Open letter to Tenochtitlan

[nato]

I just had another idea ...

Currently, it SEEMS like 1 military unit per unit of population will prevent defection ...

How about changing it to 1 military unit will stop 2 or 3 or 4 units of population from revolting?

This would be a simple change and leave things mostly the way it is now for those who are currently happy. Plus it should be super easy to program, so it would be feasible!

ALSO, tell players just how many population units each military unit quells, so it is predictable and not so random.

Still hoping to stumble on a solution most people would be happy with ... anyone like this idea?

Again thanks for reading.

[Zachriel]

Yes, Autosave.

I won't say I've never reloaded, but I never consider those victories.

Reversion is a playable game feature. The King of France didn't believe the mob was a match for his highly trained gunpowder army either. But it was his own capital he lost control of, then his head.

I would consider that a loss, too.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by nato
I just had another idea ...

Currently, it SEEMS like 1 military unit per unit of population will prevent defection ...

How about changing it to 1 military unit will stop 2 or 3 or 4 units of population from revolting?

This would be a simple change and leave things mostly the way it is now for those who are currently happy. Plus it should be super easy to program, so it would be feasible!

ALSO, tell players just how many population units each military unit quells, so it is predictable and not so random.

Still hoping to stumble on a solution most people would be happy with ... anyone like this idea?

Again thanks for reading.

There are acually two features of the game. Resistance and cultural reversion. With resistance, it takes one military unit per resistor. I use TOTAL CONTROL. That is lots of military the first turn to suppress any opposition. With cultural reversion, it is important to get that Temple up immediately, even if you have to force-build it while the city is still in resistance.

I have only seen one writer with the courage to post a game he believed was flawed due to cultural reversion. That game was easy to fix. A garrison worked; or force-building a cathedral; or even force-building a temple in a nearby friendly city, all stopped the reversion. With this lesson in mind, it is possible to anticipate reversion and take appropriate measures.

(I had to use force-building in this case because he didn't save the game a turn or two before the reversion, but even a simple garrison worked.)

[Zachriel]

Re: Kill them all!

Originally posted by GePap
The simplest solution to city reversal is to utterly annahilate your opponent (take all their cities, kill all their settlers) and to do it quick. If that is impossible, raze all cities taken. If you find that morally reprehensible, starve or bomb to death all but a few dazed survivors. If that morally reprehensible, put in lots of troops in, spend lots of money, and hope. If you find that infuriating, never go to war, and if you find that boring, well, out of luck.

Cultural reversion has a strong historical basis. For instance, when Israel revolted from Rome, did Caesar blame Firaxis? No, he sent in the Legions and razed the city.

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes, Autosave.

I usually try to avoid it, but it is a completely justified solution to a situation where your 20 Modern Armour disappear in a haze of stones. I wouldn't hold it against anyone.

Actually go 1 further, save at the end of every turn. It's a habit I have acquired during of years of dealing with sometimes buggy computers. Always save when important work is finished (such as a turn that may take as much as an hour or 2 to complete.)

By saving at the end of turns you could react to any particularly egregious action by the as-yet-unfinished game.

Salve

Or simply have Autosave enabled, and the game will do it for you.

[GePap]

What is the problem?

The complaint is not about the fact that citizens revolt, and that sometimes those revolts are based on nationalistic, cultural reasons (as opposed to revolts over missrule, which don't occur in Civ3, only riot). Ths complaint is that the way they are implemented in the game is false and detrimental to gameplay. I once recommended that we have disasters in civ3, but many said this was random so no good. well, city reversion today is about as random. Firts, you get little warning, and second, the troops stationed there are wipped out with no problem. Did the Romans just fall over and die? Loosing the garrison to weak rebels (one or a copule of defending units) is acceptable- loosing entire legions and their siege equipment, and their support cavalry is not because this simply did not happen. Yes, the Isrealites revolted against the small garrisons in the region and then the romans brought in the big guns to wipe the revolt away.
But your example is valid in a way- The Romans tried the cultural buying strategy many say works well, the one even I use (hey, financed new theaters, better infrastructure), and assumed (like many of us) that that would work. But it didn't and the cities revolted anyway- so the got frustrated and said, what the heck, lets just raze them this time and avoid the problem. How Civ3

[Willem]

Originally posted by Captain
call me a sap but I hate razing cities - not for gameplay reasons but because it feels "evil". in terms of gameplay, it's the best thing you could possibly do. keep a couple of settlers handy when warring, raze the city, plunk down your settler and add in the captured workers (not so much that you're in the minority of course). otherwise, it's lose the elite of your armed forces to some stupid rock-throwing urbanites. stationing outside the city works too but most of the time, you don't even want those cities cause there's way too much corruption and it'll take forever to rebuild to a good level.

still, i get the feeling i'm selling my soul or something everytime i burn a city down and half a million people just "disappear".

yeah, i know it's just a game....

