City defction is driving me nuts!

[Hurry]

City defection is driving me nuts! Nineveh, size 8, defected back to the Babylonians even though i had several defenders in it. So, I reload and put 10 defenders in it. Still defects. So, I reload and put 20 defenders in it, including an army! And still it defects. With every single unit, killed to the last man.

With 5 minute enemy moves, I really don´t want to reload after such a thing happening, but when half my army is wiped out by a few citizens without weapons, it is just too much. I can´t take it anymore.

So, in fact, after one hour of gaming, I am still playing the same goddamned turn!

[Juggernaut]

Capture the surrounding cities as well and raze them. That way the captured city can't be swallowed by the enemy civ's cultural borders. Keep some, raze some, that is. That's what I do.

[Libertarian]

I agree. Strategize more thoughtfully. Cultural assimilation is not a function of brute strength.

[Ferdi]

I have to say that this cultural assimilation is all except funny! We have no mean to evaluate the risk to be assimilated. To avoid that I have a tendency to always raze captured cities.

[Peets]

Well, if you put 5 units or 10 units in it it would be the same thing. Sometimes the culture of the other people is so high that the people of the city don't want to be a part of you. They rebel!
So if you put stronger units in it you have more chance to keep them. Also when they stop revolting build asap culture buildings.
Also killing some people from the city help, lower it from 8 to 3 then.
You can also change this in the editor BTW.

[Libertarian]

Think of it as the fog of culture.

[The Rook]

I've taken to placing my units outside of suspect cities. After i lost an army in one game, I learned to keep them out in the cold, and rain, where it is safe.

[Velociryx]

Ahhh, but there is a means to calculate the risks.

1) Cultural strength (yours vs. theirs)
2) Cultural tendencies (ie - the Babylonians are a Culture MONSTER to begin with)
3) Proximity to the captiols (yours/theirs)
4) Unhappy civilians in the mix
5) (lesser consideration) Garrison strength

Just do a quick rundown of the list. If there are two or more of these items that are in the other guys favor (ie - unhappy citizens + closer to their capitol than yours), then *expect* to lose the city back! You gotta dominate in most, if not all five categories to keep the city.

Vs. the Babylonians in particular, given the sheer strengh of their culture game, I find it necessary to simply raze their cities, or make VERY quick (1 turn) wars against them.

-=Vel=-

[Venger]

Yes, the current model approaches insanity...but with 20 units (not bombardment units, they dont count (though they likely should)) it sounds more like a propoganda attack than anything else...

Capture the surrounding cities as well and raze them. That way the captured city can't be swallowed by the enemy civ's cultural borders. Keep some, raze some, that is. That's what I do.

This is good gameplay advice - however, my complaint is with the concept. Cultural defection should be the result of a steady influence of cultural attraction, built over time - not 3 freaking turns. I took Berlin, it's being held not by culture but by force - it should not revert after three freaking turns.

That said, it does SEEM to be just a WEE BIT easier to keep cities. However, I'd like a hard and fast rule about it - do you need 1 unit for every 2 citizens, etc...

I agree. Strategize more thoughtfully. Cultural assimilation is not a function of brute strength.

But it's handled as such - a city will revert not over time but in as little as three freaking turns. Cultural defection should be something that occurs over time, after influence has built up - not simply because the French no longer like German occupation and prefer the old French government. Something HAS to happen on this gameplay front.

Ahhh, but there is a means to calculate the risks.

1) Cultural strength (yours vs. theirs)
2) Cultural tendencies (ie - the Babylonians are a Culture MONSTER to begin with)
3) Proximity to the captiols (yours/theirs)
4) Unhappy civilians in the mix
5) (lesser consideration) Garrison strength

Just do a quick rundown of the list. If there are two or more of these items that are in the other guys favor (ie - unhappy citizens + closer to their capitol than yours), then *expect* to lose the city back!

This is utterly foolish, and makes any attempt at conquest ridiculous. I take a city, the cultural improvements are gone - it is almost certainly closer to their capital (it often was their capital, he he) - they are ALL unhappy for culture reasons. ANY attempt to take a city creates your "expectation" that the city revolts. And that ruins any attempt at conquest, and flies in the face of reason.

You gotta dominate in most, if not all five categories to keep the city.

Do you hear how that sounds? Have you followed the logic here?

Take 20 units.
Attack size 25 city.
Take city.
Keep 20 units in city.
Lose city and all 20 units.

