Insurgent Overhaul [Proposal]

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Insurgent Overhaul [Proposal]


    (Warning. This is LONG to read.)



    Introduction and Manifest
    Hello, recently, we all had our opinion on Insurgents and how they work. Some find them atrocious, other find them easy to handle, and globally, i myself find them a bit like a "tedious work", meaning, like cleaning the house, that if you don't do it regularly, it becomes gradually worse and worse. In this case, your Broom is the helicopter gunship.

    The Game handles Rogue states through morale. I won't learn you anything : revolt chance = if it revolts, a unit spawns. Once the province belongs to the Rogue State, the morale doesn't raise, and each day, if it "revolts", another insurgent units spawns. This lead to the situation where sometimes, insurgents hideout look like a Red Army Corps.

    The team is working heavily on the frustration created by too much insurgents, and the situation is already better for the disgruntled players. Here, i'm not proposing "how to solve a problem". I want to brainstorm on "how to make them marvelous", because i'm convinced the actual insurgents are a superb framework for additional features.

    I start from the hypothesis that in our modern world, this kind of insurgency and organisation try to establish a political entity that can be recognised (either through external support, or through media recognition) as an illegal state.
    Framework meaning, in this case, how to make them marvelous without asking devs to spend ludicrous amount of times on "creating", and instead reuse at their best what is already in use.

    Executive Summary :
    I trust that organised and aggressive rogue state can help to improve the PvE experience of the game while providing good incentive to reduce blobbing, and new narrative stories for Rpers.

    Tools used :

    - Reduce drastically the revolt chance both in cities and provinces
    - Improve drastically the severity of an uprising, through numbers and a random factor (D&D style)
    - Create new type of insurgent units off already existing assets
    - Rebalance (down) the basic insurgent
    - Make them expand.
    - Change their handling in the daily european.

    I°) Spawn Rate / Spawn Severity
    Generally, the feedback from players is that insurgents spawn too often, and i do agree to some point. It feels more like hooligans are starting fires in some parts of the country, instead of an insurgency.
    However, if we take "one" revolt alone, it's not severe. It's basically one infantry, that doesn't move with 19 HP. It can fend off a basic infantry, but it will be easily killed by either planes, tanks/recon, helicopters. With time, however, if you left it unchecked, it will become a human blob with 150 HP, that isn't more dangerous, but bothersome.

    Actually, the typical 25% province has a 3% chance of uprising, and the city has a 50% chance of uprising

    The underlying goal is to shout to you : "MAN DO NOT LET CITIES EMPTY". However, people do it, i do it on a regular basis : i try not to, but the blitzkrieg sings like a siren. It seems they just don't care :D, and it's their choice. Now, without deleting this "anti-blobbing feature", i would propose to make it more like "If you let your cities empties, there is a chance you will create a difficult to handle monster".

    My modification proposal :

    -25% morale Province chance : 2%. If we consider your usual player country has between 55 and 65 provinces, it means that through annexing him, you would ensure a typical 1% * ~60 chances, meaning a solid chance that at least one province will uprise per full country expansion.
    -25% morale city chance : 25%. 8 * 25%, meaning you are pretty sure at least one/two city will uprise (if you don't let units in it.)

    This reduce, of course, very much the occurences of an uprising, and the general bordergore. now, i do propose something harsh with them.
    Instead of just one unit : spawn a random scaled amount (meaning that there is a lower chance of spawning five units rather than two) amount between two and five units, but not only basic insurgents. Here allows me to go to the second point of my proposal : rebalance and new units.

    II°) Redesigned basic insurgent units and new rogue state units
    The main concern i hear from players when they talk about the unit stats is "they are irregulars. How the hell do they manage to beat, and easily, a infantry unit from a professional army, in open battle".

    Here is my proposal of rebalancing of the basic insurgent : (with the original to compare)




























































































    To explain it with more details, I transformed this unit (following Germanico advice, to be honest) into some kind of low-cost special force, with horrible efficiency when it comes to attack in open field, or entrenched positions in city. On the other side, when they fight in their rural area, they take advantage of the terrain, being able to cause much more damage.