Ever since Civ I, I've been starving out most of the cities I conquer for the simple fact the AI tends to put them in ridiculous places and/or they don't fit in with the rest of my empire. About the only ones I've EVER kept are the ones with Wonders in them. I've been wanting a raze function for a long, long time. Now if I could just get my military up to the point where I can consider taking a town or two!

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Captain

I can empathize with anyone who finds themselves forced to perform personally distasteful actions just to succeed at Civ. It undermines the passion. Hence, it undermines the game. And let's face it, *personally distasteful* barely begins to scratch the surface when it comes to genocide.

Salve

Then don't think of it as genocide. Think of it as turning the people of the city into refugees. Even when you're starving them, consider that they're leaving town of their own free will. Maybe Firaxis should add an animation of hordes of little people escaping the city just before it gets razed, and disappearing into the countryside. It might make razing a more acceptable option.

[ACooper]

Quit because you lose a city?




Now that says more about you than it does the game.

[Zachriel]

Re: What is the problem?

Originally posted by GePap
Ths complaint is that the way they are implemented in the game is false and detrimental to gameplay. I once recommended that we have disasters in civ3, but many said this was random so no good. well, city reversion today is about as random. Firts, you get little warning, and second, the troops stationed there are wipped out with no problem. Did the Romans just fall over and die? Loosing the garrison to weak rebels (one or a copule of defending units) is acceptable- loosing entire legions and their siege equipment, and their support cavalry is not because this simply did not happen. Yes, the Isrealites revolted against the small garrisons in the region and then the romans brought in the big guns to wipe the revolt away.
But your example is valid in a way- The Romans tried the cultural buying strategy many say works well, the one even I use (hey, financed new theaters, better infrastructure), and assumed (like many of us) that that would work. But it didn't and the cities revolted anyway- so the got frustrated and said, what the heck, lets just raze them this time and avoid the problem. How Civ3

I wouldn't say that reversion in the game is "random," but no doubt a better implementation would be appreciated by many players -- at least a warning the turn before.

The Romans left just one cohort (600 men) in Jerusalem. Like in Civ3, the residents took advantage of the opportunity to revolt. The Romans did invest in city improvements, but lost any value of these improvements through the excesses of the procurator Gessius Florus. There is always a certain randomness inherent to account for local conditions, but a despotic government with 0% luxuries probably exasperates the situation.

Anyone want to post an example? I really don't have any, since I usually win cities through reversion, not lose them.

[Zachriel]

Another example showing the how a large military force can be lost by reversion:

Vichy France. The Germans conquered half of France. The other half volunteered for the Fascist cause, to which many had sympathy. Individual French citizens resisted the collaboration, but the Allies lost a large and powerful region of France, including military units, when it flipped.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Another example showing the how a large military force can be lost by reversion:

Vichy France. The Germans conquered half of France. The other half volunteered for the Fascist cause, to which many had sympathy. Individual French citizens resisted the collaboration, but the Allies lost a large and powerful region of France, including military units, when it flipped.

Uhhmmm, no.

France signed an armistice with Germany. According to the armistice the North and Western coastal regions were to remain occupied by the Germans. The French were left to govern themselves in the rump that was left. I am unaware of any British or Commonwealth units being lost as a result of the armistice being signed.

At any rate, over to your point of there being historical foundations for reversion. Well yes, and no. I agree with you mostly, BUT...

Rebellions, while at peace, do not result in the city switching to another empire. That is not how rebellions and politics work.

And rebellions do not usually occur, let alone succeed in immediate proximity to massive military force. Your example of poor Louis and his botched attempts to deal with the French National Assembly is a good one, except for the fact that at critical points he rejected the notion of moving additional military units to the capital to back up his authority.

Finally, most of the people in this thread are not saying Firaxis should do away with reversion entirely. However, it seems most people think the way it has been implemented is silly, the actions forced upon us to combat it are extreme, and we don't like it. That's all.

Salve

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Kill them all!

Originally posted by Zachriel


Cultural reversion has a strong historical basis. For instance, when Israel revolted from Rome, did Caesar blame Firaxis? No, he sent in the Legions and razed the city.

Yes he did. Although he didn't have to declare war on another empire to do so, because the rebellious area was still a part of the Roman Empire. They did not immediately join another.

Salve

[Blackadar1]

****gy, your comment says worlds about you as well and it isn't good. Troll.

[Bautou]

Re: Re: What is the problem?

Originally posted by Zachriel
Anyone want to post an example? I really don't have any, since I usually win cities through reversion, not lose them.

While I think that the wartime cultural defection effect is too strong, I do somewhat understand it though I do wish that it was not so overbearing. In anycase, here's a save game file of mine where the effect is particularly strong. It's the modern age and I've just conquered most of Russia except for a few small islands in the bottom right hand side of the map.

Due to the extreme slowness of naval movement, it'll be quite some time before I can get a force to those islands (yeah yeah, plan ahead, I know, I had thought that my AI allies would be able to handle that one city though). In the meantime, I lose 1-3 cities on the Russian mainland per turn (despite rush-building temples and having the Russians in admiration of my overall culture).