Cities defect too easily

[Ancientfool]

I ALWAYS have the highest culture and I still find captured cities reverting from my control. I tried a strategy of razing every other enemy city and trying the hold the rest but I still ended up losing my main army to culture.

Pretty frustrating, to say the least.

Also, once you discover nationalism cities shouldnt defect due to culture, you should just incur a small population loss from people leaving for greener pastures.

[Ludwig]

A lot of people are bringing settlers with them on conquest missions so they can raze the captured city and build their own.

Since you're building the extra settlers anyway, you might want to try just adding the settlers to the city. This is almost as effective at preventing defections if done properly [not 100% effective, but effective enough to employ the technique].

Size 3-6 cities can usually be firmly pacified with the addition of a single settler. [Size 1 or 2 cities you may as well raze, since you're got a settler with you anyway, unless there's a wonder involved or something].

Size 7-9 cities take a settler and a worker.

Size 10-14 cities take 2 settlers.

I've never captured a city above size 14 or 15 or so, since my artillery/bomber bombardment generally kills a bunch of civilians in the size 20 cities...

Please note that sometimes the larger cities immediately go into starvation when you pump their populations up, due to the reduced culture border of the captured cities and the resultant lower number of food squares. In these instances, you have to rush build a temple or library or the citizens you've added will simply starve away.

[Wrong_shui]

Cybershy

lol defections by culture adds realism lol.

Are you paid by Firaxis to overlook the glaring oddities in civ3 and just sit their screaming at the top of your lungs in the corner of the room "CIV3 IS GOD"?

[Robert]

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!"

in fact, that's exactly what happened.

[Robert]

Wrong_shui,

the point has been made.............
you think it's not realistic.
it's a pitty that you don't give any arguments to backup your opinion.

no, I pay Firaxis to play their games.
not visa versa.

[GodSpawn]

Yeah, the locals had a go at the Nazis. But then there was the little matter of these chaps turning up:

[GodSpawn]

In fairness, they only went in after the French people had force the issue with a general uprising, which forced Eisenhower to dispatch the 2nd Free French Armoured Division supported by American troops towards the city.

[Ludwig]

I think cultural defections ARE realistic, in the ancient and medieval eras. In the Industrial and Modern eras, it shouldn't be allowed, except under very specific conditions. "Spawning" revolutionaries in those eras would be fine, if that could be coded; if not, just end the defections [again, except for very specific conditions] and let it go at that. The borders of a modern state just aren't that amorphous.

What's the specific condition? Anarchy. When a state is in anarchy, cultural defections should become possible again. The fall of the Soviet Union and the "defection" of the Eastern European states to the West and to NATO seems like a real-world modern-day example, so in such an instance the defections wouldn't be TOTALLY unrealistic. But a modern state NOT in anarchy, and presumably attempting to hold on to its sovereign territory, shouldn't lose cities just because the wind blows.

[Monoriu]

1. Cultural defections are good for the game, I love it. It is a good concept, its fun, and its realistic.

2. That said, I don't like the way its implemented. Cultural defections should make sense, and unfortunately it doesn't right now. When I have the highest culture in the world, when I am building and rushing improvements in the city like crazy, when I am pounding the other civilization to oblivion, and when I have a strong garrison in the city it shouldn't defect so easily.

3. There should be some sort of indicators as to how likely a city would defect. Right now there is none, and that is not good. I am NOT asking for a precise warning message in a pop up box. I want some sort of rough indicator with a degree of uncertainty.

4. Losing every soldier in the city because of defection doesn't make any sense, and is anti-fun. This is the #1 thing they should change in this entire debate.

[Badtz Maru]

I play on Warlord mostly (I intend to try Regent again soon, though - I was put off when I tried it on my second game and got stomped) and I have NEVER lost a city to culture, even when it is newly conquered. I always spend a lot on culture, though - I build every cultural improvement I can in every city, and when I play a religious civ (which is most of the time) a temple is always the first thing I build in a new city.

[Green Giant]

Originally posted by Monoriu
4. Losing every soldier in the city because of defection doesn't make any sense, and is anti-fun. This is the #1 thing they should change in this entire debate.

I thought the exact same thing. They should go back to the former owners capitol.

[Kaesar]

Solution to defections:

I think the chance of defection has to do with what nationality the citizens are. So I guess the best solution is to starving them to death. It is kind of sick but it is realistic. Cultural assimiation works but it takes a long time before you can be sure the city you have forcably taken will not defect. I find you will probably save a lot of time by just bombarding a city until it has only one population, then take it over and the new population growth will be your own nationality. I guess moving a bunch of your own workers into the new city works as well.

[Shiva]

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

Lol, sorry. I always let it build one turn before buying. Forgot to say that. You pay a higher price on a rush on the first turn. Im not sure if disbanding a unit before buying on the first turn would knock the price down that turn or not since you'll have shields in the box. I'll try in the morning.

[GePap]

A statistical crapshoot.

City defection as is is not fun. How can something over which you have no say, and barely control since none of us know the rules (since we were not told them) be fun? It's like gambling, only there are no returns. And what about trying to get cities you have lost back? Since we don't hear from you, I ask, has anyone have cities defect BACK to them? The idea thAt citizens will resist your rule by not working to their potential, by undermining your rule- thats fine, try to make them happy, or repress them, thats how its done, but somehow that citizens, without warning, or loss, or it seems, a fight, defeat garrisons (regardless of size) and join who they want is non-sense. Also, if I were a governor and my citizens wanted to break away, and my neighbor helped them by allowing them into his nation, then i would probably break relations with them if not go to war, Cultural defection in general has been exectued in such a way as to make no sense, driven by mathematical rules none of us know. Personally, I want more control, and things to be more challenging. If citizens want a city back, fight for it militarily, with units v. units (i.e. Partisans). And letting cities join you after revolt should be a serious decision (just as going to war and taking it would be) and have real consequences (if you want them so much, be willing to fight for them!).

[civ-n00b]

bah

deposition is really getting to me. how the heck can you depose a governer supported by a superior military (with 10-15 units garrisoned there, while cities don't exceed size 9) and a superior culture that has IMPOSED their rule on you. sure, you can have a resistance - i don't mind it, i stomp it out in a turn or 2, but these "cultural defections" in/near battlefields are just plain weird.