    I shifted their focus to be more efficient as soft-damage dealer, while i reduced their hard capacity, both offensively and defensively. The underlying idea is as such : We already saw insurgents forces manage to force some standing armies to retreat, in specific case of isolated units, or superior numbers, or surprise attacks. On the other side, i've yet to witness the report of a battle where a line of militarized pick ups managed to break through plains in the middle of a defensive battleline with entrenched military personnel, or worst, armored vehicles. French Operations in Mali and Côte d'Ivoire give plenty of examples of what happens when a pick up rushes frontally in clear sight of an defending infantry fighting vehicle, even using light caliber. In open plain, a ill-equiped insurgent wouldn't manage to hurt significantly a tank without being forced to withdraw/disband under a heavy firepower.

    On the other opposite of the specter, a very badly used hard-hp unit, such as a tank, could be slightly damaged by this unit ( Western Tank in mountain combat against this unit = 55 PV hitting 3 against 10 PV hitting 2,25. The western tank needing ~4 rounds to kill this unit, it would end with ~10 damages on its hull. In absolute, it's nothing, but it's attrition, especially considering the spawns (see I°) and 3°) )

    I also raised the damages done on population and infrastructure, for the simple fact that soldiers, even in the most disciplined armies, are not the last to pillage to some extent and cause unecessary degradations of civilian infrastructures... so imagine irregulars. Who let his cities with no garrisons anyway when there are Fanatic fighters at the door, anyway ? :D

    They are stealthy because they fight non-conventionally. It's hard to identify them as a fighting force before they uncover themselves, and they don't hesitate to move or occupy space disguised as civilians. In this regard, they are hard to uncover before you have reports of their activity in a province, except if you maintain an active military presence there.

    Now, you would imagine that this makes the rogue state very weak ---> just reco/reco/reco, and ultimately, they will lack of luck and fall on a infantry that will wreck them. Or worst, they will hear the Charge of the Valkiries. Insurgent lack variety of units that regular countries have, but this can be improved :

    Proposed Rogue State Roster :
    Please note i was too lazy to duplicate the "old tv" effect put on the pics, so please appreciate the "god i don't want" lazy effect, and the well-know "i don't manage to reproduce this stain of blue, let's just say it's cyan. At least i managed to saturate the sky the same way" effect. Don't mind also the top right bottom (except the description :p). On a last note, i didn't change any "speed", as i failed to change them in an interesting way.

    Insurgent (Revised) (As explained higher)

    Freedom Fighter --> uses the eastern basic infantry asset (before we find a nice asset of a guy holding a stinger), and is a solid defense unit intended to disallow complete safety of aircrafts and helicopters over the rogue state, as well as holding cities or mountains



    Mercenaries ---> uses the eastern mechanised infantry asset (before we find a nice asset of an armored pick up), and is intended as an offensive shocktrooper with solid all-round stats, able to actually fight on equal ground with low-tier infantry and vehicles



    Stolen APC ---> uses the eastern combat recon vehicle asset (before we find a nice asset of a early cold war infantry fighting vehicle), and is intended as an offensive hard-hp unit, that can't conquer but can really hurt unprepared positions or units



    Stolen Tank ---> uses the eastern tank asset, is intended as a sub-tank with anti-aircraft/helicopter capacity, dedicated to spearhead or holding cities under siege.
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
  • (because 10 000 characters is a limit. I hope i can be forgiven on posting two times in a row because i swear, it's not spam. Or maybe it is...in the most evilest way)



    Now, we know that Rogue states don't play like regular countries : their spawn mechanic is related to revolt chance. Lucky me, it's precisely what i propose to use (and expand).

    III°) Expanded Spawn Mechanic.

    I already spoke in I°) about "revolt probability", now i will cover what could happen "if there is a revolt", to exploit those new unit/roles
    If a province revolts, then a random value is sorted between 1-100, pretty much in the flavor of a traditional RPG. 1 is a critical success, 100 a critical failure.
    Each time a revolt "succeeds", a roll happens, and the associated spawn appears on the map



    In game Example : Bratislava is left without a garrison, with its 25% revolt chance. At the day change, no luck, there is a revolt. A math random function draws a 22 : 2 basic insurgents and one freedom fighter spawn in Bratislava. if nothing is done, as the next day chance, there will be another "revolt chance", and if it succeeds, it will means "another spawn".
    This does mean, obviously, that the more a rogue state has of cities (and provinces), the more, with probability, he will spawn units. Cities would be "recruitment centers", while provinces would be quite rare uprisings

    In rough terms, a Rogue State with one city will "produce" that way roughly 4 units per revolt ( so... nearly one per day). Now, this implies something more vicious, if you change the Rogue State behavior, and this is exactly the last part of my reasoning.

