POLL: PLAYABLE ROGUE STATE INSURGENTS FACTION

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

  • POLL: PLAYABLE ROGUE STATE INSURGENTS FACTION

    Would you like to have an enhanced playable "Insurgents Rogue State" faction in the game (think LOTRO "monster play" where players take over RS after eg. their starting nation is defeated) 51
    1.  
      YES - this is awesome (give reason in extra post) (36) 71%
    2.  
      NO - I don't want this (give reason in extra post) (11) 22%
    3.  
      Meh. Rogue Shmogue - who cares anyway... (4) 8%
    Dear players,

    many of you have asked over time if it was possible to make the insurgents / Rogue State (often amusingly called Rouge State ;) playable in the future.

    To be honest, we were not planning to do so, but as you seem to like the units and mechanic so much, here is my take on the issue:

    Being a "faction" that comes into play over time, I could imagine the insurgents (or Rogue State) to be controlled by players once they are defeated on said map, or by entering a game the Rogue player has no active role in.
    He/she then would assume the role of Rogue nation "globally" on that map (think ISIS) in a form of LOTRO's "monster play" - effectively taking control of all the Rogue units, giving them a unified perspective.
    The task of the Rogue player would be to take over the world and win instead of a regular nation, essentially going along with good old Iznogoud: "I want to become Caliph instead of the Caliph"!
    This obviously would need to be brought to the regular player's attention, so the players understand that they are now facing a human opponent.
    Also we would of course need to expand the insurgents over time - giving them a bit more bang for the buck so to speak... all Ideas welcome ;)
    "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

  • Day 14 33/60 players left, Rogue State 35 cities, 252 victory points. Hell yeah I want to play them. Rogue State is kicking more ass than me, and its been like this since Day 2. No country does anything about them, and when you do in this game you get penalized because they are in a perpetual state of war with them.DAY 14 TOP 10 VP.png
    "For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?" -

  • I like this idea, but I think insurgents will need more units. Right now gunships make short work of them. I think they should get APCs, CRVs, and some MBTs and TDs, all with a nerf, rudimentary corvettes for naval units (maybe 2-3 damage vs ships and subs, 0.5 damage against land and air units, 5 hp (coastal waters) and 10 hp (open seas), and no air units. A research tab should be opened for them, so if they amass enough RM, they can upgrade their insurgents to be stronger, their vehicles and corvettes to regular lv 1 eastern doctrine strength, and maybe increase spawn rates and chances. Maybe even training insurgents.

    There are a lot of good threads on insurgents. One that I liked was called 'Funding insurgents', title explains the thread. That would need work if both were deployed. Maybe people only control 1 area each.

  • I voted against it.

    At first it sounds really neat. I was for it when I first started to consider it.
    But after thinking on it for a bit i decided that it would alter the game too much. It would take away realism. It would become less of a global war game and turn into something different.
    It would unbalance team games for sure, but the direction would be determined by how they are set up.

    The realism of the game mechanic would take a hit.
    But also the theme would too. It is not realistic to assume that every resistance or rogue element world wide would unite under 1 flag.

    I'd support this if it was something rare and not seen often. And never seen in team games or challenges.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Cyclone46 ().

  • I'd also support that but only if Rogue State was rare or if there was a way to control terrorists with different tactics.
    Rogue State in this game is not somethink like typical terrorists in this game (Taliban, Al Queda, etc.), it's more like ISIS which is a pretty unusual type of terrorists, because they fight in good old conventional way (not for long). So I don't think that terrorists (insurgents in this game) should have infantry, armour batallions, especially navy!
    Typical terrorist tactics:
    'Shoot and run'
    'Throw a grenade and run'
    'Mines, explosives hided'
    'I run into you and blow up'
    'I run into you and shoot at everything that moves until I die'

    Well, I understand that nobody ever listens about my talks of unconventional warfare, guerilla warfare, etc., but to make Rogue State at least a bit more realistic without making radical changes to the game they must have a stealth ability. Also, in a game of a few vanished players it would be a problem because of the question: Who controls rogue state?





    ''The person, who doesn't defend freedom is not worth for it!'' (lithuanian partisans in the guerrilla war against Soviet Union)

  • Germanico wrote:

    haha. right. and while we are at it we will rename it into:

    Cuddling with Nations: Modern Carebear

    ...not
    why such an expensive annexation? ..

    my country of 10 cities per day produces as many resources as necessary for the annexation of one city ..

    if the task is to slow down the player, then maybe you just need to increase the time of anexia, let it be a week or 4 days.

    there is nothing not surprising that a person proposes to you to go the other way, to develop and build a city .. by analogy of the city of Simi
    You yourself create for this all the prerequisites

  • I think there must be 3 different types of Rogue states:

    1. Comunism insurgents ( In parts of asia and in south and central america)
    2. Nationalism insurgents ( in north america and europe)
    3. Islamistic insurgents ( in africa, parts of asia and australia)
    „Morgen, ihr Luschen!“ --- „Morgen, Chef!“ (Ausbilder Schmidt alias Holger Müller bei der Arbeit)

  • I think that this is one of those type of situations where the public thinks they want it, but when they get it.... they lose interest and disappear.
    It would not have the feel of a realistic war game.

    Just like with Israel and Korea... a few weeks go by with everyone excited and wanting to play it.
    I could see myself losing on purpose so i can be rogue. Then putting gold into Rogue.
    But then I see myself losing interest. And the realistic war game would not be there anymore.

    I predict a 2 week spike in activity and spending. Then I predict that activity and gold spending slope off and start a downward trend that has no real end to it.
    The game is about war and units with just enough economy and building to make it strategical.
    This idea will change it more into a fantasy building game.

    (Just my opinion. You don't have to agree.)

  • I think this will create a wrong crowd to some extent but you know what? I'd say yes XD


    Why not create different rogue state factions? I know it'll take some work and it potentially would get more players in one map. Although the main issue would be getting more people on that map to play as the diverse rogue state factions.


    Anyway, if you guys intend to implement the rogue state as playable faction, could you guys please at least create more units for them? Like... seriously, with only 1 kind of unit at their disposal, most military force would make short work of them unless if the player attention is completely diverted somewhere. XD

  • I voted for it, but i would add something about it :

    1°) It disrupts the game, breaking several of its natural dynamics ---> This must be a optional option, disabled by default (or activated on some server-generated maps) ---> anticipate for the alliances, this feature would just be... impossible to handle. This would be appreciated by many RPers, or private gamers, and will get success in many "big world games", but it will cause a great pain to alliance game (so... optional ;) )

    2°) Insurgent gameplay needs to be refined. I already did a brainstorming here : Insurgent Overhaul [Proposal]

    At that time i thought only of insurgents as AI controlled. Played by player ? It's another thing

    3°) Hardcore insurgent mode should be restrained (in public games at least) for players with a data-reliable skill. No beginners for insurgents. If Rogue state is played by someone reliable (= active), yes, it can be interesting. If it's opened to everyone, then obviously, you'll get AI rogue state like always, because players that are not fitted to play a regular country will fail miserably at playing an asymetrical country
    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 think it would be a good idea to put this feature into the game. but more so as a challenging faction like trying to play as isreal or something. Not sure how your thinking goes into play with this faction but maybe at the start like a "terrorest nation" kind spread out all over the world or something. not sure. I think it would be more limited to the larger maps. :)