Rogue State needs to be put back in Check

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

    • Rogue State needs to be put back in Check

      I have come across more and more games where rogue states end up winning the game. people are fighting wars with each other and all of a sudden rogue state comes in and take half the land for a while i like it now it is just starting to piss me off i can not even cap land fastest enough before there recapping what the hell i just capped. you can not see them any longer with a simple fly over they stay invisible until your ground troops engage them. it is just dumb fix this please.

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

    • I must agree that actually, the average skill level of the lambda player, as well the general knowledge of the game, ends VERY (TOO) often in Rogue State superpowers. Of course, once you know the gunship +
      airborn trick the rogue state is trivial to counter, but let's face the operational reality of player behavior :


      1°) They conquer and leave the city. They don't even care if there is a pike that properly gut them, they just continue to advance to the next city with their guts on several kilometers, or they end inactive.
      2°) Nearly nobody but the most active players play anticipating the Rogue states.
      3°) A reasonable amount of war implies a city needs only one day to exit the ""revolt morale zone", but many players find funny to wage 5-10-15 wars at a time, lowering their maximum morale, and so, needing up to two-three days to pacify a zone.
      4°) I've seen a countless amount of time players using their anti-player military forces to kill rogue states, which is very unefficient and undesirable (motorised inf is a defensive unit, after all.)


      However,

      "pls fix this" will get nobody nowhere.


      I'll try to check several games where i saw this problem map-wise, and 'ill try to give a better description of the problem. From there, maybe proposal will erupt, and ultimately, maybe the team will be interested into checking it
      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.
    • yeah, it happens in my games too.

      I think the main problem may be related to revolt chance.

      Without intelligent thinking, just speculation, i would say that insurgencies need to be more severe (like 2 instead of one insurgent), but revolt chance divided per 2, and limited to cities ( while they still can move from cities to rural areas)

      I would go to the point of saying the insurgency rate may have a negative impact on retention. But on that point, well, i don't know if the usual F2P drop rate cause all the insurgencies, or if the insurgencies impact the high drop rate.
      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.
    • Ok it used to be insurgents were a nuisance unit. not great stats, and you could take them out with most anything but a guard unit. Not any more.Capture.JPG
      They have just evil stats. You are never defending against their attack. you are always the attacker. They get a 25% city bonus, a 25% entrenchment bonus, and an infantry def of 6 and armor of 4.5????

      This is WAY to strong for a unit that is supposed to be some local rabble. This is a tier 2 unit. I am on day 2 of a game. My capital got attacked, and when i got there to retake it, it had gone rogue. so now my day 2 level forces, so tier 1 basic motor inf are up against these guys???? I am sorry but that is wrong. With their bonuses their defense is essentially 10. They can stand a good chance at taking out a CRV tier 2.

      And gunships? Sure I can use gunships against them, but think about this: for a unit on day 2 to need a unit that takes a day to research a day to build, AND i need a level 2 airbase?? so I am easily 5 days in before I have a good counter to them and EVEN then. 1.5 Helo damage? 1 gunship will take about 3 sorties to defeat them. In that time my 15 hp gunship can suffer about 6 damage. I lose 1/3 of my gunships taking out street rabble, that can wipe out a battalion of marines???

      No. I am sorry but no. This has to be dialed down.



      I am not a newbie. I don't let cities go rogue, I will park units in them, build a barracks and recruiting center right away, keep a 3 unit garrison in them until they are above 34%. But If I take out my enemies capital, and his occupied cities all go rogue, i have a tougher fight against them than i do against a player with researched tech.

      If you decide to keep these, imho obscenely over powered stats on a hassle unit, then may i suggest you tier the rebels. Have tier 1 be weaklings. tier 2 be about a motor inf, and tier 3 maybe equal to a mech inf.

      I personally can't understand how this one got through an idea pitch meeting

      "hey guys why don't we take rebel units and make them all terminators in rambo suits, and make it so if you don't send an entire regiment of inf and armor plus air support, you get smoked. Oh and for good measure, let's make sure players can do everything right and STILL get these guys popping up in cities."

      "Everyone in the room is now dumber for having listened to you. Leave the country. "

      "so basically boss, we are going to do that right?"

