Instead of all these elaborate ways of making village revolts more interesting, there is a very simple and fun way to do it - make raids effect when the village revolts. In theory, killing villagers and influencing them with weaken results in lessened power gain and commodity production. It would be nice if they also resulted in making the village revolt sooner. The impact doesn't have to be tremendous, but it should be noticable.

This would also make influencing during non-revolts more interesting, as influence raids are quieter, and debating/diverting has a use during them. Since villagers who are weakened and then killed count double, even those who violently raid can take a bit of time to weaken first, so debating them out would be useful.

Raids DO affect when the village revolts.

It's just no one can really raid.

From my notes, that isn't true. Or it matters too little to notice. There was a time when we raided Stewartsville nearly every month when it was under Glomdorian control. The village still revolted when I had expected it to, not taking into consideration raids. Same with shanthmark under magnagoran control the time I went in every month for a while to influence with weakening. Still revolted at the expected time.

Raids do not currently effect when the village revolts.

It was specifically pointed out that they do. It's in an old announce post somewhere, I'm sure.

The thing is that we generally don't kill the villagers when we attacked Stewartsville, so much as guards.

Since you have all the stats, check if the mining villages are any shorter than normal.

Bet they are.

This was an edit to my last post, but then you posted, so I'll post this as a new post:

Shiri, you have my notes on revolts - look at Angkrag. Remember how we raid for miners? See how consistant the dates are? Rockholm likewise. Before the change to village revolts, when things were more predictable, Rockholm revolted CONSISTANTLY after 31 OOC days under our control. Just about every time, except the time it was 32. I don't think Magnagora's raids were consistant enough to result in that happening if the raids had any impact at all upon it.

I don't have your notes actually. But I'll take your word for it.

Mining villages were held LONGER than others, not shorter. They were also more consistant. Remember to ignore the first four or so revolts of all but shanthmark and paavik, since things used to work differently or something. It could be a bug - maybe they're supposed to. But they just don't seem to at all.

Type II and look at the bottom of the list.

I didn't actually keep those scrolls for myself, if that's what you thought.

EDIT: Oh.

Info inventory, not page 2. When did that get there?

When I gave it to you

It would be interesting if raiding had a greater effect on when villages revolt. Would be even better if the damage from raiding (Loss of productivity) lasted enough to be carried over to the next village owner. So, you can raid a village, and force it to revolt - but if you took that village, you'd have to cope with its low productivity because of the damage you did. Maybe raiding should make the villagers biased against the raiders, making it harder for them to influence later?

At which point people would be less likely to raid, so it kind of defeats the purpose. You can only go one way or the other.

Umm, keep it simple. Asking for complicated things to be coded usually results in nothing happening

It's a tradeoff: Attack their villages and mess up our enemies, or wait until the villages revolt so we can have a profitable village?

EDIT: It's also more realistic, and it makes roleplaying an org that doesn't raid more viable.

The change wouldn't be worth it, then.

Influencing with paranoia is also supposed to affect how soon it revolts, though I don't think that actually works (or if it does, it doesn't do much).