Riots?

[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.

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.

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.

[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. 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.

(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.