    IV°) Modification in the Rogue State Behavior.

    The mechanism drawn higher implies that the more you let a rogue state without killing him, the more it will stack units.

    Now, i'll add in the equation something the team definitely wants to do, overhaul or not : moving insurgents. Insurgents actually trying to attack and conquer neighbouring provinces. If you have this feature for rogue state, suddenly, their expansion begin to have a more fearsome meaning : as they expand, their "probability" of new spawns does rise. A little with provinces... A LOT MORE with cities.

    Let's imagine a Rogue state born in a city : 25% chance of spawn. It attacks and conquers the 8 provinces around him. The Rogue state actual probability of a Spawn is very much increased to nearly 40% per day. If it somehow manages to gain another city or eat from a weak AI more territory (let's imagine a rogue with two cities and 15 provinces), then this Rogue State has a very high chance of spawning four new units everyday. This means that, left uncheck, a Rogue State will becomes worse and worse (in an organic way), slowly becoming a ISIS-like state. This relatively high-spawn is compensated (except in case of bad luck :p) by the fact their units are, individually, inferior to their regular counterparts.

    V°) Flavor modification

    One thing comes to my mind when i read the daily newspaper : a huge part of it is filled with rogue state notification ---> not only their spawn, but also their losses, what losses they inflict, this kind of thing. With agressive rogue states, those notification would be spamming everyone.




    Illegal states usually do not have persistent or good administration, and medias will always have trouble to have good numbers on casualties or events. On the other hand, public opinion is very sensitive to military casualties.
    I suggest, if it's possible, you just hide rogue states casualties and news about them, except the military casualties they inflict upon regular states. I would also recommand to delete notifications about when you kill one of their units. ---> they are irregulars, their numbers are related to propaganda, and you can never be 100% sure you REALLY vainquished an irregular unit, because it's how they fight : Water between the rocks.


    This proposal, shown as a full ecosystem, is primarly to give fuel to the brain machine that is game design. From conflicts and ideas, something will be put on a trello in a card, on a list called "Good ideas", and will be used, further on the road.

    If you have read this to the very end, thank you. You well deserved to trash talk ^^
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
  • Good idea! It did take some time to read, but it was very interesting.


    Opulon wrote:

    Actually, the typical 25% province has a 3% chance of uprising, and the city has a 50% chance of uprising
    25% and below, with the new update.

    Opulon wrote:

    My modification proposal :

    -25% morale Province chance : 2%. If we consider your usual player country has between 55 and 65 provinces, it means that through annexing him, you would ensure a typical 1% * ~60 chances, meaning a solid chance that at least one province will uprise per full country expansion.
    -25% morale city chance : 25%. 8 * 25%, meaning you are pretty sure at least one/two city will uprise (if you don't let units in it.)
    Those figures are more random. They won't spawn per expected numbers most of the time. You can simulate this. And you don't address how much units you have to put to stop it from revolting. Same as current? Double the units?

    Opulon wrote:

    rebalance and new units.
    A good idea. This is my second time reading through it, but still. Insurgents have been talked about a lot but this hasn't really come up (the new insurgent types).

    Opulon wrote:

    The main concern i hear from players when they talk about the unit stats is "they are irregulars. How the hell do they manage to beat, and easily, a infantry unit from a professional army, in open battle".
    That I like to bring up examples. ISIS expanded rapidly while, yes, Syria and Iraq were in turmoil, but the battle of Mosul took so long. I also use other examples, like the battle of Mogadishu, 1993. It was technically a US victory but at a high cost.

    10 hitpoints might not be enough for your revised insurgent, although I think the rest was well thought out.

    Opulon wrote:

    with horrible efficiency when it comes to attack in open field, or entrenched positions in city. On the other side, when they fight in their rural area, they take advantage of the terrain, being able to cause much more damage.
    I think entrenched positions are good for insurgents. they tend to do well in urban warfare. Again I have to bring up the battle of Mosul. A few thousand fighters held off a force many times their size in a big city for 9 months. And I think there should be a better modifier for the forest, as they can use stealth to terrorize civilians and military units alike in their attacks.

