Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[overlordFT]

Two things i think would be a good contribution to the games. I'm not going into detail, just putting these concepts out there for discussion.

1. Economics. The policies and issues in LCS seem to be very social based rather then economic, I'd adore the ability to promote communist or socialist ideas. I'm sure a lot of ideas could be added here, but generally adding more economic controversy would greatly improve the game.

2. Revolution. I think it would be brilliant if, rather then murdering and pillaging on a small scale, you could rise up and overthrow the government.Arm your liberals, train them, get some tanks, beat the national guard, storm Congress, kidnap the president, ETC, etc. Whatever it takes to overthrow the government. When in power, you'd create an elite liberal government, and could decide your economics leanings. it could open up a whole new dimension to the game. Maybe contend with Conservative revolutionaries.

Your ideas/feedback?

[Megaman]

you think a bunch of hippies with guns can kill the over a million men in the millitary? While you can barely fight the local cops and Swat?

[overlordFT]

you think a bunch of hippies with guns can kill the over a million men in the millitary? While you can barely fight the local cops and Swat?

By the end of a well played LCS game you have tanks, machine guns, well trained military veterans, etc

[a1s]

you think a bunch of hippies with guns can kill the over a million men in the millitary? While you can barely fight the local cops and Swat?

Actually that's not how it works at all. Firstly you need to convince the troops to not fight you. Once only the right wing bastards remain use guerrilla tactics to kill them. or, you know, recruit all those newly pacifist troops (which will after you exploits likely be conveniently out of a job  ) 

[overlordFT]

you think a bunch of hippies with guns can kill the over a million men in the millitary? While you can barely fight the local cops and Swat?

Actually that's not how it works at all. Firstly you need to convince the troops to not fight you. Once only the right wing bastards remain use guerrilla tactics to kill them. or, you know, recruit all those newly pacifist troops (which will after you exploits likely be conveniently out of a job  ) 

Anyway, Guerilla warfare is unbeatable. As long as the people are on the side of the freedom fighter.

[Iituem]

you think a bunch of hippies with guns can kill the over a million men in the millitary? While you can barely fight the local cops and Swat?

Actually that's not how it works at all. Firstly you need to convince the troops to not fight you. Once only the right wing bastards remain use guerrilla tactics to kill them. or, you know, recruit all those newly pacifist troops (which will after you exploits likely be conveniently out of a job  ) 

Anyway, Guerilla warfare is unbeatable. As long as the people are on the side of the freedom fighter.

It's beatable.  Either "burn down the forest" or make conditions such that the guerillas are either not required or there is no incentive to support them.

[overlordFT]

you think a bunch of hippies with guns can kill the over a million men in the millitary? While you can barely fight the local cops and Swat?

Actually that's not how it works at all. Firstly you need to convince the troops to not fight you. Once only the right wing bastards remain use guerrilla tactics to kill them. or, you know, recruit all those newly pacifist troops (which will after you exploits likely be conveniently out of a job  ) 

Anyway, Guerilla warfare is unbeatable. As long as the people are on the side of the freedom fighter.

It's beatable.  Either "burn down the forest" or make conditions such that the guerillas are either not required or there is no incentive to support them.

When a guerrila movement has the backing of the people, it'd be unbeatable. Without, it can work, but it's beatable. You can't kill eeveryone.

[Leafsnail]

When a guerrila movement has the backing of the people, it'd be unbeatable. Without, it can work, but it's beatable. You can't kill eeveryone.

Ahmadinejad would like a word with you.

[Rezan]

You can't kill eeveryone.

Sshhhhhh! Don't tell everyone that! How will tyrranical societies maintain their hierarchy and limitless power?!

[mainiac]

When a guerrila movement has the backing of the people, it'd be unbeatable. Without, it can work, but it's beatable. You can't kill eeveryone.

