote for the first four choices.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by Optimizer
Are there any other ideas about how to spice up the resistance model?

Give guerilla units something like "psi combat" in SMAC, meaning that the attack and defence strength of the unit is determined by its morale. This way, using "psi/morale combat" guerilla units also won't become weaker and weaker as more advanced weapon technology is discovered.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Maniac
Give guerilla units something like "psi combat" in SMAC, meaning that the attack and defence strength of the unit is determined by its morale. This way, using "psi/morale combat" guerilla units also won't become weaker and weaker as more advanced weapon technology is discovered.

That's a really good idea! Too many units couldn't have this attribute or it would get weird, but a small handful such as partisans would be a lot of fun!

[GhengisFarb™]

I like the idea of a Morale factor. Perhaps Militaristic civs could get a Morale factor bonus.

[Maniac]

Glad you like it.
Besides for partisans, the other major use of morale combat could be for barbarians and pirates btw.

[Xorbon]

I never really did like the partisans from Civ 2. They were more of a pain in the ass than anything else. I like the idea of resistors being able to cause more problems for the occupier than just halting production and increasing the odds of a city flip (like in Civ 3). So, I voted for the third option.

[LzPrst]

I'm a history fan and thus, whatever happened in history should be simulated in the game, to a reasonable extent of course. Armed resistors attacking buildings, troops, destroying infrastructure etc is an extremely important part of warfare in later times and should definately be implemented. But what if you could get guerrillas who are of your civ and fight against you! if you change to a fascist gov or communist gov certain parts of the populace might take up arms against such a drastic change in their lives. these partisans shouldnt be put in the hands of nearby enemies, the computer would have to handle them. this way you never know if the rebels are a "natural" insurgence or an enemysponsored attack. though there should be a % probability of each time a guerilla is defeated that its cover is blown and the owner, rebel or enemy civ is discovered. If caught doing such an act... expect a difficult meeting with the ambassador

[Kloreep]

A combination of Civ2 and Civ3 would be good.

[Jarred]

Why not make as long as a war is present enemy territory "Neutral Territory" in which both nations can use roads, etc...?

[Arrian]

If we're going for more realism:

Resistors should break stuff. Instead of not being able to build things in the city (current CivIII model), you should be able to build things (more likely rush 'em), but the resistors should be able to break them.

Partisans should make a comeback too, though I think they shouldn't really do much in terms of combat, but have all terrain as roads (ATR) ability and stealth. Thus, each partisan could wreak havoc via pillaging & sabotage missions (I'd give them some of the abilities of the old CivII spies - whilst leaving most espionage an abstract thing you do from a menu). The stealth ability should not just make them invisible, but also allow enemy units to move right through the tile they're on w/o engaging them - there should be a percentage chance of battle. This would make them difficult to root out.

HOWEVER, I'm not really sure that would be *fun*

It would be a pain in the ass, and thus more realistic, but would it be fun?

-Arrian

[GePap]

I think a mix is best- when a city is taken you have resistance by the citzens-this gives you a certain chace that each turn, this will turn into a guerrilla unit that will attack your forces in the city or go around ripping up the area. If it attacks the city, it would have an attack bonus equal to the percentage of the citzens that are resistant (so, while normal attack is 6, if 50% of citizens resist, attack is 9, if 100% of citizens resist, attack will be 12). These units woul fall under 2 types-either free barbarian type units (random partisans simply fighting the invader) or controlled by the civ that once owned the city (partisans of the Soviet model). Obviously, the random partisans might attack the government controlled partisans.

Throuhg espionage you could get some of the barbarian partisans created-but not ones controlled directly by you.

[Heffalump]

I like the Civ3 model better than the Civ2 model. Partisans were just an annoyance and had no real game value.

To further flesh out the value of a risisting citizen: resisting citizens should be able to act as spies at a basic level and be able to conduct spying and espionage missions in the city at hand.