      "of course we are! "

      And when this does get addressed, can you make it global so existing games don't have to be just archived because taking out 6 rogue cities is about as fun as cutting my toenails with a blowtorch.
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.
    • Exactly. Nowadays 1 Motorized infantry unit loses to 1 insurgent. That's just nonsense because motorized infantry are a professional army(or a part of it)wheras insurgents are just random people from the street.
      Famous quotes from me:
      "Just my important opinion"
      "The best player is the player who is patient, who is clever and who is ruthless."
      "I'm really great at diplomacy, terrible at strategy ;) "
    • In my opinion 'raging barbarians' is a great feature.
      1) You must know what you're doing.
      2) You can create rogue states to disrupt enemy progress.
      3) You must watch your back, share power, and can't ignore insurgents, that have fair stats in my opinion ( which can be translated as ideological or moral determination after loosing their country )
      4) You can't run like crazy.
      5) They can win map - again, it's because players ignores them, used too much to "press the launch button to be a hero".
      6) It's a supplement for weak country ai.
      7) It's a perfect use for units that were seldom used earlier (artillery, drones, recons, that determines their presence in pvp also)

      If there will be more dissatisfied voices, and to avoid another endless discussion, I propose to make it a map rule.
      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

      ***



      The post was edited 4 times, last by Efreet: misprints, more arguments ().

    • The medias are at fault for presenting this biased (and totally false) vision of regular army vs irregular army.

      This is what we called, in marketing, the "Rebel scum" effect.

      youtube.com/watch?v=9aspp1r0tS4

      This effect can be summarised by : "The Guy with the uniform is a better soldier"
      And has two sub-laws : "My soldiers are good soldiers" - "The enemy soldiers are bad soldiers"

      It's purely a media law, as it has no impact on the operational reality of assymetrical warfare.

      "Insurgents", whatever the name they are given in the medias, are usually very far from the "rabble". Mercenaries, Veterans returned to civil life, deserters, or even foreign countries special forces, they don't have a hugo boss uniform because they are fighting a different style of war.

      There is a reason why, in every country where an insurgency appeared, the "professional army" (and i'll remind that "professional" means "regularly paid for that job" more than "highly proficient to that job") have large troubles to contain or eliminate said insurgencies.

      Be it Mali, Syria, East Timor, Indonesia, Colombia, Southern parts of Russia, Lybia, Irak, Afghanistan, you can have a very vast documented history of those "better professional armies" are fended off, sometimes for decades, by their irregulars counterparts. Not bad for "rabble from the streets" (which they aren't. The Red army suffered defeats in OPEN field, in Afghanistan. It happened, yep. It's also why the US army was so interested in whole departments of counter insurgency strategy and tactics ---> they know this isn't just civilians that found a pistol in a locker)

      The reason is simple : Assymetrical warfare doesn't follow the Lanchester's Law.

      This is for context, and to answer Superchan, because i think this context is needed to recalibrate properly the insurgents


      ________________

      I agree with Warspite in his general opinion : In early, Insurgents are a T2 unit when the players only have T1 units.

      With the occurence of insurgencies, this may be the problem.

      Gunships for counter insurgency must be used in packs of 3 or 4, in order to get the overkill bonus. That way, the cost for killing a insurgent unit is usually 1 or 2 HP. that are recovered naturally after one day. One gunship against one insurgent isn't that spectacular, i'll admit.

      Maybe the insurgents could get different Tiers of units, with the game advancing.

      While i disagree with the "those are rebel scums they can't win against our superior professional stormtroopers !" (i find it normal that such a unit wins, when in defense, against a defensive unit that is attacking them), the stats show by themselves that even a special force T1 unit would loose against them.

      Now... if they are nerfed to be more managable on 1 vs 1, i don't think it would solve the problem, which is occurence. 25% morale cities have a 50% chance uprising, which is huge. And as you said, it can in some occasions create a situation where it's not desirable to take the capital, as it would only create rogue states everywhere, that are harder to kill than a regular military.

      I remain on a modified version of my idea :

      2 insurgents spawned per revolt instead of one.
      insurgents stats reduced by 25%
      Reduction to 0% revolt chance in provinces
      Base revolt chance in city reduced by 25%.

      You'll notice that my proposal to reduce rogue state is... well, buffing them a bit, while refocusing them. Alternatives can be great
      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.
    • Well, What I usually do to deal with Rogue State is deploy a JTF of Airborne, Armored Airborne, Armored Artillery, and Helicopters to deal with them. Then I get a Mechanized Infantry Division, which is usually 3 Mechanized Infantry and 3 MBTs. If this doesn't work then I sent in a Conventional or Chemical Ballistic Missile and send in the Infantry. I will say though, if some random civilians who got together and got some AKs can defeat an Airborne Division and an Armored Division, then their stats should be dialed down.
      "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph." - Thomas Paine

    • Rogue States are not hard to deal with with some tricks, as you explained.

