Open letter to Tenochtitlan

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Uhhmmm, no. France signed an armistice with Germany.

If France had continued to fight, it could have been crucial. The fascists in France wanted to cooperate with the Nazis, so the fascist culture overwhelmed the demoralized forces of democracy. They believed themselves to be men of the future, and that fascism was that future. Ever since the great economic crash, many believed the great democratic powers were rotting from the inside,

Democratic culture was in retreat, but not for long.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
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.
Salve

Depends on how you define civilization. The Russian (Soviet) Empire lost pieces left and right, without combat. Russians army simply dissolved (and went looking for work). The West picked up those pieces, and is integrating them into NATO.

The French King lost control of a city that was well within his empire. How much of a garrison do you think he needs! He shoulda posted a rant about that one, or complained to Firaxis.

I'm sure there could be a better implementation of reversion.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zachriel


If France had continued to fight, it could have been crucial. The fascists in France wanted to cooperate with the Nazis, so the fascist culture overwhelmed the demoralized forces of democracy. They believed themselves to be men of the future, and that fascism was that future. Ever since the great economic crash, many believed the great democratic powers were rotting from the inside,

Democratic culture was in retreat, but not for long.

Uhhhh, Zac, do you really want to continue this?

The French Army and Air Force had ceased to exist as effective fighting forces inside France itself.

All that Britain and the Commonwealth could scrape together to assist had been destroyed. Most of the men escaped, but they had no equipment

Your take on what led the Petain government to conclude that peace was the only option is an interesting, if incorrect one. Simply put, the French were done whether they favoured Democracy, Communism, Fascism, or Martians. Done like dinner.

BTW, culture does not apply to metaphysical government types as a game model. It applies to individual empires. If your ally makes peace with your enemy, it has nothing to do with cultural reversion (or defection). It has to do with the relative merits of War, Peace and politics for your ally.

Salve

[ACooper]

I apologize for my former laugh. It was improper and impolite.


It can be annoying when you lose a city, but there are ways to combat it. When you take a city, keep more troops than the population. Keep your culture up as high as possible. It's simplistic and unbalanced, but until it gets rebalanced there is nothing else you can do. Maybe in the next patch or two they can balance it to make it a little more fair. Hopefully anyway.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Depends on how you define civilization. The Russian (Soviet) Empire lost pieces left and right, without combat. Russians army simply dissolved (and went looking for work). The West picked up those pieces, and is integrating them into NATO.

The French King lost control of a city that was well within his empire. How much of a garrison do you think he needs! He shoulda posted a rant about that one, or complained to Firaxis.

I'm sure there could be a better implementation of reversion.

You have a good point about the Soviets losing Eastern Europe. That is a very good example of Cultural defection, however...

The Soviets acquiesced to the dismantling of the empire they could no longer afford. In past instances of attempts to leave the Soviet block, the Red Army crushed the movements with ease. In the 80s, the Soviet govt decided not to oppose the movement militarily. That is the only reason it worked.

Furthermore, the former Warsaw Pact states did not immediately join NATO. NATO would not have accepted them if it would mean war with the USSR. It was only after the complete disintegration of the USSR and after Russia was assured of her place in the world (membership of the G7, etc) that NATO began to integrate some of the Central and Eastern European states.

The case of East Germany is slightly different, but again, Soviet/Russian acquiescence was required for the reunification of Germany to proceed. If they had objected strenuously, things would have been significantly different.

re Louis. He lost control of the Assembly. They then lost control of the city. All of it enabled when Louis refused/sent away military forces that could have crushed the movement with ease.

Yes, a better implementation of reversion would be welcome.

Salve

[Zachriel]

BTW, culture does not apply to metaphysical government types as a game model.

Civilization III is an abstraction, and the model represented refers not so much to political countries, but to civilizations, as in Western Civilization. Any more specific application would be unwarranted in a simple and generalised simulation.

The French Army and Air Force had ceased to exist as effective fighting forces inside France itself.

All that Britain and the Commonwealth could scrape together to assist had been destroyed. Most of the men escaped, but they had no equipment

The French Navy was still in existence. The allies destroyed these fleets to prevent their use by the fascists.

If your ally makes peace with your enemy, it has nothing to do with cultural reversion (or defection). It has to do with the relative merits of War, Peace and politics for your ally.

And exactly what is cultural defection or loyalty except the relative merits of war, peace, and political philosophy as decided by the people who make up a civilization.

Simply put, the French were done whether they favoured Democracy, Communism, Fascism, or Martians. Done like dinner.

And if all there was was France, then they would have been done. But they were just one part of a much larger civilization. So, if they had fought, if traitors in Vichy had not joined with the Nazis, they could have made a difference to the eventual outcome of the war. Vichy deported tens of thousands for the Nazis and did it willingly. Petain and others were put on trial and convicted.

Cultural defection is a game abstraction, and if you insist on some arbitrary closeness to actual events, you can always explain it away. I'm sure this is exactly the kinds of events the game makers were trying to simulate in the game.

