 |
|
Ancientfool
|
|
I ALWAYS have the highest culture and I still find captured cities reverting from my control. I tried a strategy of razing every other enemy city and trying the hold the rest but I still ended up losing my main army to culture.
Pretty frustrating, to say the least.
Also, once you discover nationalism cities shouldnt defect due to culture, you should just incur a small population loss from people leaving for greener pastures.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ludwig
|
|
A lot of people are bringing settlers with them on conquest missions so they can raze the captured city and build their own.
Since you're building the extra settlers anyway, you might want to try just adding the settlers to the city. This is almost as effective at preventing defections if done properly [not 100% effective, but effective enough to employ the technique].
Size 3-6 cities can usually be firmly pacified with the addition of a single settler. [Size 1 or 2 cities you may as well raze, since you're got a settler with you anyway, unless there's a wonder involved or something].
Size 7-9 cities take a settler and a worker.
Size 10-14 cities take 2 settlers.
I've never captured a city above size 14 or 15 or so, since my artillery/bomber bombardment generally kills a bunch of civilians in the size 20 cities...
Please note that sometimes the larger cities immediately go into starvation when you pump their populations up, due to the reduced culture border of the captured cities and the resultant lower number of food squares. In these instances, you have to rush build a temple or library or the citizens you've added will simply starve away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ludwig
|
|
I think cultural defections ARE realistic, in the ancient and medieval eras. In the Industrial and Modern eras, it shouldn't be allowed, except under very specific conditions. "Spawning" revolutionaries in those eras would be fine, if that could be coded; if not, just end the defections [again, except for very specific conditions] and let it go at that. The borders of a modern state just aren't that amorphous.
What's the specific condition? Anarchy. When a state is in anarchy, cultural defections should become possible again. The fall of the Soviet Union and the "defection" of the Eastern European states to the West and to NATO seems like a real-world modern-day example, so in such an instance the defections wouldn't be TOTALLY unrealistic. But a modern state NOT in anarchy, and presumably attempting to hold on to its sovereign territory, shouldn't lose cities just because the wind blows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monoriu
|
|
1. Cultural defections are good for the game, I love it. It is a good concept, its fun, and its realistic.
2. That said, I don't like the way its implemented. Cultural defections should make sense, and unfortunately it doesn't right now. When I have the highest culture in the world, when I am building and rushing improvements in the city like crazy, when I am pounding the other civilization to oblivion, and when I have a strong garrison in the city it shouldn't defect so easily.
3. There should be some sort of indicators as to how likely a city would defect. Right now there is none, and that is not good. I am NOT asking for a precise warning message in a pop up box. I want some sort of rough indicator with a degree of uncertainty.
4. Losing every soldier in the city because of defection doesn't make any sense, and is anti-fun. This is the #1 thing they should change in this entire debate.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Badtz Maru
|
|
I play on Warlord mostly (I intend to try Regent again soon, though - I was put off when I tried it on my second game and got stomped) and I have NEVER lost a city to culture, even when it is newly conquered. I always spend a lot on culture, though - I build every cultural improvement I can in every city, and when I play a religious civ (which is most of the time) a temple is always the first thing I build in a new city.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Green Giant
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Monoriu
4. Losing every soldier in the city because of defection doesn't make any sense, and is anti-fun. This is the #1 thing they should change in this entire debate. |
I thought the exact same thing. They should go back to the former owners capitol.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kaesar
|
|
Surrey, BC, Canada
Jan 1970
time: 05:16
|
|
Solution to defections:
I think the chance of defection has to do with what nationality the citizens are. So I guess the best solution is to starving them to death. It is kind of sick but it is realistic. Cultural assimiation works but it takes a long time before you can be sure the city you have forcably taken will not defect. I find you will probably save a lot of time by just bombarding a city until it has only one population, then take it over and the new population growth will be your own nationality. I guess moving a bunch of your own workers into the new city works as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shiva
|
 |
Omaha,Nebraska USA
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
What level are you playing? On regent it's 250 to rush a temple...
|
Lol, sorry. I always let it build one turn before buying. Forgot to say that. You pay a higher price on a rush on the first turn. Im not sure if disbanding a unit before buying on the first turn would knock the price down that turn or not since you'll have shields in the box. I'll try in the morning.
