Potential bug ?

[desertedfox]

My bad then because I hadn't checked but I thought from memory the Glad School was orange.

I can't for the life of me reason that a Circus would have a negative effect with regards to a revolt. The revolt in the G Schools is obvious, but even Morbio's explanation for me is weak for a whole populace to incite a revolt against the government of the region on such a flimsy pretence.

Before I read your post I went through the internet looking at reasons for revolts in ancient times. None of them were as lightweight as being upset over someone losing a race etc.

Food, wages, working conditions, slaves etc etc..major issues.

Despite that, I agree the colour coding does need an overhaul, green has always been a positive indicator, not a negative one.

[desertedfox]

No need to wait for the divs response, it's in black and white in the Gronads Guide.

Massive Loyalty increase in exchange for massive Decadence. Decent money too, but getting direct access to Wild Beasts may be difficult. If the +40 Loyalty is doing its job, you wont need to worry about the Revolt chance increase.

I would really like to hear the Devs reason for giving the Circus an increased revolt chance.

[zakblood]

all threads are moderated, please keep replies civil and not argumentative, rule interpretation is hard is many games, with only the developer able to fully understand and be able to make comments on one rule or another

[Pocus]

It's always nice to have buildings which are not black OR white, but mostly white with some black. And thus the Circus has a main benefit, loyalty, but it has some drawbacks.

Now, if you want the rationale, the revolt risks come from gladiators revolting, not the population. The population enjoys the extra panem et circenses (loyalty boost) but if things go bad (i.e. low loyalty) then revolts will be more probable and more intense (gladiators being presents in numbers)

[desertedfox]

Pocus, the reasons for the Glad School has already been understood.

I have given some thought as to why add a negative to the Circus.

Given in the last 2,500 years of sporting events, which would number in their zillions, there have been many riots, which would also constitute a very huge number, there has been, from what I have researched, exactly ONE REVOLT against a local, regional or national government, resulting from a sporting event, which happened in Antioch in 507 (Link provided below). The Nika rebellion doesn't count (add it to the list if you really want to make the number 2) as it was a complicated religious, social and economic rebellion where the various faction leaders used the Hippodrome as a venue to pursue their agenda and would have occurred even if the Hippodrome had never been constructed.

So I'll take an educated guess as to why the Circus had a negative revolt modifier, which defies history and logic. To add "flavour" to the game.

Is there any historical evidence that the Devs have strayed from history or realism in the Empires game? Yes, I can name two.

1. I asked Pocus why the Indians, who fielded very large numbers of archers in their armies...don't have access to archers?

His reply, "For balance purposes". I can live with that and there a number of rules for nations in-game for balancing purposes.

2. A number of people asked why do pikes and heavy infantry have different attack and defence values? This is not historical or realistic.

Pocus replied something to the effect "to facilitate interesting global manoeuvres on the map to gain a tactical advantage".

While I am not a fan of this particular situation, I have an explanation.

Thank you for your response Pocus and continued efforts to improve the game.

https://books.google.co.th/books?id=laU ... me&f=false

[Alcoolamus]

Thanks for the answer Pocus, but could you fix the colours please ? « Increase the risk of revolt » should be in orange and not in green and « decrease risk of revolt » should be in green rather than orange IMHO

[Mairtin]

I agree the colours should be reversed. Green is generally considered good, red bad. It works that way for resources (eg infrastructure), decadence, and loyalty, so it's a little surprising that it isn't the same for revolt risk.

Riots and more have definitely happened from chariot racing in the roman world

We hear that in A.D. 390 one charioteer from one of the factions in Thessalonica over in Greece made a sexual advance on a Roman general in the area, and he was ordered to be arrested. When word got out, the supporters of his faction rioted, lynched the general concerned, broke their charioteer out of jail, and, continuing to riot, burned down the center of the city of Thessalonica.

In the end, the emperor had to send in the troops, with the result that 7,000 people were killed in the ensuing chaos. So the support of the charioteers for their faction was extremely noticeable.

(https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/chariot-racing/)
and later under the Byzantines

Riots culminated in the Nika riots of 532 AD during the reign of Justinian, which began when the two main factions united and attempted unsuccessfully to overthrow the emperor.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_racing)

[desertedfox]

Riots were commonplace at these events and the authorities deployed the soldiers to control them beforehand. legionnaires actually had special training to control the violence from these events.

Only one such riot, however, resulted in a revolt against the government. The % increase in this discussion is about revolts. If the % increase was about riots, it would most likely be about a 300% increase.

[Soar]

These buildings are never the root cause of revolts in the game either. In practice, even with the revolt risk penalty, building a Circus or a Racing Track will almost always lead to less revolts, not more, the exceptions being if the region is so underdeveloped in terms of loyalty buildings relative to population that the giant loyalty boost still leaves the regional loyalty at near 0, or so full of unruly slaves that the loyalty problem won't ever be manageable with just buildings to begin with.

[desertedfox]

That's right Soar, which is why this is a % increase against the base chance of a revolt. The base chance of a revolt, that is the root causes, in-game of revolts is caused by having too much population, not enough health buildings, too many slaves etc.

That net % increase of a revolt is in-game. In the real world, the decrease % of revolts from a loyalty boost would be greater than the increase % of any potential negative effects, in regards to sporting events. This would result in a net decrease in any chance of a revolt.

Governments (democracy, communist, monarchy, emperors etc) first rule of business is to remain in power. If riots from sporting events resulted in revolts against governments and thus a serious threat to their continued existence, the second business of the day would be to shut down these events.

[Pocus]

Good catch about the colouring scheme, I'm fixing it.

Some precision on what you say I said earlier

1. Indians. Please note that since some patchs, the regular infantry is now named 'Massed Archers' (or Archers for the non upgraded model) and that each has some ranged attack, to represent their hybrid status.

2. On the Circus, I did not say that the sporting event itself led to a revolt. I said that this kind of facility (circus) required a large contingent of gladiators, and the presence of a large number of gladiators in a region was a factor of instability. The most obvious example is the revolt led by Spartacus. This is the plausible reason I had in mind what I added an increase in RR for the Circus. Main reason was indeed to have an interesting game mechanic though.