Disgusted

[bahoo]

Last night I disgustedly quit my civ game, and prolly don't intend to play anytime in the near future. The story...

I had 1 army of 3 knights, 4 regular knights, 1 musketman, and 1 catapault parked on a hill outside of Heliopolis prepping for an attack. Egypt demanded tribute from me, I said no, and they declared war much to my convenience. Next turn, I attack the city (pop: 12) and capture it I have enough movement to get a few troops into it. Between turns 1 resistor is quelled. I move the rest of my forces in to rest up and get their hp back (that's a total of 9 units), mind you the city is still in resistance so I can't hurry a temple or anything. Next turn, it deposes!

Bam, 9 units wiped out by an ill-conceived game concept and bad luck on the random number seed. My offensive war effort was thwarted and I had to beg for peace. I don't mind losing a superior troop to an inferior one once in awhile due to bad luck, because I know on average it may happen once in awhile but not often. But losing my whole dang offensive army is just plain ridiculous.

This concept of deposing, is completely unrealistic, makes no sense whatsoever, and is just plain unfun. Citizens should not be able to destroy an army without fighting!

I would like to know what possibly could have been done differently, I couldn't hurry improvements yet, and had what I thought was a substantial force there.

Firaxis, I want an answer as to whether this is gonna be modified in the next patch to allow for your troops to have the option to fight back or retreat. If it's not changed I can't see myself playing the game much more. If I wanted to sit around and build churches and colosseums all day, I'd play SimCity!

[Libertarian]

Oh, that's easy!

They're aware of the feature, and when they have a statement to make on it, they will.

[ledj]

I can image the frustration when the newly conquered city and all the military units were lost , especially with an army in it. What I will do is to sell the city to a remote civ (with low culture) for gold or techs. All your units will be transferred to your capital. The city will soon revert back to Greece, and you can re-take the city. This time , use the cannon bring the population down, and your own workers to populate the city will also help.

[Jodo Kast]

War Stories

I think there is a forum for War Stories. You poor sod!

Next time concentrate on your Civ's Culture a bit more...

[bahoo]

Re: War Stories

Originally posted by Jodo Kast
I think there is a forum for War Stories. You poor sod!

Next time concentrate on your Civ's Culture a bit more...

First off, all my cities had temples/libraries/cathedrals and a few had colosseums...additionally I had 3 wonders.

Sure, I didn't have as many cities as Egypt and wasn't a religious civ (I'm convinced that religious civs are the best due to their huge cultural advantage), so my TOTAL culture number was maybe lower, but on a city by city basis it certainly wasn't.

And that's not the point anyway, I had a LOT of knights with swords and men with muskets, there is no possible way a bunch of pathetic peasants with pitchforks could've have killed them all! It's a broken, ill-conceived concept, admit it!

[ACooper]

Is that bahoo or boohoo?

You need 1 more unit than the population of the city, the problem has never occurred to me under these circumstances. And if it did I certainly wouldn't give up and whine about it here.

[Griff000]

Re: War Stories

Originally posted by Jodo Kast
I think there is a forum for War Stories. You poor sod!

Next time concentrate on your Civ's Culture a bit more...

That's a bit harsh!

I've had this happen lots of times, even when I'm culturally way ahead.

I've also had cities defect to culturally inferior Civs...

[bahoo]

Originally posted by ****gyRA
Is that bahoo or boohoo?

You need 1 more unit than the population of the city, the problem has never occurred to me under these circumstances. And if it did I certainly wouldn't give up and whine about it here.

Oh, that's so intuitive, of course it takes 13 armed trained soldiers to take on 12 untrained unarmed peons!

I could really care less what the 'formula' for victory is. I'd like the game to make sense and be somewhat realistic.

Please give me one historical example, or logical explanation as to how a bunch of civilians defeated an army of soldiers without a fight or them retreating.

[Ming]

Originally posted by bahoo
I could really care less what the 'formula' for victory is. I'd like the game to make sense and be somewhat realistic.

If you want realism, why are you playing a game
Why not just join the military and get a taste of "realism"

[Navyman]

Why didn't the Czechs or the Polish people think of deposing the Nazi occupying army? That would have saved Europe from a war.

I want to know, how the heck does mostly unarmed civilian resistors overthrow a city garrisoned by an empire's "Strike Corps?" I have yet to read an episode of history where the populace overthrows the invaders and gains the loyalty of the occupying army. Please, anyone point it out to me if I am missing something?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by bahoo
Oh, that's so intuitive, of course it takes 13 armed trained soldiers to take on 12 untrained unarmed peons!

While I've never had this problem in any game I've yet played, only ever moving enough troops in to quell resisters (number of resisters +1), a size 12 city has many, many more people than are in 12 military units.

However, there should be combat for a revolting city. It shouldn't be handed back for free. City fighting is vicious nasty stuff. Citizens should die, buildings should be destroyed. Victory shouldn't be certain.

[Gunter]

Do you want a good solution? Really? Realistic?

Go back to last auto save,this is the only way to fight against city dfeted,untill Fireaxis will do something,in the future....maybe.

[ACooper]

I'm just telling you how the game is programmed. It's not a "formula". It's either in the manual or has been posted here by either Jeff or Dan. (I don't remember which)


All I'm saying is that it's the way the game was made. Right or wrong.

I think the idea was to slow down the "wipe out another civilization in one turn" effect that could happen in Civ2.

[Libertarian]

Apparently, bombardment and air units don't count toward whatever the arbitrary formula is.

[felder]

Re: Disgusted

Originally posted by bahoo
Last night I disgustedly quit my civ game, and prolly don't intend to play anytime in the near future. The story...

I had 1 army of 3 knights, 4 regular knights, 1 musketman, and 1 catapault parked on a hill outside of Heliopolis prepping for an attack. Egypt demanded tribute from me, I said no, and they declared war much to my convenience. Next turn, I attack the city (pop: 12) and capture it I have enough movement to get a few troops into it. Between turns 1 resistor is quelled. I move the rest of my forces in to rest up and get their hp back (that's a total of 9 units), mind you the city is still in resistance so I can't hurry a temple or anything. Next turn, it deposes!

Bam, 9 units wiped out by an ill-conceived game concept and bad luck on the random number seed. My offensive war effort was thwarted and I had to beg for peace. I don't mind losing a superior troop to an inferior one once in awhile due to bad luck, because I know on average it may happen once in awhile but not often. But losing my whole dang offensive army is just plain ridiculous.

This concept of deposing, is completely unrealistic, makes no sense whatsoever, and is just plain unfun. Citizens should not be able to destroy an army without fighting!

I would like to know what possibly could have been done differently, I couldn't hurry improvements yet, and had what I thought was a substantial force there.

Firaxis, I want an answer as to whether this is gonna be modified in the next patch to allow for your troops to have the option to fight back or retreat. If it's not changed I can't see myself playing the game much more. If I wanted to sit around and build churches and colosseums all day, I'd play SimCity!

Yeah, that totally sucks. It's a shame that Firaxis has made it make more sense to raze cities and then to capture them. I like the culture aspect of the game, but cities absolutely should not revert after capturing them. One strategy I use is I raze some and capture others. If you raze a few and get their borders to recede, I've found that the cities don't revert nearly as easily. Unfortunately, then you have to move in your settlers and re-settle the "holes" or else the damn AI will move in and plop cities in every available square (another major gripe of mine.)