Currently I feel that martial law is just too effective and far too cheap. The 20% loss of income is negligible and there is no reason to care about dead citizens because these replace very quickly on normal settings for those with a decent food income which is easy to set up.
Make martial law require the deployment of armies
One of the strangest elements of martial law is that you can use it anywhere, as soon as there is but one rioter in your settlement. It does not swallow up any of your military resources to implement, which is quite silly. So in order to implement martial law you have to have a total military strength, *excluding* garrison strength deployed in the city or adjacent to it equal to a certain value.
Each rioter has a military strength of exactly 100. To implement martial law your deployed military forces must be equal to the total strength of the sum of rioters. Martial law is cancelled should the military forces deployed become weaker than the sum of the rioters and there is a temporary happiness penalty for this as well.
Implementing martial law deactivates your garrison
In addition to the other penalties for implementing martial law, implementing martial law causes your settlement to no longer have a garrison; as the population cannot be trusted with weapons. This means the regular forces deployed must be sufficient to guard the settlement against enemies.
Rebellions
When you either implement martial law or the total number of rioters in a settlement goes over 50%, the settlement with begin to organise for a rebellion. A rebellion is basically a parallel garrison building, which is built by the rioters in the settlement as soon as the conditions are met. Each rioter contributes production to the building and they also benefit from any bonuses or penalties the colony has; that means you can slow down rebellions by degrading the colony productivity. Like the regular garrison building, the rebellion building is upgradable. It does however have the ability to be upgraded to produce a garrison one level higher than is possible for a regular garrison.
The rebellion happens when this parallel garrison becomes stronger than the actual garrison (if there is one) and any military forces deployed in the settlement. Except for the final uber-level mentioned above, rebel forces are identical to garrisons of their equivalent level for that race. When the rebellion actually happens, the settlements garrison does not actually fight, even though the rebellion acts as though it would be fighting them as mentioned before, the actual battle is fought between the rebellion and whatever regular forces are deployed.
Successful rebellions
If a rebellion takes over a settlement, the settlement will try to defect to any player that has a relationship with their race better than neutral, provided they are *not* allied to their former ruler. This is presented as a proposal to the player, accepting the proposal gives the player who used to control the settlement a major casus belli against the new owner. If the proposal is rejected, the next eligible player is consulted; the players are consulted in order of how good their relations with the colony race is.
If nobody accepts their offer, the rebelling settlement becomes something similar to an NPC faction, one that is named the rebellion against {Leader Name}. This faction starts off neutral with other parties but is at war with the titular leader. Unlike with NPC factions however, the only quests it offers is killing the units of the former owner and taking their settlements, that means that only enemies of the rebellions target can ever obtain a non-neutral relationship. Once you are at peace with them, you can buy units and mods from the faction to gain even better relations like normal, the mods and units are those available to the leader they are rebelling against.
One other difference as you do not integrate the rebel settlements into your own settlements using influence but instead you are simply given outright control. Another restriction is that however good your relationship and however much influence you have, a rebel faction will not give you control over a settlement whose race has a worse relationship with you than neutral.
Make martial law require the deployment of armies
One of the strangest elements of martial law is that you can use it anywhere, as soon as there is but one rioter in your settlement. It does not swallow up any of your military resources to implement, which is quite silly. So in order to implement martial law you have to have a total military strength, *excluding* garrison strength deployed in the city or adjacent to it equal to a certain value.
Each rioter has a military strength of exactly 100. To implement martial law your deployed military forces must be equal to the total strength of the sum of rioters. Martial law is cancelled should the military forces deployed become weaker than the sum of the rioters and there is a temporary happiness penalty for this as well.
Implementing martial law deactivates your garrison
In addition to the other penalties for implementing martial law, implementing martial law causes your settlement to no longer have a garrison; as the population cannot be trusted with weapons. This means the regular forces deployed must be sufficient to guard the settlement against enemies.
Rebellions
When you either implement martial law or the total number of rioters in a settlement goes over 50%, the settlement with begin to organise for a rebellion. A rebellion is basically a parallel garrison building, which is built by the rioters in the settlement as soon as the conditions are met. Each rioter contributes production to the building and they also benefit from any bonuses or penalties the colony has; that means you can slow down rebellions by degrading the colony productivity. Like the regular garrison building, the rebellion building is upgradable. It does however have the ability to be upgraded to produce a garrison one level higher than is possible for a regular garrison.
The rebellion happens when this parallel garrison becomes stronger than the actual garrison (if there is one) and any military forces deployed in the settlement. Except for the final uber-level mentioned above, rebel forces are identical to garrisons of their equivalent level for that race. When the rebellion actually happens, the settlements garrison does not actually fight, even though the rebellion acts as though it would be fighting them as mentioned before, the actual battle is fought between the rebellion and whatever regular forces are deployed.
Successful rebellions
If a rebellion takes over a settlement, the settlement will try to defect to any player that has a relationship with their race better than neutral, provided they are *not* allied to their former ruler. This is presented as a proposal to the player, accepting the proposal gives the player who used to control the settlement a major casus belli against the new owner. If the proposal is rejected, the next eligible player is consulted; the players are consulted in order of how good their relations with the colony race is.
If nobody accepts their offer, the rebelling settlement becomes something similar to an NPC faction, one that is named the rebellion against {Leader Name}. This faction starts off neutral with other parties but is at war with the titular leader. Unlike with NPC factions however, the only quests it offers is killing the units of the former owner and taking their settlements, that means that only enemies of the rebellions target can ever obtain a non-neutral relationship. Once you are at peace with them, you can buy units and mods from the faction to gain even better relations like normal, the mods and units are those available to the leader they are rebelling against.
One other difference as you do not integrate the rebel settlements into your own settlements using influence but instead you are simply given outright control. Another restriction is that however good your relationship and however much influence you have, a rebel faction will not give you control over a settlement whose race has a worse relationship with you than neutral.
Upvote
0