Why even defend the city? It makes it easier to defeat an army with cultural defection than actually having to meet them in the field of battle. And that's poorly considered design.

Vs. the Babylonians in particular, given the sheer strengh of their culture game, I find it necessary to simply raze their cities, or make VERY quick (1 turn) wars against them.

Well so far I've kicked Egyptian, Greek, Aztec, and now Russian (they started it, I swear) butt. And cultural defection hasn't stopped me, but it's made the game very unenjoyable and in fact was the single largest reason I bagged Civ3 til the patch. Razing the city is not an option, it's genocidal lunacy and frankly I cannot believe it's considered the "preferred" conquest solution.

Venger

[Smash]

It is supposedly toned down a bit but judging by the toning down of corruption I'd say Firaxis' definition of toned down differs from mine

I captured 7 cites on a turn from a vastly culturally backward nation.Within 4 turns,5 of the 7 had flipped back.If isn't ancient times,you can bet the farm the cities will start flipping back real quick.It is not a high fun factor capturing the same city over and over and over.
The only thing to do is massive attacks.Lately I won't attack unless I can wipe out the civ in 3>4 turns.Unfortuantely this puts me in a Red Front type place with 100s of units to move.

Most definitely keep units outside of cities.I am terrified to put down resistors until the civ is destroyed.I lost way too many troops this way.
The advice seems like a sucker play."We must garrison troops in blah blah to quell resisitors immediately" or whatever.Ya right.

[francoImpaler]

Haven't played diety but I have not had a problem with defection with the exception of Paris. I usually put in 2-3 units with 2-3 outside the city. I start building a temple or other culture improvement immediately. Resistance will usually be quelled in 2-3 turns.

In the case of Paris, in one game it defected with no resisters as much as 30 turns later with a message that the citizens like the French culture. I might have neglected the city but I think there is something built into the game re Paris or the French in general

[Boney]

Keep most units outside the city, but leave some inside. Once resistance is quelled starve the pop down before letting the city grow again. Best if in communism, rush buy your cultural improvements and kill the rabble at the same.

It amazes me that these city defections, when in my favour, don't seem to p*** off the AI.

On the whole I like city defections, mainly because most of the time it is in my favour. If it is up to me I often prefer to raze the cities and build new ones instead.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Boney
Keep most units outside the city, but leave some inside. Once resistance is quelled starve the pop down before letting the city grow again. Best if in communism, rush buy your cultural improvements and kill the rabble at the same.

Good advice boney, but it doesn't work when attack large cities and empires. Because if you take a large city, it will revert LONG before you can starve it down. Again, you have to keep units in the city to put down resistance - once would ASSUME active resistance would lead to revolts. Leaving your units outside the city ought to LEAD to reversion, and reconquering the same city over and over and over just sucks...

On the whole I like city defections, mainly because most of the time it is in my favour. If it is up to me I often prefer to raze the cities and build new ones instead.

I wouldn't mind them so much in remote locations, small cities, etc. But it happens WAY too much - and honestly, we could say we are talking about two different things - city reversion versus city defection.

Venger

[Velociryx]

At the risk of turning this thread into yet another argument thread, I believe the gist of the question was: "under the game as it exists right now, what can be done to conquer and keep cities when waging war against a civ with a strong culture?"

If that was NOT the gist of the thread, then my apologies in advance.

To that end, discussing why the current system is faulty or what it's lacking does not really adress the core question, IMO (tho I will agree in principal that had I been asked, I would have handled culture in a different way, as outlined on another thread).

So...yes. Under the current game conditions, I stand by my earlier post, pointing out that the most effective way to conquer and keep a city is simply not to conquer a size 25 city at all, but to bomb the daylights out of it till it's down to a more easily managed size, and then starve it a bit after that.

I've played the conquest-style game, and culture or no, I know it can be done, however, it is patently suicidal to attempt to outright conquer a civ with equal or greater culture....this is true in real life as well as in civ (ask the Mongols, for example, who conquered china only to be themselves assimilated into China's massive culture).

-=Vel=-

[Venger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
So...yes. Under the current game conditions, I stand by my earlier post, pointing out that the most effective way to conquer and keep a city is simply not to conquer a size 25 city at all, but to bomb the daylights out of it till it's down to a more easily managed size, and then starve it a bit after that.

Can't argue with that - and if I mistook your explanation of the system as a defense of it, then I am in error...

Venger