New Idea to Prevent Losing Huge Armies to Defection

[RobC]

I don't think that time of war should be the determining factor. After all, should the citizens you recently conquered in bloody, fiery battles suddenly love you just because you sued for peace? I think a better idea is to reduce the necessary garrison to prevent defections by half (or 1/3?) when you specify that a city is under MARSHAL LAW. Cities under marshal law cannot produce or hurry anything (with severe restrictions on freedom, production is slowed to a halt) but can still grow pop, much like a city that still has resisting citizens. This solves the problem of armies getting easily gobbled up by a mob of citizens with pitchforks (if they are so powerful, why didn't they help defend the city from takeover in the first place?) but doesn't make it too easy, since you still need to add more military units if the population grows (and you have to import those military units, since you can't produce anything under marshal law).

[Venger]

To make sure this isn't glossed over, cities "reverting" after 3 turns and transporting your army to the border is asinine. Cultural defection is ludicrous when an army is present, transporting it to the border doesn't make cultural defection suddenly okay. Personally, the whole concept is weak kneed and utterly devoid of any historical or logical context. Even worse how it is done within the game.

Venger

[Skanky Burns]

I think that cities should only be able to defect the turn after they are rioting. I mean, if they arent upset, why would they bother revolting and risk their lives??

Also, i would much prefer armies transported back to my civ (retreating) rather than being nullified, just disappearing into a black hole. I wouldnt mind if my other garrison units were transported back to my nearest city, or even the capital. Even with only 1 hp left, to prevent rapid re-capture with the same units. I wouldnt even mind if 50% of my units didnt make it back, but losing the entire bunch is just plain silly.

That said, ive very rarely lost units to cultural flipping. However, when a size 2 city suddenly gobbles up 20+ modern armour units, you have to wonder.

[matso]

I was intrigued by the "no defection while at war idea"... however, I agree that it would cause too great an advantage for simply staying at war. And realistically, it doesn't really represent the possibility of a population rising up against their occupiers.

However, what about this:

If, while at war, the conditions which would now induce a cultural defection instead triggered, say, a massive underground resistance or the like...basically an offshoot of what happens when you take conquer a city now, except it lasts for a specific period of time based on population size. Rather than permanently losing all your units because of defection, they simply become preoccupied with quelling this massive uprising, and you cannot use them. That is, you cannot move them out of the city or attack units adjacent to your city. They still retain their defensive functions. Additionally, all the other factors that come with a city in revolt are present, but perhaps to an even greater degree. The length of time the uprising takes is dependent upon the city population size, and also the number and type of units you have within the city. Moving more units into the city can reduce the number of turns this lasts, but not below a certain minimum.

If by some chance you do not address the anger of the people you are oppresssing and you negotiate peace with their mother land, the city may now be ready for cultural defection... now, say goodbye to your units. Years of being stationed in a war-torn city with victimized citizenry has swayed their emotions... you failed them as a leader!

hahahaha... any thoughts on this???

matso

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by matso
If, while at war, the conditions which would now induce a cultural defection instead triggered, say, a massive underground resistance or the like

Doesn't resistance already emulate that by forcing you to station units as a garrison, or risk a flip?

But cultural reversion is different. That is like Marc Antony throwing in with Cleopatra and breaking from Rome, or like East Germany joining back with West Germany, or like Texas declaring independence from Mexico, then joining the U.S., or like a medieval lord switching sides.

The city and the armies defect.

[Dry]

Since I let them starve until they are size 1 or 2, I never had any city defecting - they may even produce some free foreign worker in the meanwhile.

Corrupted 2-size cities are much more easy to manage than corrupted 12-size cities.
And they produce the same 1-shield and the same 1 trade.

They are not corrupted? Ok, re-populate them with your own national workers/settlers

[Venger]

Originally posted by Dry
Since I let them starve until they are size 1 or 2, I never had any city defecting - they may even produce some free foreign worker in the meanwhile.

