"Rules taking into account civilian or national unrest" Topic

I was thinking about the "Unrest has risen 20% in the last year" post by Tango ( TMP link )

and was thinking if there were any rules that took this into account. I seem to remember one of the XCOM versions had something similar that if the ppl did not like XCOM then they would actively attack them while they were having to deal with the aliens.

XCOM ( as an example ) wants to generally save ppl, so allow non-hostile civilians to follow their rules if within a certain distance of their forces.

There was a discussion here on TMP around this subject relating to the situation in Ferguson, MO. It was a few weeks/months back if you wish to look for it.

Rules would probably be very game specific; a brigade level armor game set in '80s Eastern Europe Nato vs. Russia would have a very different way of handling civil disorder than a skirmish game involving houseclearing by Egyptian troops in Gaza after an IS strike set in the day after tomorrow.

Thanks for the suggestions; wasn't really thinking too much in the modern sense ("civil" disobedience). Rules probably would have to be game specific as mentioned.

Ever since the XCOM board was announced, I've been think on how I would do it and civilian interaction in XCOM missions was an element I am curious about.

The computer game Civilization had unrest. When a city went into unrest it stopped producing. To quell it you could shift production to make more luxuries, which meant your units or city improvements built more slowly. There were other ways to deal with unrest as well; some improvements had the effect of luxuries (stadium I think). And you could always have a revolution and change your system of government, which stopped all production everywhere for a turn or two, but thereafter each governing system had a different economic model, and some were more resistant to unrest (the despotic ones as I recall).

One of the joys of the Eagle Games American Civil War super boardgame is the number of fringe factions and unlikely possibilities that were worked into the game

Imposing conscription by either side can result in several hitherto friendly cities exploding into draft riots. A random number of draft rioter figures is placed in the rebellious city, they fight it out with any garrison, any surviving draft rioters must be suppressed by military force.

In a somewhat similar mechanic it's possible, if a Southern player mis-manages his war effort badly enough, for a Confederate state to secede from the Confederacy. Confederate forces in the state are replaced by 'Republic of Arkansas' (or whomever) figures who face off against all comers.

Come to think of it, European intervention in EGACW (separate British and French factions) is influenced by the foreign powers' view of how the war is going. The Southern player should win battlefield victories and gain territory in order to favorably influence European opinion. The Northern player should play, not necessarily to win, but to avoid losses, to keep the Europeans out.

In EGACW, you really have to manage the northern and southern war efforts to influence domestic and international opinion. If you just play the game you'll lose fast.

At the skirmish level, in our Octopi Wall Street scenario for QILS, we had automata controlled civilians (behaviour rules). There were shifting modes (different rules) for their behaviour depending the current civil attitude.

We had two ways to implement this. The first way was you used rules A until a certain trigger event happened, then you move to rules B (which might lead back to A or C). The other way was all civilians follow rules A. When certain trigger events happen in their vicinity, they get a marker, and now use rules B.

Force on Force has rules for civilians including hostile mobs.

You can even turn hostile mobs into armed mobs.