Revolutions need a redesign? (Poll)

Revolutions need a redesign?
  • Yes.
  • No.

0 voters

Rather just have a few new cards for each civ like we’ve been getting and DLC. I don’t care about revolutions and never have since they were introduced. It’s a cool mechanic for sure but just not my thing.

3 Likes

I think the answer should be yes.

In the beginning the revolution mechanics aimed to be a compromise to represent the late emerging nations that rebelled against European civs. Now with the complete introduction of these 19th century nations, not only the revolution mechanics need changes but also do the old European civs.

For example, the US and Mexico revolution should share same or highly similar features to their own civs. Their current look far from their civs’ flavor. If the player use the British/Dutch/French/Swedes to revolt to the US, it should share many US units and features just like the Texas revolution of Mexicans which has Regulars, Volunteers, Marines instead of Redcoats, Ruyters and Hakkapelit. Likewise, if the player use the Spanish to revolt to the Mexico, it may be able to use Padre, to build Hacienda, to train Soldado and so on to improve the consistency of the Mexican theme.

Secondly, to the revolution mechanics themselves, I suggest to make them available in the fortress age, 1 age earlier. It can use the revolution as an aggressive rush more easily. If the player does not want to wait and choose to revolt just in the fortress age, it would cost cheaper than in the industrial age but also would supply less benefits, such like making some powerful cards unavailable or giving less military units and resource crates. They still cannot return to the original European nations after revolting so the fortress age revolutions will be a more risky, courageous and powerful tactic.

Another problem is, the revolutionary new civs are obviously focus on the 19th century, while many old civs are still stuck before the 17th century. In addition, compared with the new civs, the old ones present insufficient cultural and historical characteristics and accuracy. These are quite the issues that need to be dealt with. Some innovations to old civs are more satisfying to the community than introducing new ones. For example, the British should have the opportunity to put down their longbow and pick up their rifle, the traditional Turkish composite bowmen should be the archaic unit at Ottoman barracks, the Chinese and the Japanese should have a way to acquire the own modernized military units in the late game, etc. These issues also bring weird experiences to current revolution mechanics, such like the US use longbows, while the Mexicans use lots of pikes and crossbows. Even be the opponents, the Mexicans’ use of advanced firearms to defeat the Spanish rulers with archaic weapons is out of place.

2 Likes

Too many revolutionary nations have cowboy-like units, and many are based on Comanchero’s module and icon with only minor differences in appearance, such as Cowboys, Vaqueros, Gauchos, Llaneros, Morochucos, Jagunços, Californios, and Cuatreros. These units should get new modules or be redesigned with obvious features such as changing horse colors or unit skins, as they are too inconvenient to identify.

Btw, I want every European civ to have 5 revolution options, so many civs will get new options.

  • British: United States, Canada, South Africa, Egypt, Ireland
    We already have the Wild Geese in the game so getting something based on Irish is possible. Maybe one day the Mexicans can also get a card about Saint Patrick’s Battalion.

  • French: United States, Canada, Haiti, French Revolution, Algeria
    Choosing the French Revolution means the colony belongs to the Republic, and the flag will be changed into Tricolour. The Algeria will be based on the Berbers.

  • Dutch: United States, South Africa, Brazil, Indonesia, Belgium
    Belgium can gain some unique Flemish units and accept the French Supports from the home city.

  • Spanish: Mexico, Gran Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina

  • Portuguese: Barbary States, Brazil, Indonesia, Gran Colombia, Peru

  • Ottomans: Barbary States, Egypt, Hungary, Romania, Greece
    Greece may focus on the navy and the shipment supports from British, French and Russians.

  • Swedes: United States, Finland, Poland, Norway, Pomerania
    As a potential new civ, Poland is also a good choice of the revolution for the Swedes, Germans and Russians. Norway can also be a revolution option for the potential Danish civ. Pomerania will be based on the German units.

  • Germans: Hungary, Gran Colombia, Romania, Poland, Venice
    Venice may be based on the potential Italian civ.

  • Russians: Finland, Romania, Poland, Kazakhstan, Ural Cossacks
    Kazakhstan may be based on the potential Kazakh minor-civ. Ural Cossacks revolution may rename the Cossacks to Ural Cossacks and give them and cavalry archers powerful buff.

2 Likes

La República francesa como civilización seria interesante

1 Like

The most appropriate would be for the French revolutionary state to be an option for a revolution for France, it would be very coherent.

2 Likes

I’ve already made a rework on the Revolutions of the European civilizations in my mod with Ropi. You could check that. Mod name: The Uprising.

3 Likes

I think you need to consolidate the options into ones that are available to multiple nations. It’s a lot of work to make revolutions that are available to only one faction. Consider that it is a 1 in 5 option only for games that get to age 4. Some of the options would hardly ever be picked so it’s not really worth the effort of adding single option revolutions.

Australia would be a better option for British and Dutch than Ireland or Belgium.

Ukraine would be a better option for Russia and Germany than Poland or Ural Cossacks. Poland deserves to be a full faction and Ukraine could also be a revolution option for them.

Barbary States is Algeria; their home city is Algiers. Mexico could also be a reasonable option for France since it was occupied by them on multiple occasions.

Greece is a glaring omission and definitely needs to be an option for Ottomans and potentially a future Italian faction.

Pomerania is a pretty poor option for Sweden, it’s just a small piece of Germany. Liberia might be a better option to represent their African ventures (same for a potential Denmark faction and others with colonies in the region).

Venice is another poor option since Italians should be their own faction. Croatia or Serbia for Germans, Ottomans, and Italians would be better.

Non-European factions could also benefit from some revolution options. Mexico for Aztecs, Peru for Inca, and Maratha for India would add some extra flavour.

