Aaaaaaaaaargh! City flipping can be just silly.

[kailhun]

I don't care what the formula is for city flipping, sometimes it just doesn't make any sense.
Nagoya, a japanese city I 'bought' say a century ago, has just flipped to the Japanese while I'm at war with them and winning. Kyoto has fallen, Satsuma has fallen (these were their major cities). My armies (20 knights and 15 swordsmen (approx.)) are closing in on their other (now) major cities. The samurai are falling like flies. The bulk of the Japanese army is in my empire (they were trying to cross to the Romans up north) and is being destroyed. Yet Nagoya decides they want to be Japanese again (culture my foot). This is just plain silly! Did Königsberg flip over to the Germans as the Red Army pushed on towards Berlin, crushing all in their path? I don't think so.



Grumble, rant, simmer.

Robert

[Atahualpa]

thats life

The only thing I have a problem with is, that _ALL_ of my units in the city are LOST!!!
Not that some could flee from the protestors!!!

ata

[FNBrown]

There's an easy solution for this.

I find that early in the game, I can take and hold enemy cities without too much risk of them reverting to their original Civ, because there hasn't been enough time for anyone to establish an overwhelming cultural advantage, and my early conquests are never far from home.

Late in the game, it's easy enough for me to produce settlers, and I just raze the enemy cities and take the workers instead. I find that the AI city site selection can be somewhat dubious, and I'd rather re-populate my conquered lands with loyal subjects in good locations.

[SixArmedMan]

Honestly, let's say you live in Canada in a relatively big city, say Calgary. The Americans come to invade. They ruthlessly destroy your army and have taken over your capitol. 10 years later, when your country is all but defeated... isn't it just logical to throw off your chains of oppression and declare your allegiance back to Canada??? Even when they have a huge of deployment of forces within striking distance of the city?

No, this is not a formula for suicide. This is a lesson in freeing yourself from the bonds of slavery... though I do see how they can be confused... Oh well.

[FNBrown]

I think it would be more realistic if the workers you enslaved while razing cities had the option of rebelling... maybe they could spontaneously convert to conscript units and wreak havoc across the continent or something.

[SirSchwa]

City flipping

You can get over this by building a temple and a library immediately. That usually keeps them from turning against you. Sometimes they flip before you can build those improvements; in that case it's usually because I've overextended myself by conquering too many cities at once.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by SixArmedMan
Honestly, let's say you live in Canada in a relatively big city, say Calgary. The Americans come to invade. They ruthlessly destroy your army and have taken over your capitol. 10 years later, when your country is all but defeated... isn't it just logical to throw off your chains of oppression and declare your allegiance back to Canada??? Even when they have a huge of deployment of forces within striking distance of the city?

No, not really. Surviving will probably be foremost in people's mind and pissing off the enemy is not going to help you in that.

No, this is not a formula for suicide. This is a lesson in freeing yourself from the bonds of slavery... though I do see how they can be confused... Oh well.

Being occupied is not the same as being in bondage. Besides, I don't think people are this idealistic at the end of a war they just lost really well (If they'd lost badly, they'd have won ).

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by FNBrown
There's an easy solution for this.

I find that early in the game, I can take and hold enemy cities without too much risk of them reverting to their original Civ, because there hasn't been enough time for anyone to establish an overwhelming cultural advantage, and my early conquests are never far from home.

Late in the game, it's easy enough for me to produce settlers, and I just raze the enemy cities and take the workers instead. I find that the AI city site selection can be somewhat dubious, and I'd rather re-populate my conquered lands with loyal subjects in good locations.

Interesting how a game-feature designed to stop the atrocity of war (because it makes it more difficult) has lead to a greater atrocity of wars where the practice of razing entire cities is commonplace.

Robert

[FNBrown]

Yeah, well... if you're going to be atrocious, you might as well be thorough about it, too.

[Dis]

designed features are never silly

[Worthingtons]

I think it would be more realistic if the workers you enslaved while razing cities had the option of rebelling... maybe they could spontaneously convert to conscript units and wreak havoc across the continent or something.

Yeah, Some lovely conscript warriers for My Elite Infantry to practise on (and maybe generate a leader ) , Sounds like a great idea

[Atahualpa]

Most of the time I conquer some cities and when I think I have conquered far enough I raze the city(ies) that come(s) next and there is far less chance of flipping.
Then I make peace and build everything up and reorganize.


Yesterday the Romans declared war on me! And lol I am the most powerful and most advanced civ. And I thought wow he must have good armies if he decides to declare war. LOL He had about 6 cavalries and that was it for offensive operations.
I mean I laughed, then took 24 tanks and moved in. He didnt stand a chance. Cant get the logic of attacking the by far most powerful civ with 6(!) cavalries. If he had 60 okay, but 6 is just ridiculous.
So I conquered a bit and stopped south of his capital. If he decides again that war is the only option then I will finish him off!
LOL gave me a good laugh though

ata

[MonsterMan]

I think that if the enemy uses propaganda against one of your cities, it will look to you like a culture flip. I lost a city to the zulus, which I had conquered some ten turns earlier. But because of distance from their capital and some of my culture was present in that city (18 points), I bought it right back. Easier than reloading and / or wasting troops retaking it. What did p*ss me off a bit was that my rush-bought temple and library had already been raized, but that's to be expected and they didn't have any built-up culture value or anything.

Anyhow, do try to buy back cities that flip, it may be easier than you think.

[kailhun]

Yes, the fact that captured cities are more or less empty is a feature that also bugs me no end.

Hah, a pune or play on words.

Robert

[bahoo]

Originally posted by MonsterMan
I think that if the enemy uses propaganda against one of your cities, it will look to you like a culture flip.

The AI is always on the verge of bankruptcy, how could they possibly afford the ridiculous costs of espionage actions.

Originally posted by FNBrown
There's an easy solution for this.

Oh, the oh so popular SOLUTION to the problem. Do this and do that, according to the game mechanics of course, not any sense of logic or pseudo-realism! Follow the exact requirements of the CORRECT strategy, (which involves no less than committing mass genocide and enslavement of other nations), and you can still win the game!

Well I got a SOLUTION for all of you, and YOU FIRAXIS !!!!! Make a patch, and in that patch, get rid of all broken, illogical, and stupid game concepts (only one I can think of off the top of my head being this one).

How's that for a solution?