Riots?

[MythicalMino]

Playing SE5.

2 of my planets (the first two that I colonized, both are in my home system) are rioting. The "mood" is rioting, but they are 100% loyal to me. Also, I have researched the Recreation Services tech (not sure, but I assumed that that would help with the rioting). I have dropped several troops onto the planets.

I am not sure what else to do to end the rioting. The rioting is hurting me, though, becuase those two planets are basically doing nothing.

oh, and the game isn't too far in, either. I have not come in contact with any other empires, so I am pretty sure that there is not any spies causing me trouble.

and, I should mention, that I am using the Balance Mod by Kwok.


Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

[Fyron]

"Several" troops is not enough troops. Try 60-100. "Police" troops are particularly useful; use the smallest hull size with no components (just a cockpit) and you get some cheap, quickly built riot control.

[Tim_Ward]

I am not sure what else to do to end the rioting.



Or, you can try:

- Moving moar ships into the system. Like troops, these also improve happiness.
- If there are large hostile fleets in system, destroy them or make a treaty with the owners
- Construct an urban pacification center in the system.

It's all a bit vague and haphazard, though. Frankly, the planetary management side of SEV is by far the weakest part of the game. It is little different to the system in SEIII. I hope it gets a drastic overhaul for the next iteration.


The "mood" is rioting, but they are 100% loyal to me.



Loyalty and happiness are different things - loyalty represents the degree of assimilation into your empire of newly conquered subjects. I'm not sure what, if any, effect this actually has though.

[Suicide Junkie]

The significant difference from SE3 is that there are limited short-term controls on popualtion happiness.

In SE3 you could shorten the work week to boost happiness and stop riots.

Dropping troops is a potential way to do it, but it dosen't scale well if you have tiny units giving the same effect as a land dreadnought.

[BudgetMessiah]

Dropping troops is a potential way to do it, but it dosen't scale well if you have tiny units giving the same effect as a land dreadnought.


Hmm...what do you mean by this? That it takes several small troops to give the benefit of a large troop? And that this is a bad idea?

I would think that, in terms of pacification just from a realism perspective, smaller troops would be vastly superior in ubran upheaval situations compared to larger units. This is plainly the way it works in real life. main battle tanks aren't that useful in policing people, but boots on the ground (with guns, usually) are more than up to the task.

[Fyron]

Every troop counts the same for happiness purposes, whether it is a low tech small troop or an end-game large troop. This is an issue with how the stock game is set up, with bigger almost always being better. For regular (combat) usage, it doesn't make any sense to build small troops when you have larger available. For policing purposes, it doesn't make any sense to build big troops. The data setup has some diametrically opposed goals. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Its quite possible to design a better system in mods, where you have actual practical differences between small troops (infantry) and large troops (main battle tanks), such as more hit points / kiloton available for infantry and more damage / kiloton available for tanks.

[Raapys]

Yeah, strange that.

I know I'd probably be less inclined to cause trouble if the cops were 12 feet high than if they were regular-sized, though.

[BudgetMessiah]

Fyron said:
Every troop counts the same for happiness purposes, whether it is a low tech small troop or an end-game large troop. This is an issue with how the stock game is set up, with bigger almost always being better. For regular (combat) usage, it doesn't make any sense to build small troops when you have larger available. For policing purposes, it doesn't make any sense to build big troops. The data setup has some diametrically opposed goals. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif




Actually, if I am reading you correctly, this is exactly how I would have set things up. Perhaps even giving larger troops a penalty for policing populations, but the fact that smaller troops are more cost-effective in this role, it more-or-less accomplishes the same thing. Tanks suck for civil purposes (relative to troops) so why would a simulation present this differently (assuming it's a good simulation)? Tanks don't quell insurgents in Iraq, and they weren't really used during the unrest in New Orleans, and these are just two examples of why a simulation should present smaller troops as being preferred in civil situations.

Players shouldn't be able to just mass up one type of all-purpose troop to accomplish all goals equally well, if not for the reason I've already described, and just for game mechanics reasons. Different tools should be required by players to accomplish different goals, that's a given. I'm glad that the game encourages this in some way; it makes sense to me.

[Fyron]

Actually the (stock) game does not encourage diversity in troop designs... the only possible consideration is for police troops. Any other design for troops favors anti-diversity.

[BudgetMessiah]

All the more reason to keep that aspect of the game included.

[Fyron]

What aspect? The poorly designed troop system that has no real purpose for the various hulls beyond bigger is better? A system with a real differentiation between infantry and tanks would still inherently make infantry better for policing...