    Opulon wrote:

    I shifted their focus to be more efficient as soft-damage dealer, while i reduced their hard capacity, both offensively and defensively. The underlying idea is as such : We already saw insurgents forces manage to force some standing armies to retreat, in specific case of isolated units, or superior numbers, or surprise attacks. On the other side, i've yet to witness the report of a battle where a line of militarized pick ups managed to break through plains in the middle of a defensive battleline with entrenched military personnel, or worst, armored vehicles. French Operations in Mali and Côte d'Ivoire give plenty of examples of what happens when a pick up rushes frontally in clear sight of an defending infantry fighting vehicle, even using light caliber. In open plain, a ill-equiped insurgent wouldn't manage to hurt significantly a tank without being forced to withdraw/disband under a heavy firepower.
    Insurgents are quite fanatical and will die for what they think is a greater cause. RPGs and ATGMs can do plenty of damage to armored vehicles.

    Opulon wrote:

    I also raised the damages done on population and infrastructure, for the simple fact that soldiers, even in the most disciplined armies, are not the last to pillage to some extent and cause unecessary degradations of civilian infrastructures... so imagine irregulars. Who let his cities with no garrisons anyway when there are Fanatic fighters at the door, anyway ?
    Completely agree. With nothing stopping them, they can do anything.

    Opulon wrote:

    They are stealthy because they fight non-conventionally. It's hard to identify them as a fighting force before they uncover themselves, and they don't hesitate to move or occupy space disguised as civilians. In this regard, they are hard to uncover before you have reports of their activity in a province, except if you maintain an active military presence there.
    Also completely agree. I've never thought about this this way. Maybe insurgents aren't stealthy, but more experienced freedom fighters are.

    I like the idea of the new infantry insurgents, but I think mercenaries can be a bit better.

    For the APCs, I think they should be a bit weaker, and for the tank, I really don't think it should have good AA.

    I think we can add another insurgent type. I haven't came up with a good name for it yet, but the idea is a revised insurgent with heavy weapons. They wouldn't have much health or training but with good, stolen weapons, they would be ale to deal lots of damage to all unit types.

    And no, that isn't spam. Only if you post the same idea in many threads or post tens of times in a row containing useless information does it qualify as spam in CON forums, at least that's in my opinion.

    Opulon wrote:

    III°) Expanded Spawn Mechanic.

    I already spoke in I°) about "revolt probability", now i will cover what could happen "if there is a revolt", to exploit those new unit/roles
    If a province revolts, then a random value is sorted between 1-100, pretty much in the flavor of a traditional RPG. 1 is a critical success, 100 a critical failure.
    Each time a revolt "succeeds", a roll happens, and the associated spawn appears on the map
    I think the lower the morale, the higher the chance of a higher number. maybe at 33% morale, the chance of getting a 1-10 is 75%, but at 0% morale it's 1%.

    I think you're overvaluing freedom fighters. I think the 5 insurgents ---> 2 insurgents + 1 freedom fighter should be the other way around, or 4 insurgents ---> 2 insurgents + 1 freedom fighter is more logical.

    As for the stolen tanks, I think they shouldn't appear (it isn't a stolen tank when it isn't stolen in the first place), but happen when insurgents are fighting a lone tank. Every hour, a random coin flip is flipped before the attacking happens. Heads means no takeover. Tails means it's become a stolen tank. As for stolen APCs, I'll let that slip.

    Opulon wrote:

    It attacks and conquers the 8 provinces around him
    Just the ones there's a road to. There aren't as many as 8 for most if not all provinces. And not all simultaneously. Just one at a time. We can't get too powerful of a rouge nation it invades a continent and all players have to set aside their differences to attack the insurgency.

    Opulon wrote:

    Illegal states usually do not have persistent or good administration, and medias will always have trouble to have good numbers on casualties or events. On the other hand, public opinion is very sensitive to military casualties.
    I suggest, if it's possible, you just hide rogue states casualties and news about them, except the military casualties they inflict upon regular states. I would also recommand to delete notifications about when you kill one of their units. ---> they are irregulars, their numbers are related to propaganda, and you can never be 100% sure you REALLY vainquished an irregular unit, because it's how they fight : Water between the rocks.
    Good idea. I agree completely.

    Again, I think this would be a very interesting overhaul, albeit longer than most.

    I think you deserve as much credit for bothering to write this as we do for bothering to read this.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by B-17 ().

  • The concept is nice, but some questions.