      However, there is "how someone who knows the game deals with it" (i have no problem with Rogue state, to be honest), it's more "how the beginner that we intend to keep active" will handle it :D. And for now, they handle it VERY poorly ^^
      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 still think the multi unit rogue state would be a good idea, give them a bit more of different types of units, but not having as strong of a base unit, so to keep them from getting to many of the stronger better units you attack it early. It would also make attacking rogue state a bit less of just a mindless troop movements. I am currently in a x4 game, where pretty much all of south and central africa is all rogue state. It started with 3 cities, and actual spread through the terrorist attacking and lowering morale of the provinces around them (i thought that was cool i didn't know they could aggressively spread, i thought they could only spread through uprisings cities with recent fighting.) I mention this because as the US, I have to travel across the atlantic ocean to reach the terrorists to be able to spread them some freedom. but the issue with the main way to deal with insurgents is helicopter gunships, is that I don't have the range for it, and even when I do get troops on the ground, the helicopters still don't have the range to get over. I know that I could use carriers but a, they are too expensive just be helicopter texis, and b. they are often tied up fighting other wars and filled with planes. So having gunships as the main Anti terrorist force is a disadvantage. Combine that with the fact of having to land troops, secure a beach head, and keep the morale from the neighboring provinces from keeping the main city low. I have sent in several times a group of about 3 max level Tanks, 2 tier 2 AFVS, a CRV, 2 lvl 2 marines, and 2 max motorised infantry in a stack, into a city in former south africa, with naval support, telling them to take the city, its surrounding areas, come back to the city, and hold it, only to lose most of the army. (I think partially is some of how the ai when you go inactive for anything longer then 5 minutes immediately sends all you troops in suicide attacks by them selevs {ei DRIVING mlrs strait into an enemy city by itself.}) I know that some of it isnt terrorists, with the current one unit type terrorists it makes it not really worth it to have all the casualty count. It would at least give some fun with it.

      Ps. I know the stuff mentioned above is probably a bit hard to understand, I was rushed and trying to quickly jot down my ideas. I don't have an issue for the most part difficulty wise with rogue state, I think that there should be something a little bit more to change up its play style a bit. Especially when rogue state gets to the point when it has a large amount of land in one area, because honestly wouldn't at that point it go from beyond just a normal rebellion/insurgency to basically its own nation?
      If you make a man a fire he will be warm for a couple hours, now light a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    • Static Yoshi your explanation was great!

      Yeah I would like to see playable rogue state-didn't they announce that they would make it back in October or something?(Germanico's announcement).
      Famous quotes from me:
      "Just my important opinion"
      "The best player is the player who is patient, who is clever and who is ruthless."
      "I'm really great at diplomacy, terrible at strategy ;) "
    • Opulon wrote:

      ...
      I remain on a modified version of my idea :

      2 insurgents spawned per revolt instead of one.
      insurgents stats reduced by 25%
      Reduction to 0% revolt chance in provinces
      Base revolt chance in city reduced by 25%.

      You'll notice that my proposal to reduce rogue state is... well, buffing them a bit, while refocusing them. Alternatives can be great
      In general i like your proposal, tbh, i would have to playtest to really see how it would work out. But I have a few tweaks to offer:

      1. I think the variance of 1 OR 2 spawning would be more practical, with the current 25% gets 50% chance model used to see if the second spawns.
      2. I think revolt in provinces should still be possible (frankly it is the rural folks that will be the well armed ones - and if you use the US as an example, their survivalist militias, are never in urban centers. - maybe keep your 0% but add an attrition factor like in arctic zones to troops in them to reflect harassment by partisans? When morale in a province exceeds 35% this goes away.
      3. This would be really complicated to code so I don't expect it at all, but hey suggestions don't hurt right?: If you attack a city that is "rogue" and is one of your homeland cities, it is an auto win. You don't have to handle the rebels, as they would see you as liberators. You are their own army. I am pretty darn sure french resistance didn't attack any of their own non-vichy troops returning. Maybe this could be done with an option when attacking a city of conquer/liberate. If you conquer - they fight, if you liberate, they don't, but liberate returns control to the original country and maybe creates a guard unit to represent the partisans helping defend, and to discourage people from liberating AND then conquering.
      I agree that insurgents CAN be very capable fighters. The mujaheddin regularly did well against the Russians. The Vietcong were very effective against the us marines. and of course George Washington had some decent luck running an insurgent force against the best military in the world... BUT they usually aren't at their best on day 1. I think tiering them would make more sense. That said, 5 specfor soldiers in Bengazi held off wave after wave of technicals and armed insurgents.

      I don't agree with having a mix of units though. The current unit represents a mix of technicals, foreign "advisors", local zealots, and local veterans. Somalian warlords and Taliban leaders in afghanistan (arguably some of the best organized and equipped state sponsored "insurgents" of the modern day - did not have helo's, armor, artillery, or naval units.

      While I don't agree with a playable rogue state, I think you should be able to encourage partisans in your enemies occupied territory. Maybe an area effect of specfors, like radar, but in the area around them chance of uprisings increase 25%?

      Am I out in left field?
      ----------------------

      Jacopo: Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

      Remember that no one ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb idiot die for his country.