FIRAXIS: Fix for revolting citiy uproar

[David Weldon]

I can't speak for everyone unanimously, but it sounds (from reading the boards) like most people aren't as upset about the cities revolting as they are the ridiculous loss of troops when they do. The simple fix is to dramatically increase the effectiveness of troops in preventing revolt.

If a size 5 city revolts and takes one or two military troops with it, we'll learn to live with that.

If a city has been under our rule for 500 years, but the foreign citizens finally decide to go back to their old way of life, we'll learn to live with that.

If a size 3 city revolts and takes the entire invasion force of 20+ modern armor with it, that's unacceptable.

I know Soren has already stated that troops help lower the % chance to revolt for each citizen, but apparently that isn't enough to prevent these extreme cases. It would seem fair that if there are more military troops than citizens, then the city should not be allowed to revolt, no matter how much it wants to. Consider it as a forward base rather than a full city, if you would prefer.

We obviously don't know the exact workings of the code, but something like the above idea should be easily achievable, and I suspect that nearly everyone would be much happier about things if this were the case.

Just one man's "moderate" opinion...

[Comrade Tribune]

I agree.

In my second game, a German size 6 town defected from my Roman Empire (with culture about equal), and killed 9 units without any loss to the town´s population. That´s simply stretching the believable too far.

[adaMada]

haven't had this happen to me yet (haven't played enough), but from what I hear, agreed.

-- adaMada

[GNGSpam]

It is a tad ridiculous.

Whenever im "peacekeeping" in places far away from my capital, I tend to trot along a large number of settlers and simply raze all the cities to the ground and plant settlements in my wake.

Genocidal, morally bankrupt, a little sic, and definantly not compatible with democracyk, but its the only way to prevent my newly conquered size 4 city from turning back and sucking up 10 offensive units that came from a whole nother continent with it.

[Drefsab]

AGREED!

[Boney]

Ethnic cleansing rears its ugly head.

[Kc7mxo]

Heh. Anyone remember the argument about whether death camps should be in the game? Heh heh. Guess firaxis thought they should be.

[Monoriu]

I agree with the original poster. Losing a city to culture is fine. Losing all the units inside without warning is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Proposed solution: if a city revolts, it automatically generates several infantry type units of appropriate tech level and fight a battle with the city garrison, as if they are attacking the city. If they win the city goes back to the original owner. If they lose the revolt is over. This way is more realistic and your troops have a chance to fight back the revolt if they are strong enough.

[Fistleaf]

I was playing the Romans on Monarch and was 7th in world power. Obviously my culture will be lower than others. My size 16 city next to my Capital with many troops, all improvements, Intelligence Agency and Cure for Cancer defected on its own to the Russians after 4000+ years of Roman rule. I was in Democracy so it couldn't have been Russian propaganda. If that could happen, then captured cities would be even harder to hold.

[Boney]

if a city revolts, it automatically generates several infantry type units of appropriate tech level and fight a battle with the city garrison, as if they are attacking the city. If they win the city goes back to the original owner. If they lose the revolt is over. This way is more realistic and your troops have a chance to fight back the revolt if they are strong en

This happens in ctp when slaves revolt. They then fight the incumbant garrison for the city.

[playshogi]

On the other hand, its better to let the AI capture your city rather than try to defend it with conscripts. Then, hope for a revolt. Of course, the AI in my game razed the city...