Will you be able to play as the rebels?

[Nurgle's Chef]

Question in title. I saw you can do it in multiplayer, but single player?

[Shagglehod]

Well, since it mentions versus multiplayer, I imagine so?

[Brother Roga]

Originally posted by Shagglehod:

Well, since it mentions versus multiplayer, I imagine so?

I have a feeling it'll be more like "You use money to generate an AI rebellion somewhere in the other player's territory" kind of deal, rather than actually playing as rebels yourself.

Really do wish there'll be something like what OP asks.

[Caelus]

if there isnt a rebel mode on release theres a high chance it will be added later.... much like plague inc later added planet of the apes mode and vampire mode...and zombies...

infact maybe they will add a zombie outbreak o=mode in this? lol

[Starkwolf]

I would really hope that you will be able to play as rebels. Was really disappointed to see a game that otherwise looked like a good representation of the Syrian Civil War only allowed you to play as Assad's regime, the argument being that it is the only "legitimate" power as recognized by the UN. Problem I see with that argument is nobody complains about being able to play as the Viet Cong, and everybody committed a ton of warcrimes in that war, them included plus technically being "terrorists." The underground during WWII were also labeled "terrorists," so hiding behind the label alone doesn't really work. Obviously ISIS is terrible, but when a legitimate power is backing a group of rebels, like in Syria or Vietnam, that is rather different than universally condemned terrorism like ISIS. The thing is, mechanics as rebels are often the reverse of the government forces so it has the potential to make for very interesting gameplay, but understandably there is hesitation about taking the political risks.

[Black Hammer]

It's an abstract game about peace building. Pretending either the game, which is fictional, or real situations like this, which are inordinately different and complicated, are somehow symmetrical is silly.

[Starkwolf]

Originally posted by Black Hammer:

It's an abstract game about peace building. Pretending either the game, which is fictional, or real situations like this, which are inordinately different and complicated, are somehow symmetrical is silly.

But that's exactly it! Don't pretend it is symmetrical! Develop new mechanics and engage with it.

I agree that would be stupid and take a lot of work, but there is so much potential if the work is put in!

[lebeststratege]

It's less being syria than the US in Irak btw

[Starkwolf]

Originally posted by lebeststratege:

It's less being syria than the US in Irak btw

They did mention Afghanistan as their inspiration, but as I think it is fictitious it just as well could be.

[Buntkreuz]

hope that the versus involves a rebel side for one of the players.

I further hope for multiplayer that involves more than 2 people, like a 2 versus 2 would be cool.
It could even include an asymmetrical way to play where rebels are stronger and two states have to deal with one rebel player (or vice versa).

[Fivealive007]

I think its going to be two operations fighting for popularity over the region while the insurgents are problably a hostile entity to both ruining their operations but could also be used by both to build up a reputation for pushing them out. I hope its not going to be like that but well see.

[Rabble]

+1 for rebel mode.

[Starkwolf]

Originally posted by Dr. Damn Nation:

hope that the versus involves a rebel side for one of the players.

I further hope for multiplayer that involves more than 2 people, like a 2 versus 2 would be cool.
It could even include an asymmetrical way to play where rebels are stronger and two states have to deal with one rebel player (or vice versa).

I would love a system that captures the chaos of Syria, while being fictitious could leave things open enough.

What is so fascinating, while obviously being simultaneously being horrifying is that you have:

-A fairly typical Arab dictator whose nation has fractured with strong friends and enemies from among world powers.

-A rebel group barely holding together that continuously breaks up and creates new factions as it gets closer to achieving its goals, and tends to pop up and get destroyed all over the map in different points.

-Another rebel group that has had a fairly strong hold on one region, and has really benefited from being a low priority enemy by all except 1 country for those that actually dislike it while having a fairly strong popular support base overall

-A rebel group that truly deserves to be villainized and unilaterally is, while simultaneously being underdogs that caught the world by surprise. In that sense they are a little bit like Nazi Germany.

-Among others, although the above are the major players.

Obviously it doesn't have to be these four mechanics specifically, especially since a rebel faction that spawned more rebel factions would be mechanically frustrating to implement, and a truly villainous rebel group would hit way too close to home, especially now. But the overall idea of having wildly different mechanics for a multi-way clash could be immensely fun for a game.

Maybe to distance itself more maybe:

-A fractured state
-A rebel group with high funding, but high corruption and infighting and can't really use that support effectively until it is dealt with
-A rebel group with low funding but wild popular support
-A rebel group that doesn't have a lot of map presence, but infiltrates other factions until it has enough support to take them over

Since all of these are vaguely similar to stuff happening in Syria while not clearly being one to one with any given group (except that previous government ofc), it would dodge some serious political bullets.

[Newgel]

I'm necroing this thread for +1 rebel mode

[Starkwolf]

I thought this was abandoned at this point? I am still hoping they do something like this for a future game.

[sleeper]

Most likely, it will simply be two different players on two different maps influencing each other via special focuses, and that's it.
And anyway, they probably don't want to risk the sweet sweet money coming in from countries that have actually experienced terrorism to end.