
Originally Posted by
Maelee
I understand the comparison you are attempting to make, but it is not compelling.
In the transporter example, the risk/reward framework is roughly in balance. The attacker bears little risk but also no real reward (other than annoyance) in the attack. If it is part of a larger scheme to distract and confuse, then so be it.
By contrast, the risk/reward framework in colonization is skewed. A suz who is unable to be on 24/7 and knowledgeable on the mechanics of uprisings knows of the substantial risks involved even if he/she is substantially stronger than the colony and may reasonably choose to avoid that risk. The suz is making a high risk/low-to-high reward decision (keep high settings) or a low risk/low-to-high loss decision (protect himself/herself) and must live with the consequences.
The colony, however, is making a low-to-no risk/high reward assessment in a faux uprising. At worst, it fails and leaves the colony owner where he/she started (and perhaps with some useful information). At best, the city is liberated solely because the suz had to make a risk/reward assessment that the colony owner never had to make (I'll ignore the other benefits of uprising as they'll detract from the basic discussion). And given the relative ease of hiding troops and heroes from drafting, the colony owner can effectively avoid any significant downside risk of repeated faux uprisings and loses virtually nothing in terms of resources. And, as I said before, I care less about the form of the potential downside than that the risk/reward calculus strike more of a balance.
Ironically, from a strategic perspective, a crafty colony owner may prefer the Crush Uprising option notwithstanding the potential additional risk...
Bookmarks