2 Likes

If you think about those option deeply, you may find that most of them will be based on the existing assets.
Ireland on the Harquebusiers and Spanish, Belgium on French, Ural Cossacks on their Cossacks and Tatar Cavalry Archers (by making them variants), Algeria on Berbers, Pomerania on Germans. Even Poland and Venice will be based on the potential civs of Poles and Italians. They don’t need to be developed from scratch.

Adding new options is just a part of remaking of revolution mechanics, and it just aims to fairly give every European country the same number of options.

There will be other works to make the entire mechanics more useful and tempting, such like making fortress age able to revolt and so on.

It was 1901. Too late, and the independence process was quite peaceful.

It was 1917. Also, the Cossack Hetmanate was a Russian protectorate.

Like U.S. and Mexicans, Poland can be Both a civ and an option of revolution.
Actually being both is a wiser way.

Barbary States is based on the corsairs.
On the other hand, the Algeria here specifically focus on the native resistance against colonization.
Personally they are different, and I also wanna see the an option based on minor civs.
I don’t deny that the Mexico may also be a candidate for the potential French revolution too.

It actually had been ruled by Swedes so it still make senses in some degree.
Given that Sweden has few colonies, we must consider the areas they occupied in Europe.
In addition, this option may feature some German units, which will add flavor to Swedes.

I don’t get it. Liberia has never been occupied or ruled by Swedes.

One more time, Italy can be both.

Cards.
And there are already some.

Sure. Would be glad to hear them out.

The changes that were made to the units and cards were to balance out the units, I’m not sure how familiar are you with treaty. Giving new card to enable imperial units is not a good idea really because that means more cards to be sent before treaty ends = lesser eco/weak units compared to the base civ itself so basically it’s not practical. As an example, Mayan were made to be viable in treaty but lacks so much cards therefore makes them less viable.

I don’t see the point of adding more revolutions to get them all to 5 if they’re just going to be low-effort clones of other civs.

You’re wildly inconsistent with your reasoning for why and why not have certain factions. 1901 is apparently too late for Australia but you want to replace it with Ireland which has an official independence date of 1919? You can’t be so stuck on official independence dates when there are already options for countries like Indonesia and South Africa that didn’t get independence until after WW2. The revolutions can be plausible counterfactuals like Revolutionary Canada, Baja California, or Portuguese Indonesia, and that is fine.

An Australian revolution based on the Eureka Rebellion should solve all your issues with it.

Ukraine would obviously be based largely on the Hetmanate and Khmelnytsky Uprising not the 1917 date of independence. It could also be more of an amalgam of Cossacks in general. The Hetmanate was initially supported by the Ottomans, not Russians, and even flirted with Swedish support against Russia so it wasn’t just a loyal Russian puppet.

Having overlap between full civs and revolutionary civs was a big mistake in my opinion, they should have just gone with earlier, more fleshed out revolutions. This is one of the reasons we need a rework, and doubling down on this is not the way to go.

Barbary States includes the state of Algeria along with Tunis and Libya. Algiers as a French entity was later and they didn’t get independence until well after WW2.

Pomerania was still German despite Swedish rule over some of it (not even all of it). Swedes already have German representation in their base design (reliance on Jagers and other German mercenaries). If you want a European revolution option, one of the Baltic states would be much better and would also work for Russia and Germany.

The Swedish Gold Coast was in the neighbourhood.

By that logic, the Europeans have enough revolutions, no need to bump up the number of the ones they have. :upside_down_face:

I find it interesting that revolutions are viable for the treaty. I always saw it as something focused on supremacy and would never have thought of a practical way to use them in the treaty.

I would use it, but my PC can barely tolerate 1v1. I don’t play NR since legacy.

1 Like

For example, Belgium = Dutch economy + French military, this may be a new attempt.
In all this without even mentioning the details, it is premature to say good or bad just at the conceptual stage.

If you’ve noticed my original article, every hyperlink I’ve attached there is the wiki pages about the rebellion or uprising that those options represent. Each predates 1900, including the Ireland.

When you suggested new options, you did not include any description for its meaning. And when I searched, I hadn’t found an uprising or rebellion earlier than 1900, and even according to the article on the relevant web page, it seems countries such as Australia peacefully transitioned to independence, so I can only judge them by the number I saw.

Eureka Rebellion, which you mentioned later, was enough to support your Australian option finally.

In my opinion, no need to remove US and Mexico.
If the US revolution and Mexico revolution of Europeans can be more similar, more close to their own civs, Overlapping will be interesting, such like Texas revolution of Mexicans.

Depending on the politicians and cards the player chooses, the Swedes may still not get them.
Settlers becoming variant of Doppelsoldner, Needle Guns and War Wagons available in buildings, multiple Uhlans sent by each shipment, etc. There are many more possibilities. German units are not just mercenaries.

Incas, Aztecs and United States use cards to revolt since they are neither Europeans nor Mexicans. The revolution mechanics are not designed for them.

Civilizations that are not European or Mexican can use cards to revolt, which is already being implemented.

Same. Revolutions are fine, there’s some fun revolutions like chile, peru, finland etc and they can be really strong but in reality they are rarely used and a few new cards and changes to old cards is far more relevant.

3 Likes

This is a good time to reopen the debate, do revolutions need a redesign?

If we have Liberia, the US should have revolutionary options, namely Liberia, Hawaii, and the Confederate States. However, because of Liberia and the CSA’s affiliations with slavery, I doubt they would add these.

Instead of Ural Cossacks, make it Tartary. Maybe villagers transform into Steppe Riders, while it unlocks some Chinese units like Keshiks, Flails, and Meteor Hammers. It would be a faction designed to allow players to unleash hordes of cheap but swift cavalry to swamp the opponent.

As Tartary is a fairly broad term, it is also applicable to the Ottomans, Poles, and even the Chinese.