![]() Yeah, it also makes sense to avoid the weird scenario where a revolutionary splinter nation breaks off, both sides white peace out, and then they end up best friends because oh they both share common primary cultures and have all these trade goods the other nation needs. Zeron fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Apr 7, 2022 But political revolutions don't necessary cover any specific map boundaries or cultural pops. I imagine with cultural rebellions you can more easily do the stalemate stuff, because then if they become independent it just turns into the CSA or Occitania or whatever. Sure there's exceptions, but there might be some systems built in for that.Įdit: I think also that it's because the second country wouldn't align to any existing ones, so you'd end up potentially with the map covered in a bunch of dynamic nations. Neither country left would have enough power to do anything real and it just wouldn't be fun (for most people). For a lot of countries if you lose half/a significant portion of your country the game is basically over there. But if I had to guess I'd say the main reason is for gameplay concessions. The revolutions described in the dev diary seem entirely political minded, and stalemating there seems like it'd just result in the movement losing support and just dying out/being reabsorbed anyway. They titled the next dev diary "civil wars: cultural secessions" so I think that'll cover more of the cultural divide kind of thing. Good luck running those Loyalist forces with a bureaucracy running on nothing but bits of drywall and the backs of old receipts. I love the aside about the government potentially hitting a brick wall in the event of the revolutionaries controlling the paper mills. The best real world example of that is South and North Korea and on paper they've been at war this whole time. Sure, don't make an option right away, but if you end up in a stalemate for years then I don't see why you shouldn't be able to have a country split up.Īt the very least enable it in cases where there has ended up being a clear cultural/religious divide between the loyalist and revolutionary forces, which both internally and externally causes people to consider the two as separate countries. Not sure how I feel about a revolution always having to end with one country getting annexed. I love the way they've distinguished between populist uprisings (driven by the mass radicalism of pops) and power plays by the elite (driven by discontent among high-clout interest groups). This would make revolutions/civil wars more of a threat to the player, while also helping to make sure that they're likely not going to drag on forever, a paroxysm of violence rather than the near eternal instability of V2. If you end up having a civil war, especially later on in the game, it probably should result in a clusterfuck of factions all duking it out at once. Free radicals aren't dangerous because they work well together, but because they can influence those around them and cause a kind of chain reaction of radicalization.Īnd because you can't necessarily defeat them in detail if they all end up rising up essentially at the same time. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |