11-01-2002 08:05									#31
	Tired of ads?

I do declare this thread is 100% certified

YIN26 PROOF!

On topic and coherent and polite.

FORUM TERRORISTS MUST BE STOPPED

Thank you for your time

	11-01-2002 14:36									#32
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Zachriel - You must really like the whole Marc Antony - Cleopatra story! It is a fantastic one.

To follow it, shouldn't the military units be converted to the other civ's control, not deleted and magically replaced with one infantry-type unit?

Actually, I think the Marc Antony case proves my point - the difference is whether you are at war or not!

Was Marc Antony at war with Cleopatra when he and his legions switched sides, or were they at some sort of peace? What I mean is, were there Roman units still fighting Egyptian ones somewhere, or was the war over?

If there was no war raging, then it was a peace time conversion, which my proposal would leave as is.

I just don't think people will convert culturally in the middle of a pitched war.

When I think of trying to simulate say WW II, cultural conversion while at war is a bad idea. It just makes no sense and would never happen. Requiring a garrison force to hold areas makes sense. Large units vanishing AFTER they defeated the defending army does not.

I would rather simulate WW II than the (still very cool and romantic) Marc Antony-Cleopatra story. You say there are numerous examples ... what are some that occured WHILE the war was still going?

	11-01-2002 14:45									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Venger You'll never make that claim stick. If you take a size 24 city on an enemy continent, you can't starve it right away, because resisters apparently don't eat.

That is true, but not only for size 24 cities.

quote: As they are quieted, the computer automatically puts them to work the first turn, and they put food in the granary you have to burn through.

Mybe my 'let' was wrong, I should have say 'make'. It is indeed a micromanagement task. You first have to revert some resisters, then you have to got there every turn to check if the governor didn't feed them.
Make them starve and let them sing. No revolt/revert until yet.

quote: Now by turn three, this city will have a high chance to revert unless you have 24 units in it.

When it is about cities of that size... well I didn't had the case until yet. My 'Let them starve' strategy is not so old (my current game) and am not so far.

quote: If you think for a minute you can leave 5 units in that city and starve it until it is size 2 without it reverting, you are playing some easy level or a highly modified ruleset, which I would want... Venger

First assumption is more correct: Monarch, standard rules with patch 1.16f

	11-01-2002 15:09									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Starving is a partial solution but it is not true to say that a city will not revert while in resistance. Of course a big city will have a significant number of resisters so if you are staffing one unit for each one you have a pretty huge garrison making it unlikely to revert.

I would prefer that the war fatigue model be used for foreign citizens at all times. They would be less impressed by your culture and luxuries and more inclined to riot at any opportunity. That would make all these cities troublesome, less wealthy and productive on an ongoing basis rather than magically fully happy one turn and completely disappeared the next. Repression is a far more common scenario than cultural assimilation.

	11-01-2002 18:20									#35
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by MOHonor I do declare this thread is 100% certified YIN26 PROOF! On topic and coherent and polite. FORUM TERRORISTS MUST BE STOPPED Thank you for your time

So, you hijack it to spit out a rude and incoherent metaphor about another poster.

The irony.

	11-01-2002 18:20									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by nato Zachriel - You must really like the whole Marc Antony - Cleopatra story! It is a fantastic one. To follow it, shouldn't the military units be converted to the other civ's control, not deleted and magically replaced with one infantry-type unit? Was Marc Antony at war with Cleopatra when he and his legions switched sides, or were they at some sort of peace? What I mean is, were there Roman units still fighting Egyptian ones somewhere, or was the war over?

Well, yes. But being a game some compromises are essential.

Reversion is used to represent several different historical circumstances, everything from a Lord changing sides to a social collapse like the Soviet Union where Russia essentially lost Eastern Europe.

But in the case of Egypt, they flipped to Roman control under Caesar, then reverted back to home rule under Antony. This all happened within a few years. Incidentally, Antony "reassigned" Israeli provinces to Egypt angering Herod who then complained to Rome.

	11-01-2002 18:29									#37
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by nato If there was no war raging, then it was a peace time conversion, which my proposal would leave as is. I just don't think people will convert culturally in the middle of a pitched war.

Rereading your post . . .

The definition of war can be arbitrary. The Romans believed that Israel was subdued despite the presence of bandits in the wilderness. But many Jews never accepted the tyranny of a foreign oppresser. The Jews eventually rebelled against Rome. Rome was forced to invade their "own" province and reconquer it. They leveled the city, including the Temple.

Importantly, the Romans garrisoned the country for many years after that.

	11-01-2002 18:50									#38
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Zachriel - You have some good points ... maybe cultural reversion is overworked however, representing some things that it doesn't represent very well.

I really don't think it does too well covering what happens during a war. If the city is conquered, that means army-killing resistance has been dealt with. Guerillas and resistance should happen, thus requiring a garrison ... maybe partisans should be brought back, I don't know.

If an adequate garrison (3-6 units or so) is in place, you should be covered, not randomly vaporized.

I just think required garrisoning like my idea simulates war time better. Like I said, I would rather simulate WW II than Antony, while at war.

The Israel example is interesting, but just like the Antony one I would say, in game terms, this occured in peacetime. Therefore I am happy to have the current system cover it.

War might be slippery in rl, but in game terms its a zero or a one! Oh well this all just how I see it.

Cool history stuff, btw!

	11-01-2002 19:07									#39
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by nato Cool history stuff, btw!

That's what I like about Civ. It stimulates the imagination. And everyone has an idea on how to make the game better.