You'll never make that claim stick. If you take a size 24 city on an enemy continent, you can't starve it right away, because resisters apparently don't eat. As they are quieted, the computer automatically puts them to work the first turn, and they put food in the granary you have to burn through. Now by turn three, this city will have a high chance to revert unless you have 24 units in it. If you think for a minute you can leave 5 units in that city and starve it until it is size 2 without it reverting, you are playing some easy level or a highly modified ruleset, which I would want...

Venger

[Zachriel]

I have played many games of conquest, I rarely lose cities while they are in resistance. I only garrison one unit for each resistor -- not for each resident. Also, I run a very happy empire, would never starve the people on purpose, and sometimes there are no resistors whatsoever.

[cutlerd]

Cutlerd - That is not a bad work around, however it has problems. Any rush built temples or such are destroyed. The enemy gets a free defense unit that has to be killed. Finally, if your cities are so weakly held, they can be easily retaken.

I don't build temples until the city is stabilized. As far as enemies taking them, you position your units outside the city to block access.

Devin

[DilithiumDad]

When your rule is overthrown, all your occupying forces are killed. That is the only thing that makes sense. The revolutionaries don't politely request that your forces take a hike and they say "Oh, OK, bye!"

Losing your forces on reversion is designed to make conquest slower and more painful and difficult. At best you can take one ring of cities close to your capital then sign a peace treaty and build cultural improvements. I always max out culture on my front-line bases before a war. This helps.

[Spatzimaus]

The solution I liked was suggested earlier on these boards:

Bring back Partisans!
That is, add a "militia" type of unit, a cheap unit to build that requires no resource. This would be what you'd get if John Doe decided to get out his trusty hunting rifle, hop in his pickup truck, and go kill some of them Commie invaders. Recreational/Hunting weapons, maybe some random gear from an Army Surplus store (flak jacket, camo gear, and some night-vision goggles), and a knowledge of your home terrain can make for a pretty effective defender. Add to that a number of Vietnam vets who "misplaced" their M16s...

In the Ancient era it'd be the Warrior; in the Medeival era it'd be the Peasant (2/2/1); in the Industrial era it'd be the Farmer (3/4/1); in the Modern era it'd be the Redneck (4/6/2, gotta love them pickup trucks). By putting Warrior in this chain, it solves the upgrade problem the Romans and Persians have, where their starting warriors can't ever upgrade. Add that any of these units built automatically start off at Conscript level, and they become balanced.
Besides, tell me you wouldn't love to see Rednecks in a game.

Now, the solution for revolting cities was like this. If a city decides to revolt, assign a percentage chance of "uprising", based on relative culture values, city size, technology, etc.
Roll that percentage for each non-resisting population of the appropriate nationality in the city, count the number of successes, and then add the number of resisting population (all of whom would, of course, join the uprising, regardless of nationality). For each successful roll, or for each resisting citizen, the city loses one population point, and spawns two Partisans (of the best type available to their original owner), which immediately (still on the other person's turn) attack whatever units are in the city, but any defense bonus the defenders WOULD have received is turned into an attack bonus for the Partisans. They're using the normally defensible nature of a city to their advantage, sneaking up on the invaders and hitting them while they're weak.
If the uprising is successful, all surviving Partisans are destroyed and replaced with one high-quality defender, as before, except that the size loss stays.
(You could say that surviving Partisans turn back into population, but I think it's more balanced this way)

Example: In a surprise attack, the German army of Panzers has just invaded New York (size 20, all American), overwhelming the two American Mechanized Infantry batallions stationed there. Three turns later, it is determined that an uprising happens; thanks to the American high culture and technology (they're in the modern era) the game gives a 25% uprising rate. The Germans have defended the city with one Infantry, two damaged Panzer units under repair, and two fresh Panzers.
17 rolls at 25% later, it's determined that 4 population revolted (average would be 4), plus the 3 resisting citizens, gives 7 population revolting. 14 Rednecks are spawned, attacking with a 100% bonus (for a city) making them 8/6/2 (2 hit points each) versus the 8 defense of the German armor and 10 of the infantry (all with 3-4 hit points, except the damaged units). The Germans are eventually destroyed, but the city drops to size 13 in the process.

