Tweet
One of the things in this game that seems poorly built to me is culture flipping. It has no basis in history and creates a major hassle in the game causing many people to simply raze the cities as they go. I'm very happy with the ability to turn this off in C3C but I feel that they should have simply fixed this system, as it has some potential good ideas in it.
First of instead of having a newly conquered city simply decide to defect back to it's original civ without having to fight off the occupying garrison is rediculous. Instead you should get a 1 turn warning that the city is in severe resitance and that you need to reinforce the garrison to maintain control. Then if you dont reinfoce by the next turn it should create conscript troops flying the previously conquered civs colors to attack the city (and it should cancel any defensive bonuses based on the city for the defending occupiers. the combat should also destroy improvements and reduce the population). Although these troops would have virtually no chance against a powerful garrison (as in real life) they would force players to keep larger troop concentrations in conquered cities to keep the resistance down.
On the other hand cultural conversions of cities based solely on the fact that civ A has more culture than civ B should be booted out completely. Cultural dominance does not translate into direct control. Throughout history, physical control has nearly always changed via force of arms (revolution, war etc).
So instead of having simple "cultural conversions" of cities to your opponents which usually hurt the smaller empire and only reinforce the power of a large empire, there should be the possibility of revolutions/civil war. This should be based on the distance from the capital, # of unhappy citizens, garrison size, the number of foreign citizens, and government type (representative govs = less chance of revolution/civil war). These would help weaken larger empires and make the game a closer match.
Well even though they wont change it for civ3 i can always hope for it in civ4
First of instead of having a newly conquered city simply decide to defect back to it's original civ without having to fight off the occupying garrison is rediculous. Instead you should get a 1 turn warning that the city is in severe resitance and that you need to reinforce the garrison to maintain control. Then if you dont reinfoce by the next turn it should create conscript troops flying the previously conquered civs colors to attack the city (and it should cancel any defensive bonuses based on the city for the defending occupiers. the combat should also destroy improvements and reduce the population). Although these troops would have virtually no chance against a powerful garrison (as in real life) they would force players to keep larger troop concentrations in conquered cities to keep the resistance down.
On the other hand cultural conversions of cities based solely on the fact that civ A has more culture than civ B should be booted out completely. Cultural dominance does not translate into direct control. Throughout history, physical control has nearly always changed via force of arms (revolution, war etc).
So instead of having simple "cultural conversions" of cities to your opponents which usually hurt the smaller empire and only reinforce the power of a large empire, there should be the possibility of revolutions/civil war. This should be based on the distance from the capital, # of unhappy citizens, garrison size, the number of foreign citizens, and government type (representative govs = less chance of revolution/civil war). These would help weaken larger empires and make the game a closer match.
Well even though they wont change it for civ3 i can always hope for it in civ4
)
Comment