[Panag]

hi ,

Let's keep the resisting citizens of Civ 3!
The player should be able to fund guerrilla warfare and sabotage in lost cities.
We need a complex resistance model with collaborators, death squads and hostage situations.

a mix of all would be intresting

have a nice day

[Whoha]

I ignore resistors in play as it stands(don't even bother garrisoning the city until the host civ is annihilated). If the city flips back send a tank/cav/horsie/swordsman back in to take the city, then move the tank right back out again.

Partisans I'd have to fight against, and given civ 3's wierd combat model they'd actually be useful as opposed to the civ2 partisans.

edit: this is all from vanilla, never got c3c or ptw, don't know if resistors cause any problems other then for the city that they are in, or if the combat model has been fixed.

[star mouse]

possible ideas:

* Resistance should be a combination of partisans leaving to fight from without, partisans becoming resisters to fight from within, and partisans aiding your espionage efforts.

* If any enemy city has citizens of your nationality, you should be able to spy in that city more easily (a greater probability of success) than other enemy cities, and conduct spy missions more easily. If you spy in this method, there is a chance that one population point of your citizens will be lost (the spies are caught and executed).

* Bring back partisan units. Make them invisible - think of guerrilla warfare and the like. These partisans should change according to tech level.

* Bring back diplomat/spy units. The abstraction of spying in CIV3 isn't the same as the thrill of smuggling a spy unit to an enemy city.

* Resisting units in a city should fight the occupying garrison fairly - no more flips! We want to see the fighting. Resisters should fight the garrison as if the resisters were guerrillas and the garrison was defending. However, because the combat takes place between units occupying the same tile, the defenders should have defense penalties such as no fortification bonus. It also follows that the city should lose population points when it happens, with the losses taking place among citizens of the appropriate nationality.

[star mouse]

Much as I hate to reply to my own post:

Resisters should fight the garrison as if the resisters were guerrillas and the garrison was defending. However, because the combat takes place between units occupying the same tile, the defenders should have defense penalties such as no fortification bonus.

Possible defense penalties for defending troops in a city under resistance:
* Troops heal as if the city is enemy territory. In CIV3 terms, no healing unless Battlefield Medicine is available.
* No bonus if the troops are fortified.
* Fewer defense points.
* Damaged troops would not enjoy the protection of less damaged troops. That is, damaged troops in the stack can be targeted.

This would make it quite dangerous to fortify damaged troops in a captured city under resistance!

These only apply to defense vs resisters. Against enemy troops attacking the city, a more normal set of rules would apply.

It would be interesting if the resisters could also aid the troops attempting to liberate the city. A good way to do this would be to allow the targeting of damaged troops but to retain other defensive bonuses.

More notes on this idea:
* It should also be possible for a city to lose some defending troops to resistance each turn, but not all of them.
* Resistance should be more active. Something should happen each turn in a city under resistance.

[realpolitic]

Partisans should not be allowed to garrison a city unless they helped take it. Otherwise, they should continue as troublemakers, until caught!

[alva]

Originally posted by Arrian
If we're going for more realism:

Resistors should break stuff. Instead of not being able to build things in the city (current CivIII model), you should be able to build things (more likely rush 'em), but the resistors should be able to break them.

Partisans should make a comeback too, though I think they shouldn't really do much in terms of combat, but have all terrain as roads (ATR) ability and stealth. Thus, each partisan could wreak havoc via pillaging & sabotage missions (I'd give them some of the abilities of the old CivII spies - whilst leaving most espionage an abstract thing you do from a menu). The stealth ability should not just make them invisible, but also allow enemy units to move right through the tile they're on w/o engaging them - there should be a percentage chance of battle. This would make them difficult to root out.

HOWEVER, I'm not really sure that would be *fun*

It would be a pain in the ass, and thus more realistic, but would it be fun?

-Arrian

The question one could ask though, is should everything in a game like CIV be fun?
You could argue that part - if not most - of the fun is overcoming (some) of the (little) annoyances.

That's why I like culture flipping even though it annoys me to no end at times.