    The freedom fighter has anti air capacity ( atack against aircrafts and helicopters)?
    And the stolen tank has a air defense of 3 :huh: ? The MBT and the tank destroyer have no air defense.
    „Morgen, ihr Luschen!“ --- „Morgen, Chef!“ (Ausbilder Schmidt alias Holger Müller bei der Arbeit)
  • Seele07 wrote:

    The concept is nice, but some questions.

    The freedom fighter has anti air capacity ( atack against aircrafts and helicopters)?
    And the stolen tank has a air defense of 3 :huh: ? The MBT and the tank destroyer have no air defense.
    This is a bit abstract, but it has some "IRL roots". As spawns are random, i feel that their severity must imply some capacity to bother your helicopters and aircraft. This remains relatively low, and is irrelevant if you use missiles (but in a way, you still spend resources :p). It's more legit for "freedom fighters" than stolen tank, though. When URSS occupied Afghanistan, they suffered gradually increased casualties when the insurgents began to use US exported weaponry, especially close anti-air missile (the legendary Stinger). It forced URSS to rethink a bit its concept of "air superiority". Between 1979 and 1989, ~800 helicopters and airplanes were destroyed, which is pretty spectacular, In this regard, it seemed to me natural that those "freedom fighters" were the "close range anti-air defensive force" of any rogue state fending off an imperialistic invader :D

    As for the stolen tank, you are right. Here, it's more a game design choice than a realistic one. MBT are just too expensive to really maintain for such an organisation, and the fact they can't maintain a "electronic bubble" just make them fatty expensive targets. Their main IRL use, exactly like stolen airplanes, is to say "Look, we are a TRUE army" and frighten public opinion of the regular states. Now, in the game, i feeled that the stolen APC wasn't good as a "top-tier" unit of Rogue state, and that they needed a unit with superior HP, good all-round stats, and some point defense in order to be the "elite guard unit" of the rogue stat. I imagine it as a pride tank that the rogue state sees as so precious it always have with him itw own personal guard of stinger-equipped soldiers (and that's it for the air defense :D).


    "25% and below, with the new update." ---> yes, it has been capped, it's good that way, i think

    "I think entrenched positions are good for insurgents. they tend to do well in urban warfare. Again I have to bring up the battle of Mosul. A few thousand fighters held off a force many times their size in a big city for 9 months. And I think there should be a better modifier for the forest, as they can use stealth to terrorize civilians and military units alike in their attacks." ---> yes, i agree. And i spoke about "when they attack an entrenched force" :p. When they are entrenched themselves, of course...

    "Insurgents are quite fanatical and will die for what they think is a greater cause. RPGs and ATGMs can do plenty of damage to armored vehicles." ---> yeah, in theory, but we already have operational intel that confirms us that "fanatism" doesn't dramatically raise the operating skill or discipline of those troops, and it seems that they are vulnerable to morale shocks as well :D (this is one of the untold truth about RPG vs Tank. The fact the average human wants to survive limits the efficiency of the RPG ^^). Now, in terms of game design, they can be buffed against armored, but i would advocate only in defense.

    "I like the idea of the new infantry insurgents, but I think mercenaries can be a bit better.

    For the APCs, I think they should be a bit weaker, and for the tank, I really don't think it should have good AA.

    I think we can add another insurgent type. I haven't came up with a good name for it yet, but the idea is a revised insurgent with heavy weapons. They wouldn't have much health or training but with good, stolen weapons, they would be ale to deal lots of damage to all unit types." ----> Either giving basic insurgent better HP (but no more than than basic infantry, i feel. The goal remains that a professional army beats irregular troops in a direct fight :D) or creating a heavy version can work.

    As for mercenaries, what do you advise ? I tried to make it the only "fights professionnal" unit of their roster. And for the tank... as i said, the AA is here for design purpoose. Maybe they just could have a dedicated unit, but i do like the idea that you wouldn't send your airplanes/helicopters recklessly, because they can be hurted too, if lack of luck


    "Just the ones there's a road to. There aren't as many as 8 for most if not all provinces. And not all simultaneously. Just one at a time. We can't get too powerful of a rouge nation it invades a continent and all players have to set aside their differences to attack the insurgency." ---> Yes. The idea is that it attacks pretty muc like an AI (or a bit better :D ---> AI overhaul everyone ? ^^), and so, can and will expand gradually around him.
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Opulon ().