Not only that (back on topic), by relating Civ3 to these kinds of events, I can almost always have an idea when a region is in trouble culturally.

[notyoueither]

Well Zac, I'm sure your view point would be shared by some, but...

Since Britain, France, Germany and Italy were the only combatants (at the point in time we are discussing) AND all four of them would be regarded as members of the Western Civilization, I would guess that you are discussing some soon to be released WestCiv Civil War title, not civ 3.

Salve

[Fidel]

Originally posted by yin26
Classic! Of course, wait for the vermin to say: "Hey, buddy. You don't like cities reverting? Don't attack cities."

yes, classic yin as we all know, napoleon took moscow with a superior army and stayed there forever.....

anyway
take occupied people off every work, starve them. bring in your workers and let them join the city (forced colonization). have cash when going to war, so raise your luxury rate. be prepared to occassionally face the rebellion.
alternatively, go to play EU with yin. watch as natives massacre your outposts although they are supposed to be at level 1 of agression.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well Zac, I'm sure your view point would be shared by some, but...
Since Britain, France, Germany and Italy were the only combatants (at the point in time we are discussing) AND all four of them would be regarded as members of the Western Civilization, I would guess that you are discussing some soon to be released WestCiv Civil War title, not civ 3.
Salve

Democratic societies v. Fascism. Use a little imagination.

There are many, many examples in history like this. Every example could be rejected as not very exact, but certainly the game makers had something like this in mind. This particular example even parallels gameplay qutie well. I have often ripped into an enemy capital captuing the wonders there (Eiffel Tower), then had nearby cities flip to my civ.

Think of it as picking figures out of clouds. Try squinting just a little.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The French King lost control of a city that was well within his empire. How much of a garrison do you think he needs! He shoulda posted a rant about that one, or complained to Firaxis.

As far as I know, none of the French cities joined England, Prussia, Russia nor Austria (nor any other country, in fact). Though, there was lots of civil disorder and then a change in government when the King was deposed.
So it looks like that it was some side-effects of anarchy rather than cultural defection

[Libertarian]

I apologize for my former laugh. It was improper and impolite.

Good, Shaggy. Strawmen are beneath you.

[GePap]

Reality or gameplay?

With a game like civ3, there are two things you can aim for, realism or gameplay fun. If the two can be joined, thats the best, but if they can't, make a choice. City reversion in Civ3 is neither realisitc nor fun. If a city I had not troops in reverts, fine. If a city I had the normal defensive garrison of 2 reverts- a pain, but still, it was only a small garriron. If a city with the 4th Army group reverts, destroying the entire army group more easily than the combined strenghts of the enemy armies that fight me- NOT OK, NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER OK.

This is a SIN, both in terms of realism and fun. realisitcally, no city can take on large armies and win (look at warsaw after the uprising in fall '44, wait, you can't, the Poles revolted, the Germans brought in the big guns, and blasted the city flat). In game terms this undermines the players game without having given them a chance to counteract this effectively- a random and perhaps devastating effect.

Then there is the problem of forcing persons into strategies- lets get a few thigns stragiht. Back in the middle ages, cities passed hands between rules quite often, even big, culturally important ones. Most revolts back then were, as they are now, over missrule, not what nationality one was, since back then that concept was not as ensrhined and drilled into our heads. Your king was your king, wherever they came from. So city reversion prior to discovering nationalism is historically funky. Even after nationalism, it takes a lot. Look at paris in WW2. Huge city, culturally vital. How many troops did the germans garrison in and around Paris? Not many. Did Paris rise in revolt at any moment before a huge, friendly army was one zip code away? No! Perhaps the fact that the Parisians didnt want their city to become a battleground and be wipped out by far superior german forces had something to do with their patience.

Then there are the 'strategies' one can use to stop city reversion. Point one, even if it has not happened to you does not mean that its not a problem- I have never been in a crash with a drunk driver, do i get to say that drunk driving is not an issue? Two: Because it has not happened to you does not mean it won't, since none of us really know how this works. Three: what if I don't want to do that?
Lets say there is this big, culturally important city of 20 on my borders, the key city of an enemy civ, and I want to take it, but I also want to be able to enjoy it as is, a big city with culture and industry? In civ2 and civ1, and SMAC, and MOO2 i could take a alrge, developed enemy stronghold to enhance my capabilities vis a vi the enemy or others. According to Civ3, i have to flatten to the ground and drive into starvation the people there before I get the privilage of getting to use the ground. For the most part, a cost benefit annalysis would probably show that razing the city and building your own there is cheaper in time and resources. This is not REALISTIC, nor is it FUN.

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: Re: What is the problem?

Originally posted by Bautou
In anycase, here's a save game file of mine where the effect is particularly strong.

I couldn't find your post. You may have to zip it as there is a size limit on the forum.

[Zachriel]

Post an example. I just don't have the problem you guys are complaining about. It doesn't appear to be random to me, but rooted in playing style.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Good, Shaggy. Strawmen are beneath you.