Cities defect too easily

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Venger


Exactly, the history of the world isn't replete with stories of conquest, it's a story of temple building...jeez, give us a break. Civilization has ALWAYS been a war game. Why? Because conflict is an integral part of history, and THAT is what Civ has always been - a rewrite of history with you at the controls.

Civ3 is the first game with "culture", and you want to say Civ isn't a war game? Come on...

Venger

You may have played civ as a war game , but that doesnt make it one... the reason they put culture into game and city revolts is to make it harder to just go storming the world without actually putting any effort into city improvments. If you arnet meant to build temples then why include them...??

Yes war is part of civ, you wouldnt need so many damn military units otherwise and would just stick to playing simcity But war is not the do all and end all of civ, it is first and foremost about building citys !!! If war was al lthe world needed then i ma sure tribes in africa would rule the world as they havent developed anywhere near as much as some european nations, but it is the european influence that now rules the world (america was born from europe too) So culture plays a large part in real world, maybe not like the way it is implemented in civ 3 but then agai nciv 3 is a game not real life civ 3 just has facets that try to represent things from the real world, they put artificial rules in palce to try and force you to build city improvements.

So again to take a real life example .. America truly rules the world we live in, we are al lbeing slowly americanized (for good or bad depending on your point of view) did america get there by crushing her enemies in war?? No !!! Culture wins out, people are striving to get what Americans have!!

[Garth Vader]

Culture seems to mean jack. I had the highest culture in the game and cities would revert the first turn after I quelled the resistors. The more units I move in the citied the more units I lose.

I somehow held on to Berlin and in the next war with the Germans 400 years later it reverted again even though it had ~800 culture of mine and was half Russian. By then I had twice the culture of the Germans.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Rasputin


You may have played civ as a war game , but that doesnt make it one... the reason they put culture into game and city revolts is to make it harder to just go storming the world without actually putting any effort into city improvments. If you arnet meant to build temples then why include them...??

I've always built temples, because in order to get a city able to produce the money and production I need it must grow and be prosperous. Even in Civ2. I play on Deity, and without temples, and other improvements you are SCREWED. Culture has nothing to do with it.

Yes war is part of civ, you wouldnt need so many damn military units otherwise and would just stick to playing simcity But war is not the do all and end all of civ, it is first and foremost about building citys !!!

So again to take a real life example .. America truly rules the world we live in, we are al lbeing slowly americanized (for good or bad depending on your point of view) did america get there by crushing her enemies in war??

Uh...Americans have had to defeat:

Britain
France
Mexico
Spain
Each other
Numerous Indian nations

Just to get our continent. This doesn't include overseas wars.

Venger

[Green Giant]

I always build a temple first in conquered cities and have never had a problem with this. It helps the city hold its own culturaly until you can develop it more.

There could be something wrong with the game, or there could be something wrong with your strategy. Adapt, you should try it.

EDIT: missing important word

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It should be fixed!

The way Iam currently dealing with it is by having two tanks outside all of the cities I capturead in the last few turns (until I root out the whole civ. They rebel like crazy, live just artilerry inside thay wont die anyway, and than kill the conscript with two tanks... damn, but that's it. I'd say it is unrealistic, maybe it could be left as an option when you do not put two, three units or more to calm the resistance down, for the city to rebel, if you put them in there should be no way the city could rebel. ( the city should loose pop points too after rebellion) Other than that it is unfair and bogs down the gameplay.

Please change it in the patch.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Fredric Drum



Yes, but first the city must get out of resistance, then corruption levels make it impossible to build anything, so you have to rush it, which is pretty expensive if you capture a lot of cities. That doesn't always help either, maybe you need to rush temple + library in every city.
Fred

First off a temple/courthouse works far better than a temple/library. I have never lost a town back in this game. Second of all a temple only costs around 120 to rush. Not much at all.

When you take the city pull in all the workers so they starve. Less people means less troublemakers plus once you start letting it grow again the new births will be your people. You can also speed up the elimination of enemy population by pumping out workers.

[Robert]

it doesn't happen too easy at all !
it adds much more fun and realism to the game.

The simple 'conquer and continue to conquer' strategy doesn't work anymore. THAT's GREAT

If you want to conquer your enemie, keep in mind:
1. you need culture
2. you need to pause now and then because your people start to grow weary about the war
3. micromanage the cities you took

that's much better then 'take and move your units to the next city'

[Venger]

Originally posted by Shiva
First off a temple/courthouse works far better than a temple/library.

It should work better, not sure if it does though, with the courthouse being the paperweight it is...

I have never lost a town back in this game. Second of all a temple only costs around 120 to rush. Not much at all.

What level are you playing? On regent it's 250 to rush a temple...

When you take the city pull in all the workers so they starve. Less people means less troublemakers plus once you start letting it grow again the new births will be your people. You can also speed up the elimination of enemy population by pumping out workers.

Yep, the starvation method is sick, but it does work...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
it doesn't happen too easy at all !
it adds much more fun and realism to the game.

I cannot believe you just said it adds realism to the game...

