Rebel-controlled cities

[bobbo008]

hi, I borrow this idea from a game by the name of Shogun: Total War.

In that game, they had a system somewhat like civ 3 where the "white" units, like barbarians, weren't part of a civilization (or in the case of Shogun, a "clan"). In Shogun, they were Rebels, and were in the entire game, unlike barbarians. Also, in Shogun, they could control provinces. I think civ4 should include the ability for barbarians (or rebels) to control cities.

In civ3, let's say you take over the French and destroy them, there really isn't a chance for them to rise up any more. With a Shogun-like system, discontent in a city that isn't of your nationality could breed hostile units, such as guerillas.

that's my idea and it makes sense to me, but doesn't everyone have their own thoughts on how to make this game better...

[Solomwi]

Similar to Civ 2, where a city could "go red" if barbarians overwhelmed its defenses and entered?

Though I like the current system better (if they could control cities, they'd be a real civ! ), it was a nice stroke of luck if an opponent city I coveted fell to barbarian hands, allowing me to get over there and claim it myself without even starting a little old war.

[Kingof the Apes]

This could be implemented in espianoge very effectifely. You could get an ability to incite terrorists (which would function like modern barbarians) Inside a civ of your choice. Realistic, strategic, and very fun.

[bobbo008]

"if they could control cities, they'd be a real civ"

actually, the system in Shogun worked rather well. In that game, some provinces start out in rebel hands, but it works great and even adds to it. If you dont have a province with "100% loyalty or higher", then you need to take care of that, like with occupying troops. this seems a lot better to me that just having a civ revert to a different one while you lose all troops in the city...

[Kingof the Apes]

I would like it better if when a city flipped your units would have a chance of being killed or wounded but driven from the city.

[bobbo008]

yes, but i think most agree that automatically losing all of your units is unfair...

[Rhothaerill]

I like this idea. It could add much-needed depth to espionage (beyond building the Intelligence Agency to see how many units your opponent has). I don't think they'd use it for an expansion, but it is a possibility for Civ4 in the future.

[Rhothaerill]

As to losing your units as part of a culture flip, I think that it is somewhat realistic (though still annoying). Think of it as the people rising up against you and doing whatever they can to crush your conquering forces. It adds a degree of difficulty to conquering other civs, particularly cultural civs. Taking Babylon in the Industrial Age is touch and go (but doable with hordes of tanks ).
If you don't like the culture flips you can turn them off when you start your game.

[bobbo008]

yeah, there's just no rebellion or civil war in the game. its just their on your side or on your enemies side.

[bobbo008]

"As to losing your units as part of a culture flip, I think that it is somewhat realistic (though still annoying)"

let's say they had a battle for the city. every single on of your troops doesn't die, they retreat. maybe they could give us some dead troops and some damaged ones, or all damaged ones that appear outside the city. but i dont think a complete slaughter/destruction of every single troop you have in the city is realistic...

[Rhothaerill]

I was thinking along the lines of your forces are defending from the peasant onslaught. It's similar to trying to take a city...the defending forces don't give up the fight. They stay until the bitter end.

[Rhothaerill]

Hmmm, further thoughts form my last post...
Not that it is totally realistic in real life for defenders to ALWAYS stay, but the AI already tends to send some of its defenders out of a city before you attack it. If they added a "retreat from city" function if a defender is doing poorly then you'd constantly see AI defenders leaving their city if they were damaged and it would be a cakewalk for the human players.

[bobbo008]

i'm only saying when you take a city and the city itself re-joins its original civilization, thats all. I dont want defending units to flee the city when they're being attacked by other units.

[Rhothaerill]

That's what I meant too. I was seeing it as a "revolution against the conquerors" by the people inhabiting the city. I was kind of adding a little detail for myself of "why" you lose your units when a city rejoins it's parent civ after conquest.
I don't suppose it really matters though because it's probably not going to change anytime soon. Maybe for Civ4.

[bobbo008]

we can both agree that it wont change soon...

i guess my real problem is how "all or nothing" it is. either all of your units are alive and in perfect health, or they are all instantly destroyed.