What do you think?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Spatzimaus
Bring back Partisans! . . .
What do you think?

That's what is so cool about this game. It stimulates a great deal of imagination and creativity. (Personally, I have no problem with the "reversion" problem. I mean Octavius had to deal with it, so I will too.) I too liked the partisan units.

[GeneralTacticus]

I still don't think that Antony really has anything to with this. The situation in Civ 3 defections is that the citizens that you are occupying have grown sick of your rule and are overthrowing it, rather than a leader deciding to join another Civ. Why therefore should all of the garrison go with it?? I agree that if the revolt succeeds, then the garrison should be mostly gone, but it should have a chance to fight first. In Civ 3 the situation in e.g. Israel couldn't be represented, because of defection. By that rule, the West Bank and Gaza would have defected to Jordan and Egypt respectively by almost immediately! Why haven't they? Because the Israeli army is too strong.

I like the idea about having partisans come out of the city, however I think the garrison should just get no defensive bonuses. And regardless of whether the revolt succeeds, there should be a LOT of collateral dmamage in Modern/Industrial times, representing tanks blowing up houses, arty and missiles missing, and generally the transformation of the city into a battle zone. I also think there should be the possibility for partisan units to spring up behind the battle lines and harass the invaders. They shouldn't be all that effective, but they should be good enough that you cannot just ignore them.

[Quokka]

The no flipping while at war option sounds the best to me. Makes sense too. Think of WWII, no matter how much culture the French had they couldn't turf the Germans out of Paris until a bigger army came along, and I don't think anyone will argue that Paris doesn't have a strong culture.
As for saying that you could just stay at war forever to prevent flips, that seems like a very expensive and unsafe road to travel. Firstly you can never trade with a country you are at war with. The AI will keep attacking you whenever it gets the chance and could sign Alliances against you. You have to keep a much larger military on hand to combat this slowing everything else down and it leaves you open to attack from other quarters, suddenly you are in a 3 front war all to hold a city.
Culture is a peace time pursuit not wartime. The Marines in Afghanistan are not there for the culture and you can bet the Taliban aren't going to get that airbase back because they want to play soccer there either, however it may revert back after the dust has settled and the Marines want to come home, not before no matter how nice the Afghani's ask.
Now if its a nice honest revolt I think there should be some sort of battle for control of the city and if the revolters win then the city goes back to the original owner. Not exactly sure how this will work but the sliding scale militia sounds like a good place to start. So resistors become revolters and if they lose they are dead, anyone left after the revolt should become your nationality the same way the pop does when you get a city in peace talks.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
I still don't think that Antony really has anything to with this. The situation in Civ 3 defections is that the citizens that you are occupying have grown sick of your rule and are overthrowing it, rather than a leader deciding to join another Civ. Why therefore should all of the garrison go with it?? I agree that if the revolt succeeds, then the garrison should be mostly gone, but it should have a chance to fight first.

Who or what says that reversion is revolt? Certainly with civilian resistance, it would be a revolt. Most reversions would be the local lord changing sides, ganging up with the perceived eventual winner. This happened recently in Afghanistan. Troops controlled by the Taliban suddenly joined with the Americans.

Antony -- and his men -- were seduced by the allure of a very wealthy, high culture civilization. The Romans thought they were just getting soft, self-indulgent and greedy. So, the Romans declared war to retrieve their lost provinces. With a slightly different result of the randomizer, Antony may have succeeded. This is very much like Civ3, where a newly conquered province reverts with the lands and the army. If you want them back, you may have to take them back.

Indeed, this may very well be one of the (numerious) historical instances of reversion that guided the game creators.