 |
|
Hurry
|
|
City defection is driving me nuts! Nineveh, size 8, defected back to the Babylonians even though i had several defenders in it. So, I reload and put 10 defenders in it. Still defects. So, I reload and put 20 defenders in it, including an army! And still it defects. With every single unit, killed to the last man.
With 5 minute enemy moves, I really donīt want to reload after such a thing happening, but when half my army is wiped out by a few citizens without weapons, it is just too much. I canīt take it anymore. 
So, in fact, after one hour of gaming, I am still playing the same goddamned turn!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
I agree. Strategize more thoughtfully. Cultural assimilation is not a function of brute strength.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Think of it as the fog of culture.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
Yes, the current model approaches insanity...but with 20 units (not bombardment units, they dont count (though they likely should)) it sounds more like a propoganda attack than anything else...
quote:
Capture the surrounding cities as well and raze them. That way the captured city can't be swallowed by the enemy civ's cultural borders. Keep some, raze some, that is. That's what I do. |
This is good gameplay advice - however, my complaint is with the concept. Cultural defection should be the result of a steady influence of cultural attraction, built over time - not 3 freaking turns. I took Berlin, it's being held not by culture but by force - it should not revert after three freaking turns.
That said, it does SEEM to be just a WEE BIT easier to keep cities. However, I'd like a hard and fast rule about it - do you need 1 unit for every 2 citizens, etc...
quote:
I agree. Strategize more thoughtfully. Cultural assimilation is not a function of brute strength. |
But it's handled as such - a city will revert not over time but in as little as three freaking turns. Cultural defection should be something that occurs over time, after influence has built up - not simply because the French no longer like German occupation and prefer the old French government. Something HAS to happen on this gameplay front.
quote:
Ahhh, but there is a means to calculate the risks.
1) Cultural strength (yours vs. theirs)
2) Cultural tendencies (ie - the Babylonians are a Culture MONSTER to begin with)
3) Proximity to the captiols (yours/theirs)
4) Unhappy civilians in the mix
5) (lesser consideration) Garrison strength
Just do a quick rundown of the list. If there are two or more of these items that are in the other guys favor (ie - unhappy citizens + closer to their capitol than yours), then *expect* to lose the city back! |
This is utterly foolish, and makes any attempt at conquest ridiculous. I take a city, the cultural improvements are gone - it is almost certainly closer to their capital (it often was their capital, he he) - they are ALL unhappy for culture reasons. ANY attempt to take a city creates your "expectation" that the city revolts. And that ruins any attempt at conquest, and flies in the face of reason.
quote:
You gotta dominate in most, if not all five categories to keep the city. |
Do you hear how that sounds? Have you followed the logic here?
Take 20 units.
Attack size 25 city.
Take city.
Keep 20 units in city.
Lose city and all 20 units.
Why even defend the city? It makes it easier to defeat an army with cultural defection than actually having to meet them in the field of battle. And that's poorly considered design.
quote:
Vs. the Babylonians in particular, given the sheer strengh of their culture game, I find it necessary to simply raze their cities, or make VERY quick (1 turn) wars against them. |
Well so far I've kicked Egyptian, Greek, Aztec, and now Russian (they started it, I swear) butt. And cultural defection hasn't stopped me, but it's made the game very unenjoyable and in fact was the single largest reason I bagged Civ3 til the patch. Razing the city is not an option, it's genocidal lunacy and frankly I cannot believe it's considered the "preferred" conquest solution.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boney
|
|
Thailand
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Keep most units outside the city, but leave some inside. Once resistance is quelled starve the pop down before letting the city grow again. Best if in communism, rush buy your cultural improvements and kill the rabble at the same.
It amazes me that these city defections, when in my favour, don't seem to p*** off the AI.
On the whole I like city defections, mainly because most of the time it is in my favour. If it is up to me I often prefer to raze the cities and build new ones instead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boney
Keep most units outside the city, but leave some inside. Once resistance is quelled starve the pop down before letting the city grow again. Best if in communism, rush buy your cultural improvements and kill the rabble at the same. |
Good advice boney, but it doesn't work when attack large cities and empires. Because if you take a large city, it will revert LONG before you can starve it down. Again, you have to keep units in the city to put down resistance - once would ASSUME active resistance would lead to revolts. Leaving your units outside the city ought to LEAD to reversion, and reconquering the same city over and over and over just sucks...
quote:
On the whole I like city defections, mainly because most of the time it is in my favour. If it is up to me I often prefer to raze the cities and build new ones instead. |
I wouldn't mind them so much in remote locations, small cities, etc. But it happens WAY too much - and honestly, we could say we are talking about two different things - city reversion versus city defection.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
At the risk of turning this thread into yet another argument thread, I believe the gist of the question was: "under the game as it exists right now, what can be done to conquer and keep cities when waging war against a civ with a strong culture?"
If that was NOT the gist of the thread, then my apologies in advance.
To that end, discussing why the current system is faulty or what it's lacking does not really adress the core question, IMO (tho I will agree in principal that had I been asked, I would have handled culture in a different way, as outlined on another thread).
So...yes. Under the current game conditions, I stand by my earlier post, pointing out that the most effective way to conquer and keep a city is simply not to conquer a size 25 city at all, but to bomb the daylights out of it till it's down to a more easily managed size, and then starve it a bit after that.
I've played the conquest-style game, and culture or no, I know it can be done, however, it is patently suicidal to attempt to outright conquer a civ with equal or greater culture....this is true in real life as well as in civ (ask the Mongols, for example, who conquered china only to be themselves assimilated into China's massive culture).
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
So...yes. Under the current game conditions, I stand by my earlier post, pointing out that the most effective way to conquer and keep a city is simply not to conquer a size 25 city at all, but to bomb the daylights out of it till it's down to a more easily managed size, and then starve it a bit after that. |
Can't argue with that - and if I mistook your explanation of the system as a defense of it, then I am in error...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
Ralf -
Do those numbers control resistance, or also cultural reversion? Is there a real good explanation of those figures and how they affect gameplay somewhere?
Vel -
You're doing yeoman's work over on the Strategy page... making the case for improving the product is my bread and butter...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Is there a real good explanation of those figures and how they affect gameplay somewhere? |
Well, no to be honest. But the ONLY ones that tells you that they are Dismissive (or whatever) of your culture, is those foreign leaders in the foreign advisor screen, right? Not your own loyal citizens.
And the values you can tweak under the Civmod culture-tab isnt "chance of your own citizens revolting" - that wouldnt make any sense, since anarchy in your own founded cities has to do with other factors, like luxuries and happiness-improvements connected to that indevidual founded city of yours.
Its strictly initial and continued resistance chance of foreign citizens conquered by you. What could it be else? Now, I havent tried it out myself, but its riskfree to do so, since one can always choose the editor-menu Rules -> Restore default Rules, if something goes wrong. Or back up the CivMod file.
Just remember: The easier you make it to oppress/assimilate conquered AI-cities, the easier it is for the AI-invader to oppress/assimilate your cities as well. Its a double-edged sword, you know.
Last edited by Ralf on 09-12-2001 at 03:44
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2001 16:37
No problemo, Sir Venger! While I sometimes disagree with your methods (thinking back to previous threads), the fact is, a damn lot of what you say re: faults in game design makes a lot of sense. I generally don't participate in those discussions much, because I'm more focused on working within the parameters of whatever the current system is....finding ways of making it work....but I'm always glad to see ongoing discussions about how to make the system itself better....
|