From the real life natural disasters affect the game thread
http://www.gewar.net/forums/showthread.php?t=55&page=4&pp=10
Insurgencies are a good idea. Maybe have it so there's a percentage risk of an insurgency after taking over a city. Maybe factor in the length of time the city was owned by the previous owner (longer = higher chance), and the size of the army which was defeated (larger army = stronger insurgency). I don't know about guerilla attacks though... seems like they're already represented by all the people who attack with 100 man armies. ;)


This is actually a good idea - If you have owned a city for a long time, the natives could be rather miffed by the change of ownership and attack the city within itself. I'm not sure how it could be implemented, but it is intriguing.

Perhaps the losing owner could pay the insurgents like creating an army already outside a city. Therfore, I have held Nairobi, Kenya for 2 weeks (qualifying period) and it gets attacked by nytransit and I lose the city. I can have the option (within 12 hours, 24 maybe) of setting the militia onto them thusly;

I pay for insurgent creation of 375 geos (5000 troops - can be cheaper as a bonus to the old owner) and click "insurrection" (This army cannot be moved), it has to attack instantly. Then this dialogue box opens in the latest activity.

The city of Nairobi, Kenya was attacked by internal militia. 1 defending army (3,245 troops) was killed in the battle. 4,842 attacking troops were killed. nytransit lost the city. The city has reverted back to Blitzkrieg's rule.

And I own the city with an army that is now a normal army (moveable etc.) of 152 troops (5000 - 4852 lost).

Or it is automatic as was also suggested by p0wderfinger, but I prefer manual.

Blitzkrieg.

i'd say insurgents are cheaper then normal troops, to simulate the tactical advantage they have from attacking from the inside.

i'd say insurgents are cheaper then normal troops, to simulate the tactical advantage they have from attacking from the inside.

Although then you could have an ally attack the city with a 100 man army defending. then buy a huge insurgent army at half price and after being victorious you have a MASSIVE army at half price. Bugger, big expolit. They'd better cost normal troops.

I think that's a good idea Blitz, have it so the insurgents cannot be attacked by the invading force (they're all hiding in the bushes with loincloths and bow n' arrows). There should also be a limit to how many insurgents can be purchased. I'd say the max is determined by how long you've been in the city, and the size of the city population in general. Overall the insurgent force should never be able to defeat a normal defensive force, but weaken them to make a counter-attack easier. You might even have the insurgents attack in waves. Once the city is taken over, they start attacking in 1/5 waves maybe (you want to give the owner a chance), allowing you to move your own army in and join the skirmish.

Interesting.

Off the top of my head I think you'd have to cap the size of the militants as a percentage (though maybe on a sliding scale for how long the previous regime owned the city).

Not sure about waves though. That's giving multiple bites of the cherry.

And I wouldn't see the J00d8n People's Front (or whatever we'd be calling them) as a realistic opportunity to take back a city - just an inconvenience that could hamper a new owner. Or hamstring them without destorying them if the previous owner had been long-term.