 

-Tamil Tigers.
-Korean resistance to Imperial Japan.
-French Resistance in WWII
-Spanish Resistance to Napoleon
-Venetian and Milano resistance to Austrian rule
-Balklands resistance to the Ottoman Empire
-"Indian Wars" in the United States
-Czeck revolution in the 50's
-Finland in the Winter War
-Ethiopian resistance to Italy
-The Jewish rebellion in 70 A.D.
-Athenian revolt to the Macedonian Empire
-The Peasants Rebellion in England in 11th century
-The Easter Rising
-O'Neils rebellion in the 17th century
-Sunni rebellions in Iraq in post Gulf War 1

Every one of these had the broad support of the population and used guerrilla tactics.  Many of them were very successful at a time, even seizing the area's that were struggling to be independent.  Every one of them was completely destroyed.

And even when revolutions succeed, it's rarely a huge success.  It took the Spanish 800 years to take back their country in the Reconquista and they used guerrilla tactics from very early on.  By the time the American Revolution was complete, the economy was devastated and a sizable part of the population was dead or wounded.  It took centuries for the Dutch to kick foreign powers out of the Lower Netherlands despite them becoming an economic superpower and the territory repeatedly changing hands.

The arc of history may bend towards freedom, but not every attempt succeeds.

[Calvin]

You forgot the more modern ones, the People's Liberation Army, the Viet Cong, the North Vietnam Army (during vietnam war), the Irish Republican Army, and some groups of Talibans.

[Megaman]

Did anyone know the scope of this game isn't even an entire state?(well besides D.C and elections). Also if you spark a rebellion the millitary will come in by the thousands to destroy you. Oh and by the way, who will pick up guns just because you say so and they have liberal views? Also, if the people are liberal enough to santion a revolution, they could jsut impeach the president, replace much of the system with liberals, and that's it. Not much point for a revolt in democracy while you can legally influence the goverment.

[mainiac]

You forgot the more modern ones, the People's Liberation Army, the Viet Cong, the North Vietnam Army (during vietnam war), the Irish Republican Army, and some groups of Talibans.

The Tamil Tigers surrendered less then a month ago.  The Sunni Shitte uprisings were in the 90's and about half of the movements I named were in the 20th century.  Those aren't modern?

None of those movements you listed, btw, had the support of the majority of the population in the area's being fought over.  The Viet Cong/NVA were supported in the north but were conquering the south.  The PLA when fighting as guerillas was just one group among many fighting Japan.  During the civil war, the PLA had broader support, but wasn't guerillas anymore.  The Irish Republican Army had majority support in neither the majority protestant Northern Ireland nor in Ireland which had fought them in a war in the 30's.  The Taliban have never had anything remotely resembling the support of the afgani peoples.

[E. Albright]

None of those movements you listed, btw, had the support of the majority of the population in the area's being fought over.  The Viet Cong/NVA were supported in the north but were conquering the south.

Half-right. The NVA was by definition a northern entity... but while the Viet Cong/NLF was northern-supplied and commanded, it was primarily southern insurgents, at least prior to the crippling causalities of the Tet offensive. The NLF enjoyed mixed support in the south, as evinced by their ability to soak up recruits as much as by the failure of the Tet offensive to become the hoped-for general uprising.

The Taliban have never had anything remotely resembling the support of the afgani peoples.

Never? Really? I think you grossly understate their early popularity. They rose to power with general support from the Afgan people, because they promised to (and in fact largely did) end the lawlessness and continual bloody power struggles between the assorted warlords following the civil war. Buyer's remorse came later.

--

However... quibbles aside, I do agree with your larger point. Guerilla forces with popular support are far from unbeatable. Though I would add that short of genocide, they're normally beaten by removing their popular support, by hook or crook, rather than direct military defeat. The classic formulation for victory against a guerilla force is that the government demonstrates that they can protect the populace from the guerillas, but the guerillas can't protect the populace from the government. It's a crude oversimplification, but it very neatly cuts to the heart of the matter...

[Leafsnail]

Never? Really? I think you grossly understate their early popularity. They rose to power with general support from the Afgan people, because they promised to (and in fact largely did) end the lawlessness and continual bloody power struggles between the assorted warlords following the civil war. Buyer's remorse came later.

It would seem to be more complex than that.  Pakistan viewed started Jihad groups as a cheap way of keeping India's forces engaged - certainly cheaper than using soldiers.  America also treated extremist groups as a good way of fighting a proxy war in Afghanistan against Russia.  These state funded groups form a large amount of what is now called the Taliban.