I don't know about China, but there never was any communistic revolution in Russia.
A sub-portion of the population uprising and demanding beloved communism (i.e. Red Guard vs White Guard vs Imperialists, in pre-communistic Russia, or in pre-communistic China)
I don't have much knowledge of either Chinese and Russian history, so you're probably correct. According to a quick glance at Wikipedia, the communists (or socialists?) overthrew the nation in 1917, but then the Russian Civil War between the communists (Reds) and anti-communists (Whites) broke out immediately afterward in 1918. The Reds were against the royal family, and I don't know if the Whites were either. So Reds overthrew the Imperials and the Whites attempted to overthrow the Reds but the Reds triumphed there also.
I might have it completely butchered - my historic interests lies elsewhere.
China was in the middle of civil war between the Nationalists and the Communists when war broke out with Imperial Japan in WW2 (the Communists were winning) - then they joined together to fight against Japan (a losing battle), before starting up the fighting again post-Japan, and the Communists quickly mopped up the Nationalists (they arranged it so that the Nationalists would take the worst of Japan's aggressions). I possibly have that butchered also.
My point is, population should be treated neutral/passive and only/mostly factions should be the enemy. Only if there is a big ecenomic discontent the general population would uprise. But under normal condition, the population should be treated as resource, you try to win their support (propaganda) and reduce support of the opposing factions/rebels.
Absolutely. Most of the population of any nation, including the USA, is middle-ground and shift their support around depending on what they perceive to benefit themselves or what they perceive to be morally good or good for the country as a whole. This is influenced by vocal groups trying to rally supported for their groups' agendas. Alliances and alignments are very fluid.
Religion & ethnic - I think these are too grim/dark for a game. No one would want to play a dictator who kill people for stupid reasons... Inevitable sacrifaces "on the way to the brigher future" is one thing, proactive extermination of population is another. I want to aim for a lighter mood
You asked who your enemies
are. You cannot please every religion, and not even every sect of a single religion. So unless you tread very carefully, you (as a dictator) are bound to displease some group, even if your rule is a religiously-tolerated freedom-of-religion rule (like Saddam Hussein's mostly was).
And just because the dictator (you) and your ruling party isn't racist, that doesn't mean ethnic groups won't rise up complaining about favoritism.
You could use made up ethnicities, and have them be very close together in appearance. The game doesn't have to support murdering people who have different colored skins - it could be as simple as "Group A historically descended from the people on the north side of the river, group B historically descended from the people on the south side of the river", you could then have Northerners claim
that Southerners are favored by your ruling party, because your Chief Economic Advisor happens to be of Southern descent, and because the new school you built happened to have been built in a predominantly Southern-populated block of town (the game could detect these kinds of situations, and use them as semi-legitimate complains that the opposition groups use to rally crowds). The minority Earterners could complain that they are being overlooked, and accuse the local Westerner officials of incompetence and corruption.
Call them Little Endians and Big Endians if you must.
Edited by Servant of the Lord, 08 May 2014 - 05:42 PM.