The simple 'conquer and continue to conquer' strategy doesn't work anymore. THAT's GREAT

Sure it works, but rather than being somewhat realistic and fun, it's now tedious.

If you want to conquer your enemie, keep in mind:
1. you need culture

No you don't. You need to keep up the offensive. It's already been shown how easy it is to blitzkried your opponent.

2. you need to pause now and then because your people start to grow weary about the war

No you don't. If you've done your homework and made a secure prosperosu base, you can crank the luxuries and still turn a tech every 4 turns...

3. micromanage the cities you took

Micromanage EVERY city. Every city deserves your full attention.

that's much better then 'take and move your units to the next city'

They aren't mutually exclusive. I build fantastic cities out of each and every city I conquer...and move to the next one.

Venger

[Robert]

Venger, it does add more fun to the game.
but not if you want to play it like you played civ2.
civ2 is another game. Civ3 is new, new strategies and new things you have to take care of.

You need culture if you want to grow an empire.
You don't need culture indeed if you want to have more or less a barbarian empire.

Of course you can keep people happy with much lux etc.
and of course the big cities with much city improvements (incl police) won't show much anarchy........... but again...... most 'barbarian empires' don't have cities like that. And if they do....... then they do have much culture as well.

Yeah yeah, micromanage every city.
I was talking to the people that lose their cities all the time by defection. They do not micromanage. (pherhaps they do micro, but they don't manage)
You appear to control the conquered cities thus I wasn't talking to you.

And yes, I build great cities as well out of my enemies ashes.
I do that by having a big culture, micromanaging everything, never have more then 3 units in a (conquered) city.

And I have big fun.

[Robert]

I cannot believe you just said it adds realism to the game...

of course it does.
When the germans conquered The Netherlands the dutch people resisted for 5 years.
When they took paris, they could control it for 4 years.
The germans starved most of europe, but as soon as their soldiers started to retreat and the winter (starvation) was over big parts of europe freed them selves.

Paris as the ultimate example.

Of course it's realism that a conquered city won't accept you as a leader immediately.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by Shiva


First off a temple/courthouse works far better than a temple/library. I have never lost a town back in this game. Second of all a temple only costs around 120 to rush. Not much at all.

When you take the city pull in all the workers so they starve. Less people means less troublemakers plus once you start letting it grow again the new births will be your people. You can also speed up the elimination of enemy population by pumping out workers.

Okay, I'll try a courthouse, but.. temple costing 120 gold?? I don't have the game here right now, but it's gotta be more?

And I'll try the starvation tactic... it's a bit less silly than simply razing magnificent cities forever.

Still.. something is weird here. I've also lost a former Egyptian city to the Greeks... this city was faaaaaaar away from the Greeks, and they had never had control of it. And it was not my nearest city to the Greeks. It defected to Greece a very long time after I conquered it...
Ok, the Greeks had slightly better culture, but why didn't a closer city defect? Why was there no warning? Absolutely no clues... why no logic? It just happens randomly, and there isn't a thing you can do about it. And yes, the city had temple, colosseum plus lots more that I had built.


Fred

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by CyberShy


of course it does.
When the germans conquered The Netherlands the dutch people resisted for 5 years.
When they took paris, they could control it for 4 years.
The germans starved most of europe, but as soon as their soldiers started to retreat and the winter (starvation) was over big parts of europe freed them selves.

Paris as the ultimate example.

Of course it's realism that a conquered city won't accept you as a leader immediately.

Resistance is one thing... feel free to resist all you want! And feel free to dramatically lower efficiency and increase waste/corruption. Defection is something completely different. The citizens of Paris did not wake up one day thinking.. "hey, let's gather a few neighbours, arm ourselves with roller sticks and frying pans and run the german soldiers and tanks out of town... heck, while we're at it, let's kill all of them!"


Fred

[GePap]

Bring Back Charlie!

As I said in a long forgotten thread, bring back partisans! and make them stronger than in civ2 since Civ3 has the notion of nationality, civ2 didn't. I had some ideas of how to use them in that thread, so I won't repeat, but in terms of gameplay, it would certainly also help the gamer if he lost cities to the A.I. since now, you could attempt a campaign of liberation with your irregular units while your main army fights for life (much like the Soviets in WW2). As is, if one of your cities falls, you have to wait and see if your citizens rise up and Kill all their army just as it happens to you.

The great problem with the current system is that no one seems to know the 'rules' governing this, so no matter what you do, besides razing the city, you can never know.
to CyberShy: Yes, western Europeans resisted, but there is no example of them actually beating a single German unit and taking their cities back themselves, without allied support. The Poles tried for warsaw, which lead to a massive, bloody battle. Since the Soviets would not help, the Germans finally won and basically, razed Warsaw. The only nation in WW2 to liberate itself was Yugoslavia, and they did it through Partisan warfare. Ergo, Bring 'Charlie' back!

[Venger]

GePap is correct - spare us the defection, but a city should spawn a 5/5 partisan that treats all squares as roads...

Venger