Damn Overthrowing Fools

[bisho]

Does it annoy the absolute hell out of anyone else those dodgey overthrows when u trying to conquer a civ???
I mean I can see they may be able to overthrow a city, but do they have to just then get rid of all the units therein!?!?!
For example, city with 2 infantry, 1 cavalry and about 15 bombers overthrows me, I can see reasons why and stuff but do all those bombers then just bloody dissapear!!!!!!!!
I can't stand it, that I lose 85% of my troops in a war through the civilians carving em up.

[Dinner]

Personally I liked the way CTP2 handled rebellions & slave revolts. X number of rebel/ex-slave soldiers spontaneously decided to attack you and wither they succeed or not depended on how many troops you had stationed in the city at the time. This makes sense. Just look at history; in 1944 the Jews in Warsaw really wanted to be rid of the Naxis so they started a rebellion. Unfortunately for them the Germans had alot of soldiers in that town so the rebellion go put down.

Let uprisings happen but give the defender a chance to put them down too...

[bisho]

exactly, some way to notify the player, or give em a chance.

[G.A]

Euhm, can people just learn to not put their entire army into a recently captured city?????

[Venger]

Originally posted by G.A
Euhm, can people just learn to not put their entire army into a recently captured city?????

First, that goes against both common sense and expected game mechanics - shouldn't garrissoned troops reduce the chance of overthrow? Second, they are required to quell resisters. Third, Oerdin is right, there is a better way. Did anyone at Firaxis play any of this genre of game when thinking about Civ3, or did they want to reinvent the wheel?

Venger

[Magician]

If your civ culture is much lower than the rival civ, perhaps you should raze their city and build a new one instead of capturing it.

[Zardof]

I usually send a group of settlers along with my troops. I raze each city I take then build a new one. All the improvements such as mines, roads, irrigation, are still there so it won't take long before your new city is built up. If you take a city with a very large population, you will have more headaches than the city is worth IMO. I don't start a new city in place of the razed one unless it is in a very good location.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Venger


First, that goes against both common sense and expected game mechanics - shouldn't garrissoned troops reduce the chance of overthrow? Second, they are required to quell resisters. Third, Oerdin is right, there is a better way. Did anyone at Firaxis play any of this genre of game when thinking about Civ3, or did they want to reinvent the wheel?

Venger

I believe that having a large garrison does lower the chance of a successful overthrow. It is important to note however, that units like catapults, cannons, artillery and air/naval units do not count for preventing defections/overthrows.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Thoth
I believe that having a large garrison does lower the chance of a successful overthrow. It is important to note however, that units like catapults, cannons, artillery and air/naval units do not count for preventing defections/overthrows.

Indeed, although you could ask the Indians about the effects of cannon on local rebellion...

Venger

[G.A]

Originally posted by Venger


First, that goes against both common sense and expected game mechanics - shouldn't garrissoned troops reduce the chance of overthrow? Second, they are required to quell resisters. Third, Oerdin is right, there is a better way. Did anyone at Firaxis play any of this genre of game when thinking about Civ3, or did they want to reinvent the wheel?

Venger

Well, in this particular case there were 18 bombers ffs!

And quelling resisters doesn`t make the difference for whether there`s a tank or a swordsman, as I remember...

[GePap]

Charlie

They at fixaris should have kept the partisan and made them stronger.

[Raleigh]

I don't know if bombers suppress rebellions. That's a good question. It would make sense if they did NOT, since what country would bomb its own city to suppress a revolt? Suppressino really requires nightsticks and more personal weapons. I know some of you will even point to tanks. That's fine because (tank) cannon fire directed from the ground at a single and several buidlings is still more accurate than bombing whole blocks or areas of town wholesale!

[Thoth]

Based on bisho's experience, I'd say bombers have no effect on rebellions.

Raliegh: Tanks also mount highly effective crowd dispersal devices. (aka Machine guns)

[D4everman]

Well, in this particular case there were 18 bombers ffs!

Bombers won't help. You need ground units, one for ever resistor, preferably. If you conquer a rival city and it has aircraft or ships in it, they do not fight back....they die. Get the idea? They can't garrison a city.

Put ground units in the city and then turn everyone into entertainers and starve it out. The new citizens will belong to you and it will help stop an overthrow.

[Akaoz]

I have had the following happen to me before I learnt to work around this ‘feature’:

I used to fall back to a central city in newly occupied territory after a campaign. I had at one time 43 mech inf, 15 mod. armor and about 50 support units (arty and bombers). They where garrisoned in a size 4 city that was one of the first to be occupied by me from a civ that was in awe of my culture. I had never razed a single city in that game and the resistors had been put down for several turns and we where in the 6 turn of a peace treaty. Then it swapped sides and my entire army goes poof! This was on Regent level btw.

I tried to go back to the auto-save just for kicks and moved my entire army of over 180 mech inf/mod. armor. more into the city. No dice. It still swaps. That is just wrong.

Now I just leave a small conscript force (resisters + 1) in an occupied city and a 2 mech inf and an armor unit just outside it to take it back if it revolts.

-Alech