 |
|
bisho
|
|
Does it annoy the absolute hell out of anyone else those dodgey overthrows when u trying to conquer a civ???
I mean I can see they may be able to overthrow a city, but do they have to just then get rid of all the units therein!?!?!
For example, city with 2 infantry, 1 cavalry and about 15 bombers overthrows me, I can see reasons why and stuff but do all those bombers then just bloody dissapear!!!!!!!!
I can't stand it, that I lose 85% of my troops in a war through the civilians carving em up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bisho
|
|
exactly, some way to notify the player, or give em a chance.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
G.A
|
|
Kiev, Ukraine
Nov 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
Euhm, can people just learn to not put their entire army into a recently captured city?????
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by G.A
Euhm, can people just learn to not put their entire army into a recently captured city????? |
First, that goes against both common sense and expected game mechanics - shouldn't garrissoned troops reduce the chance of overthrow? Second, they are required to quell resisters. Third, Oerdin is right, there is a better way. Did anyone at Firaxis play any of this genre of game when thinking about Civ3, or did they want to reinvent the wheel?
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Magician
|
|
If your civ culture is much lower than the rival civ, perhaps you should raze their city and build a new one instead of capturing it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zardof
|
|
I usually send a group of settlers along with my troops. I raze each city I take then build a new one. All the improvements such as mines, roads, irrigation, are still there so it won't take long before your new city is built up. If you take a city with a very large population, you will have more headaches than the city is worth IMO. I don't start a new city in place of the razed one unless it is in a very good location.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
G.A
|
|
Kiev, Ukraine
Nov 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
First, that goes against both common sense and expected game mechanics - shouldn't garrissoned troops reduce the chance of overthrow? Second, they are required to quell resisters. Third, Oerdin is right, there is a better way. Did anyone at Firaxis play any of this genre of game when thinking about Civ3, or did they want to reinvent the wheel?
Venger |
Well, in this particular case there were 18 bombers ffs!
And quelling resisters doesn`t make the difference for whether there`s a tank or a swordsman, as I remember...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raleigh
|
|
I don't know if bombers suppress rebellions. That's a good question. It would make sense if they did NOT, since what country would bomb its own city to suppress a revolt? Suppressino really requires nightsticks and more personal weapons. I know some of you will even point to tanks. That's fine because (tank) cannon fire directed from the ground at a single and several buidlings is still more accurate than bombing whole blocks or areas of town wholesale!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
D4everman
|
|
Fort Dix, New Jersey
Jun 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Well, in this particular case there were 18 bombers ffs! |
Bombers won't help. You need ground units, one for ever resistor, preferably. If you conquer a rival city and it has aircraft or ships in it, they do not fight back....they die. Get the idea? They can't garrison a city.
Put ground units in the city and then turn everyone into entertainers and starve it out. The new citizens will belong to you and it will help stop an overthrow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bisho
|
|
yer, starving them out seems to be the go, personally i preferred the partisan uprisings and stuff they were cool. I don't mind the idea of these overthrows, but the units should be thrown outside the city or something, losing them all seems a bit strong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Karhgath
|
|
quote:
True. It's like this men that send tanks against pikemen. It's just so OBVIOUS and LOGICAL that they will die !
People are just so strange, they expect something to happen like it's supposed to happen. What a weird concept.
|
Well, if they send one or 2 tanks againsta well defended city with pikemen, they might get unlucky and lose. It doesn't make the game stupid, it makes the player stupid IMHO. That's like sending 2 men with a stock to attack a bank, hehe.
Well, I dunno, using a newly conquered city as a new base of operation, a new airport and a new port, is, well, not very bright. You wait a little usually, so that the dust settles.
Also, I always put a good amount of units to quell the resistance, about a dozen tanks and a dozen mech inf(in modern age), and never had any city revolting. Ok, I had a bigger culture than them most of the time, maybe that's why.
Another thing to ask is, what do you mean by "lost all my units in the city"? Are we talking about 5-6 units, or about 20 here?(not counting bombers, artillery, etc.) To quell resisters, I usually put 2x the time of citizen in various troops, and in one turn I usually quells all revolting citizens, and never have a problem afterward. Might be a trick you could use.
Now, I do NOT agree that you should lose all your units. Some might get detroyed and other just fall back, but not all of them destroyed. Things like artillery and bomber might probably be destroyed, but the rest shouldn't, or at least not all of them. That's silly, and I agree.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
halley
|
|
I think what pisses people off is not the fact that the city rebels, but that their entire army that was garrisoned in the city just vanished. Maybe a patch that made any troops garrisoned in the city be automatically moved to the nearest friendly city.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigBopper
|
|
If you leave 2 spearmen to defend a large city you have just taken, you deserve to have them be killed and the city revolt. However, the way Civ III models this is just insane. I've had smaller cities overthrow and thus kill defenders many times the size of the city. And yes my culture was greater than the civ I was at war with. It makes no sense that revolters with improvised and or lower tech weapons can overthrow a large occupying army that is not only larger than them but has better equipment. (Or does the population turn into demigods that can crush tanks with a single glance?) As for the notion of not keeping your occupying army garisoned in front line cities, where the hell are we to keep our army? Away from the war where they might get hurt? Why did firaxis model revolts without modeling the ability to put them down? (and brutally at that)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Teemur
|
|
Europe
Nov 2001
time: 07:16
|
|
I think one good solution to this would be if the city revolutions would be made to last multiple turns. Every turn each revolting citizen would have a chance to damage or destroy a unit and this would continue until the revolution is suppressed or all the defending units gone. This would allow you to escape or bring reinforcements if it seems like you are losing.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-11-2001 15:22
|