Last edited by Shiva on 23-11-2001 at 12:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
City defection as is is not fun. How can something over which you have no say, and barely control since none of us know the rules (since we were not told them) be fun? It's like gambling, only there are no returns. And what about trying to get cities you have lost back? Since we don't hear from you, I ask, has anyone have cities defect BACK to them? The idea thAt citizens will resist your rule by not working to their potential, by undermining your rule- thats fine, try to make them happy, or repress them, thats how its done, but somehow that citizens, without warning, or loss, or it seems, a fight, defeat garrisons (regardless of size) and join who they want is non-sense. Also, if I were a governor and my citizens wanted to break away, and my neighbor helped them by allowing them into his nation, then i would probably break relations with them if not go to war, Cultural defection in general has been exectued in such a way as to make no sense, driven by mathematical rules none of us know. Personally, I want more control, and things to be more challenging. If citizens want a city back, fight for it militarily, with units v. units (i.e. Partisans). And letting cities join you after revolt should be a serious decision (just as going to war and taking it would be) and have real consequences (if you want them so much, be willing to fight for them!).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
civ-n00b
|
|
deposition is really getting to me. how the heck can you depose a governer supported by a superior military (with 10-15 units garrisoned there, while cities don't exceed size 9) and a superior culture that has IMPOSED their rule on you. sure, you can have a resistance - i don't mind it, i stomp it out in a turn or 2, but these "cultural defections" in/near battlefields are just plain weird.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
A lot of people have said "You have to build culture" to keep cities you conquer. That is incorrect, because in the game I was playing over this week I had built up the most cultured Civ on the planet. When I took some cities from the French and the Americans ( I was the Germans) I made sure I had at least 3 Infantry/Tanks guarding the city. I also built the temple right away. I think in like 3 turns, after I had quelled all resistance in one of the American Cities I took, the American city defected! It is a big pain having to retake these cities all the time and adds no play value in my opinion. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
I think the addition of national identities and culture make civ3 a much deeper game than civ2 but at the same time it think how fixaris handled the interactions between the two are illogical. Can anyone reading this post give me a SINGLE example of a groups of people, who already defining themselves as memebrs of a linguistic-ethinc group (nation) have risen in revolt vs. their fellow nationals in order to join up with a completely different socio-ethno-linguistic group (another nation) because of the influence of outside culture?
Let me stir things up further by asking the following. Many of the posters in these forums are not American- yet here they are , playing a game developded by Americans (a sign of American cultural influence) and I would bet that they listen in part to American music, see American films and T.V. and perhaps some earlier in their lives studied in US universities. OK, even with all this American cultural influence, how many of you would agree if a fellow citizen said-"hey, lets overthrow the local government, declare ourselves independent, and then ask for US statehood!" ? Anyone? MY bet is no one. Why, because no matter how much amercan culture you digest, you still see yourselves as part of a socio-ethnic-liguistic group and that bond is strong and one you respect. Yet according to this game, some people would say yes!
OK, so according to Civ3, if your culture is really high, others will forget their nationality and join you willingly. Well, if that is true, why would any city you conquer from an enemy with lower culture ever defect? If these people are willing to kill their local garrison themselves to join you, why are they so angry that you did it yourself? How much sense does that make?
I think that a better way of handling the interaction of culture and nationality is to make an ENTIRE nationality more willing to go along with you over time. Yes, I know that the Foreign advisor will tell me how much they are in awe, and some of you will say that this does make the computer ask for less. Thats well and fine, but the effect should be far more pronounced.Have a sort of US-UK relation were two nations are very buddy buddy over everything except issues of completely vital self-defense, both military and economic. This would help you greatly (another civ is your pawn) while keeping the balance between culture and nationality more rational. And finally, I still think partisans are the way to go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hurry
|
|
Thanks for all your comments, guys! It seems most agree that something should be done about the defections. However, Iīm not sure how much Firaxis is able to change in a patch. Itīs not like they are going to redo the whole system.
I have my economy on war-time, so I canīt build temples, so building culture is not an option before I have defeated them totally.
Anyways, I guess I will start starving my newly occupied cities to death from now on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I would just like to add something. When I go too war with the computer I always win. The computer players never seem to upgrade their units, thus when you fight them even though they have the tech to build infintry they still have spearmen running around. Thus taking cities is not hard at all. Even with cities that are well defened I can take. Also there is no way to make this game like real life. You can make it some what simmilar.
Although I think they did this to give the computer a level playing feild. One solution I can think of is you bombard the city untill it is at a pop level of 2 or 1, then you just have to put one or two units in there to keep them from revoluting. I also think they made it this way because they wanted to keep things simple. It was probley already really hard to program the culture aspect of the game in, and to try to make even more compilicated might not be a good idea if you look at this form the point of veiw of the people who have to program the game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
23-11-2001 02:33
Attachment: 
|
