 |
| |
|
|
Random Passerby
|
|
I've been scanning these forums for the past two months, and when I got this game for Christmas I was wary--I'd heard a lot of complaining, and some of it seemed to have some valid reasoning behind it. When I first took it out and started playing, I really thought a lot of people were massively overreacting... but I'm starting to have second thoughts. I still think they're overreacting, but these are some issues which have GOT to be addressed. Good sweet lord...
Allow me to paint the scene: I was playing as Babylon, had a good starting position with good surroundings, and had barbarians set to sedentary so I wouldn't have to worry about producing a lot of military right off the bat. I expand aggressively but not threateningly, pack my cities moderately close, quickly build a worker terraforming machine of great efficiency, then start pumping out temples, libraries, marketplaces, and so on. I play the diplomacy game, being plenty benevolent, snag Sun Tzu's and produce a sizable, up-to-date defensive force network. I'm doing great. I have a tech lead that's starting to really run away (6-8 turns for techs none of the computer civs have prereqs for), I'm utterly dominating the culture game--not a single civ was less than an admirer.
Then out of the blue, America (2nd best civ out of 11, just north of me but for a thin Iriquois buffer zone) suddenly attacks Rome(4th best but already sliding, and located to the north of America). America would no doubt win, netting what would then be the world's largest empire by a good measure--I couldn't allow the balance of power to be upset that much, so I decided to start giving aid to Rome, first in tech and resources (Rome had no iron... bad place to be in the Middle Ages), but that proved to be too little. "Perfect," I think to myself, "A nice little war is just what this game needs to make it interesting." So I build 8 or 10 caravels, load them up with knights, and sail around to America's half of the continent, switch back to Monarchy (from Republic; I was a religious civ so it didn't cost too much, and I figured it would help close the gap and make things a bit more interesting). My invasion got off to a rocky start, so I brought in a few allies, forcing Abe to divert forces to the new fronts that opened up. I land a second wave of knights and proceed to kick butt--I quickly take a few ex-Roman cities, don't want to bother with them, so I restore them to their rightful owner as my knights are leaving. A few cities down the road, of course, most of my knights are wounded and I'm running out of steam, so I decide that after conquering my next city (which happened to be an American-founded one) I'd have my main force stop and rest: My knights move in, spend a turn resting, my knights move out on the second turn after I capture the city. First turn, I see the 10+ knights that have already moved in have only quelled one resister. "No matter," I thought, since in a turn the city would be Rome's problem anyway. I go ahead and bring in a couple late stragglers into the city to consolidate my forces. Besides, it wouldn't hurt to put out as many resisters as possible before dumping the thing in Rome's lap. Second turn starts, and lo and behold... the city defects to a civ with half the culture of mine, in less time than it would've taken to rush a temple, instantly vaporizing the bulk of my invasion force!
I've had some really irritating defections before, but before this they had always been the sort of things which can be written off as mistakes on my part--not bothering to rush a temple for 5 or 6 turns, or rushing a temple and then hoping that's enough only to find out 20-30 turns down the road that it wasn't, etc... not my favorite part of the game, but not a game-stopper either. But now this is just plain ridiculous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:17
|
|
Yep, like someone else has already said...
When it's a couple or 4 foot sloggers in garrison that are lost to a flip, not a big problem, BUT no bleedin way could a city rebel with the 4th Army Group parked in it. I agree this is a problem.
See this thread for a discussion of ways to avoid your loss:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=39713
Salve
Last edited by notyoueither on 17-01-2002 at 09:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
I totally agree that this is a problem. It happened to me on a game where I fortified a mech infantry and quite a few advanced tanks in a city. It makes the whole conquest model no fun. I thus have to resort to disbanding a city which is both unrealistic in the modern era and not always as fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Random Passerby
|
|
My point is, this happened within 2 turns. The only way to possibly build any cultural buildings (and thus POSSIBLY staving off reversion, although I only needed the city for 2 turns anyways) would have been to disband several units for shields, since the city was resisting for the first turn and would've flipped before a rush-bought temple could have been built anyways. I'm OK with culture flipping in general, as I said, even if it is a pain... I mean, it does make some sense that you'd need to spend some money/labor building in order to reliably hold on to a hostile conquered city, even if building temples and libraries seems a bit off. I've had situations that seemed very far worse culturally and had at least half a dozen turns to set stuff up at my leisure without the city flipping, and like I said, not my favorite part of the game but it works. But cities that revert after only one full turn of ownership... that's insane.
And as to CivIII being strictly a war game, I must ask you in turn, "What the h*ll?" Sure, it works as a war game. Rush 800 horsemen and conquer the world, oh rapture, oh joy. Why fight against the whole world when the world is perfectly happy to fight against itself for you? It just needs a nudge in the right direction now and then. Ironically, I do view my playing style as taking very much after various American policies, but I fail to see how it's being a "good guy" to systematically manipulate all the other civilizations into positions of weakness. Oh, sure, it's under the pretense of benevolence, but that just makes it all the more sinister.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Calorman
|
|
Good luck on Deity Franco.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
It's a big risk to heal your best units in a newly captured city. It's tough and freaked me out when I first lost units like that. Eventually you work out a system of dealing with the possibility. They've been discussed a lot, around the boards, if you'd like tips just ask or search for them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hurry
|
|
Ironikinit: Yes, itīs a very risky tactic and I actually donīt use it myself. BUt it can be the best tactic in the early game when cities have low culture, roads are few and you can destroy the enemy fast, just provided you have enough undamaged units.
Anyway, this legitimate tactic is very risky as the rules are now. I really hope they fix this in a patch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Random Passerby
And as to CivIII being strictly a war game, I must ask you in turn, "What the h*ll?" Sure, it works as a war game. Rush 800 horsemen and conquer the world, oh rapture, oh joy. Why fight against the whole world when the world is perfectly happy to fight against itself for you? It just needs a nudge in the right direction now and then. Ironically, I do view my playing style as taking very much after various American policies, but I fail to see how it's being a "good guy" to systematically manipulate all the other civilizations into positions of weakness. Oh, sure, it's under the pretense of benevolence, but that just makes it all the more sinister. |
What's wrong with being a good guy? 
I like helping others. Too bad the game doesn't reward this, even if I'm going for a cultural/diplo win.
Wish there was a way for players like me to genuinely be able to play benevolently and not lose the game. It's just kind of against who I am.
But I'm sure there are plenty of you out there who will tell me to go find another game or that my efforts would be better spent on reality. But sometimes, it's easier to be nice to a fictional citizen icon than it is to a real-life person who annoys you! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lawren8
|
|
I think the problem is the information you are given and the method by which it reverts that hurts the game. If you had any indication that the reversion was going to occur, you'd be in better shape.
One thing I'd like to see is cities that are trying to revert must first attack and kill off troops stationed in them.
That way you could keep a citiy from reverting, it would just be painful as your troops would keep getting damaged.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
I just finished a game where I didn't have a single reversion. I think it helped that my main enemy was under monarchy while I was a democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
Random Passerby,
You just found one of the most irritating, untested aspects of Civ III.
Just wait until you play the game more. . .
"There will be a wailing and a gnashing of teeth"
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
17-01-2002 08:37
Yes it's a problem, hopefully corrected in the next patch (who knows), but it's not like it's a great deal to get around this problem, now is it? Firstly there's saves, and secondly you don't need to put your forces in the city, (except for a defender or so).
|