Rebels

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Oct 17 2004

Are there any plans to implement rebel units forming in regions with very low approval? (Like the Iraq situation)

Also, have HQs been cut?

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 17 2004

"In the game, controlling territory that is very loyal to another player or with loyalty to you that is dangerously low may cause Guerilla units to appear on the map. The way to counter this is to keep a large enough occupation force to keep the locals quiet. Any invading armies attacked would be by this type of unit. Whether the World Market and other AI players see these as acts of terrorism or freedom fighting is likley to depend on their opinions of both the invader and invadee... "

Unless things have changed, this qoute from this thread should be the answer to the first question.
http://www.bgforums.com/viewtopic.php?t ... s&start=15

As to the question about HQs ? I didnt know HQs were in the game to begin with ?

Post by **Balthagor** » Oct 18 2004

This is still the plan for civil unrest. As for the HQ's, that was part of one of the heirarchy ideas and died with it.

Post by **BattleGoat** » Oct 18 2004

Yes, HQ's have generally been dumped. There still are "Command Units" that are available for some situations and they will represent the "Leader" of a Region in specific scenarios where Victory Conditions warrant. ex. Victory Condition --- Kill the other leaders

You'll have to find them first!

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Oct 19 2004

Good to hear rebels are in as units that will appear.
Will there be different rebel units with different strenghts?
Also, if rebels are in, it could provide a function for cheaper para-military type units.

Post by **Balthagor** » Oct 19 2004

I think the paramilitary unit you're looking for is partisans, not rebels. They will show up when terriotry taken from a player rebels against it's new owner.

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Oct 22 2004

I've often thought the same Aurore, as it seemed to work for IRA when they targetted the motorways and 'city' in London, shortly after we have new willingness to negotiate.

However, I suspected that during the later stages of IRA campaigns there appeared to be a pattern to 'shoot to kill' incidents. I wondered whether it was the case that when the PIRA overstepped the limits, the special ops conducted a shoot to kill operation as a warning. At a glance there did appear a correlation.

Similarly, when I saw the auful event of 9/11 I wondered if Bin-ladin thought "**** that was too much". Because Bin Ladin serves a purpose to some and if he pushed too hard the result would probably be more resouces mobilised against his networks.

I speculate this as a layman who is sceptical of conspiracy theories because I think that Organisations don't have as much control as people give them, and politicians can barely keep affairs secret.

(As for paramilitaries in an earlier post I was refering to security forces like beefed up police)

Post by **George Geczy** » Oct 24 2004

I think it's quite true that most insurgencies have poor leadership and organization, and of course poor public relations

Those with successful leadership actually manage to accomplish something - Fidel Castro led the Cuban insurgency into power, Marshall Tito did the same thing with the Yugoslav partisans that fought the *****. Hey, even George Washington managed to lead his insurgency against the British into power

The Iraq situation would be even worse than it is today if the insurgents actually resembled an organized group that fought in an organized way against 'occupation'.

In SR2010 the plan is to model partisans somewhat on the French/Yugoslav/Russian partisan model from WWII, as a locally-organized group that directly targets the occupiers. (It can be argued that the Russian partisans from WWII were a bit less clear about who they targetted, but that's a different discussion).

-- George.