  • Opulon wrote:

    "Insurgents are quite fanatical and will die for what they think is a greater cause. RPGs and ATGMs can do plenty of damage to armored vehicles." ---> yeah, in theory, but we already have operational intel that confirms us that "fanatism" doesn't dramatically raise the operating skill or discipline of those troops, and it seems that they are vulnerable to morale shocks as well (this is one of the untold truth about RPG vs Tank. The fact the average human wants to survive limits the efficiency of the RPG ^^). Now, in terms of game design, they can be buffed against armored, but i would advocate only in defense.
    It's true that fanaticism doesn't raise operating skill or discipline. What I was intending with that comment was that they will risk their lives for far more things, like dying for 'a better cause'.

    I think insurgents vs. armored should be changed from 0.8 on attack to 1, and from 1.5 in defense to 2.

    Opulon wrote:

    As for mercenaries, what do you advise ? I tried to make it the only "fights professionnal" unit of their roster. And for the tank... as i said, the AA is here for design purpoose. Maybe they just could have a dedicated unit, but i do like the idea that you wouldn't send your airplanes/helicopters recklessly, because they can be hurted too, if lack of luck
    For mercenaries, I suggest they are slightly buffed (vs. infantry and armored). I think the tank shouldn't have AA, but have an AA insurgent type. I'm not very creative with coming up with names, and would like if I received some help here.
  • Thanks for all the great thoughts and hard work that went into this.
    We presently have quite a few other pots on the fire, but we do want to eventually revisit the insurgents so this is very good food for thought.
    I believe with our recent changes and caps we have brought the "insurgycalypse" under control again and we are prioritizing fixing Alliance games and implementing Coalitions.

    //G
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
  • This was the goal. I know this isn't the priority (far from it :p), and actually, it doesn't cover any critical area of the game. But hey, i find it interesting to sometimes think upon something else than the "usual problems" (it's refreshing), and if it becomes a brainstorming topic, i'm happy :p.
    Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
  • I really like the ideas you brought to the table here! I think that improved and varied insurgents are definitely something people have been interested in for a while. I like the way you varied the units, and I love the idea of a system of spreading, so that the insurgency can cover more ground! It does seem rather unrealistic that insurgents would conquer a city, and then remain there unmoving, just sitting around in that city, protesting, not going anywhere. I'd be interested to see how this would play out in games! It'd certainly make blitzkrieg more dangerous... You might end up vanquishing one enemy, only to find another had sprung up in your homeland!
  • Opulon wrote:

    You mean, like a morale sabotaging spy that would raise the chances for insurgents to appear ?
    I think he wants something like what the USA did in Afpheganistan against the Soviets, they give the local fighters armaments to fight a bigger threat or something like that, or maybe what the USA done in Brazil on the year of 1964, basically inciting a Military Revolt on another country.
  • Apache wrote:

    You should be able to fund insurgents with the espionage tab.
    OMG!!! This is nasty, devious, inappropriate and horrible! I LOVE IT!!

    Why fight my enemy when I can let the disgruntled locals spill their fanatical blood? Also, it does allow a player to strategically (the strength of the game) play a non-militaristic role. Just stay at home and instigate all sorts of chaos among other players.
    Some things never change...

  • i find rogue insurgents to be annoying as hell but it is necessary to control how quickly someone takes over. And it is also necessary to ensure people care about their morale.

    However I do find that my patrolling ships no longer see rogues and will not attack on patrol unless instructed to. This has really changed things and making it a pain in the ass because even with planes flying overhead I have no clue if there are insurgents or not.

    The idea to be able to control them after you are eliminated is so dumb to me. What is the point of eliminating someone if they can come back and just pop up all over the place?
  • Missing much those stealthy insurgents breeding like ants. ;( Remember those protests? 'Insurgents have won the game' or 'Insurgents have stacked 10/10 - how to deal with them?' or 'Insurgents took whole continent' Hah. Fun times. :evil:

    But comparing to this concept, they seem to be boys with water pistols. :)

    Roll 100 could re-roll newbie territory at once. Still I like that concept.
    Display Spoiler

    ***

    "We rarely recognize how wonderful it is that a person can traverse an entire lifetime without making a single really serious mistake — like putting a fork in one's eye or using a window instead of a door."
    - Marvin Lee Minsky

    ***