[BudgetMessiah]

Yes, I totally agree. That would be good. The ground combat system is underdeveloped, to be sure. It has been for at least a few iterations of the series (having only really seen the game since 3 and on).

But, given that there are a limited number of troop types, it's better to give some purpose to the smaller troop types later in the game, and one example of such a purpose that currently exists is policing worlds.

However, removing this purpose and modding the game so that large troops are better in addition to the other advantages they currently enjoy, which is clearly what you were describing as a deisrable change, would be undesirable for the reasons I have already given. Now, if you'd like to rework ground units and combat entirely, that sounds good to me, but it wasn't what we were talking about previously.

[Fyron]

Wtf? I never posted a desire to make large troops better at policing...

Note that it is impossible to modify exactly how troops affect happiness; all we can do is change the parameter for how much a troop affects happiness in happiness.txt. There is no way to change it to check for troop size or something other than just the number of troops.

[BudgetMessiah]

That's not how I took your post here:

This is an issue with how the stock game is set up, with bigger almost always being better. For regular (combat) usage, it doesn't make any sense to build small troops when you have larger available. For policing purposes, it doesn't make any sense to build big troops. The data setup has some diametrically opposed goals.


It seemed, by extension, you were saying that it would only be logical that bigger be better in this area so as to be consistent with the rest of the game. If you say that isn't so, then I must have been mistaken, and that isn't the case...my bad!

To which I will hasten to add that it would be wonderful if the ground combat were more...varied? That much it's clear (now at least, heh) we agree on. Maybe someday, after I get the fun of playing the actual game out of my system, I'll take a crack at it.

But seeing as how I'm just starting with 5...don't hold your breath.

[Raapys]

Couldn't the <Planet Population Happiness> ability be used as a means to give troops different ways of affecting planet happiness?

[Fyron]

You know what they say about assumptions... when you assume, you make an a** out of u and me.

(this was a tongue-in-cheek joke)

"Couldn't the <Planet Population Happiness> ability be used as a means to give troops different ways of affecting planet happiness? "

That depends on whether or not it stacks in SE5, and whether or not you can actually get troop abilities to affect the planet. Anyone want to test it?

[BudgetMessiah]

Hmm...so much for apologizing.

And, actually, that wasn't an assumption, it was a conclusion based on words you wrote. It was also a logical one; as clearly shown in the quote, anyone with more than half a wit could easily infer that from what you was said, in that context.

Of course, those with better than half a wit might also be able to communicate their thoughts unambiguously enough that such misunderstandings don't occur. And in that same light, only a half-wit would fall back to such a clicheed insult as "you know what they say about assuming" when they get their hackles up. Christ, my mom talks like that. You flame like my mom.

Next time, man up and accept the apology. It'll save me the trouble of having to school you on napalm and manners in front of a community that otherwise holds you in good esteem.

[Suicide Junkie]

Anyways:
- Some people will want higher tech troops to be more effective at pacifying populations.
- Some people will want smaller troops to be more effective.
- Some people will want to make higher tech troops BE smaller.

Does it make more sense now, from a flexibility in modding perspective?

[AgentZero]

Fyron said:
Every troop counts the same for happiness purposes, whether it is a low tech small troop or an end-game large troop. This is an issue with how the stock game is set up, with bigger almost always being better. For regular (combat) usage, it doesn't make any sense to build small troops when you have larger available. For policing purposes, it doesn't make any sense to build big troops. The data setup has some diametrically opposed goals. ;)




Thought I'd just help BudgetMessiah out a bit and highlight the important bits. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif Note the winkyface.

Also,

A system with a real differentiation between infantry and tanks would still inherently make infantry better for policing...



Fyron's posts do make quite a bit of sense, providing you read the whole thing.

[BudgetMessiah]

Yes, and in the context of having read his latter explanation, it certainly is easy to understand them and quote/bold cherry-picked parts of the conversation to hilight your argument. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

(See, I can make winkyfaces too!)

@SJ
I don't think I was ever unclear on the modding possibilities, but from a "what makes sense in a simulation based on how things actually work in the real world" (which, by definition, is what a simulation is) then I think the stock way of encouraging smaller troops to quell unrest is probably not a bad thing.

And I'm pretty sure that's what I've maintained since my first post here.

[AgentZero]

BudgetMessiah said:
Yes, and in the context of having read his latter explanation, it certainly is easy to understand them and quote/bold cherry-picked parts of the conversation to hilight your argument. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif





Who's cherry-picking? It's been clear as day from his first post on the topic that Fyron favoured small troops for riot control. How you managed to draw a different conclusion, let alone the exact opposite from what he was saying is completely beyond me.

[BudgetMessiah]

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif