Tweet
It is so stupid that in Civ3 once you conquer a city the AI no longer cares about it. No matter how much investment or how much culture that city holds. In my recent game, I sent in a strike force and captured London from the British and then signed peace treaty. I then tried to sell the city back to them for 1 gold. And they refused! London the cultural capital of the world, housing two still working great wonders: Smith's Trading Company & Sistin's Chapel, and they don't want it back for 1 gold?? I know the design team removed this feature in a patch, but this is just stupid.
I think a city's ownership should not change hands until the transfer has been agreed upon by both parties. For example. I have captured London, I can do what I want with the city, but I don't officially own it till I sign a peace treaty with the British, and on that treaty it says London will now be mine.
That is to say, after a city is captured, the civ should still remember that city as being his, and wants it back. In the case of the player, if one of his cities is captured and he doesn't fight to get it back, his people should riot and cause civil disorder. How do you think the American public will reaction if FDR had let the Japanese just occupy Wake Island?? The more culture that city has, the higher the unhappyness.
I don't think the current system of resistance is good. I have defeated the whole national army of Britain, and now what? A few unarmed citizens of London somehow rise up and seize city and killed off all my units?? That just hardly make any sense. I think a city that has hostile foreign population should randomly spawn some military unit within the radius of the city, they are more like the barbarian uprising, but of course, better armed. If this uprising captures the city, the city will revert back to its original owner.
Resistance should not suddenly end just because you have conquered that civ entirely. China was conquered entirely by the Monguls and the Manchu, but resistant was always there. And it in fact, Chinese uprising eventually took back all the cities that was lost to the Monguls and Manchu. I would like to see dead civs coming back.
I think a city's ownership should not change hands until the transfer has been agreed upon by both parties. For example. I have captured London, I can do what I want with the city, but I don't officially own it till I sign a peace treaty with the British, and on that treaty it says London will now be mine.
That is to say, after a city is captured, the civ should still remember that city as being his, and wants it back. In the case of the player, if one of his cities is captured and he doesn't fight to get it back, his people should riot and cause civil disorder. How do you think the American public will reaction if FDR had let the Japanese just occupy Wake Island?? The more culture that city has, the higher the unhappyness.
I don't think the current system of resistance is good. I have defeated the whole national army of Britain, and now what? A few unarmed citizens of London somehow rise up and seize city and killed off all my units?? That just hardly make any sense. I think a city that has hostile foreign population should randomly spawn some military unit within the radius of the city, they are more like the barbarian uprising, but of course, better armed. If this uprising captures the city, the city will revert back to its original owner.
Resistance should not suddenly end just because you have conquered that civ entirely. China was conquered entirely by the Monguls and the Manchu, but resistant was always there. And it in fact, Chinese uprising eventually took back all the cities that was lost to the Monguls and Manchu. I would like to see dead civs coming back.
Comment