The Germans take Stalingrad, the city defects back to the Soviets

[Aeson]

Well, I can think of how it can happen one way and not another...

During the initial assault there would be a lot of confusion and panic on the part of the population. Again, quick and decisive action is the key. While the city is burning, people are fleeing in panic, looting, or just trying to stay out of the way. The invading military units are the only ones who are organized, and there isn't much resistance.

Now a turn in Civ3 when Knights are available and dominant is going to be 5-20 years. The city never reverts on the first turn, this means that the population has 10-40 years to plan and carry out a revolution. As the city is reverting, this probably denotes that the invaders culture is much less than the culture they are suppressing. All the Knights are spending their time in an environment that is better than what they came from. When the population does revolt, the Knights are more likely to go along with the revolution themselves.

The Mongols in China would be a great example of this type of situation. They were able to conquer the Chinese, but eventually became Chinese themselves. Had they just decided to "raze" their conquests, they likely could have wiped out a large portion of the Chinese people.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DrFell
I'd think of it as more like 1000, regardless, it still begs the question - how can they raze a city with such a low number, if they can't hold it? Furthermore you'd expect them to be fortified in the city.

Razing it is easy. At least when we are talking about Knights. Just toss a torch or two. Medieaval towns were notorious firetraps.

Some ancient towns as well. Troy was burned more than once.

I don't disagree with you on the idea that garrisons should be more effective. At least if the is more than a token one or two units anyway. My main problem with culture flipping as it presently exists is the loss of the units no matter how many there are. That one is just plain wrong. When Naples culture flipped most of the Germans got out.

[Arrian]

I just thought I'd chime in with my opinion - I mean no offense to anyone. Let that be clear.

I, personally, love culture in Civ III, and am fine with culture flipping. Since 1.17 has come out, I can't recall losing a single city, but have gained several (peacetime). Even under 1.16, I had very little trouble. Part of the reason, however, is that I raze the enemy's "core" cities, unless they have a wonder I want. There are two reasons, one of which I'm fine with, the other I'm not.

1) Core cities tend to have a lot of culture in them, and therefore would be the most likely candidates to flip back to their previous owners. Additionally, if I do not intend to wipe a civ out (rare), I don't want citizens of theirs in my cities that will get all pissy if and when I finish the job later on.

2) After the discovery of nationalism, and even more so after communism, I don't want most AI cities. Unless you are able to blitz a city from 3 squares away (Cavalry, Panzer or Modern Armor), the AI will have drafted and whipped so much that the city is crippled for a good, long time. It's just not worth it to keep cities that need a temple, cathedral, 8 luxuries w/marketplace to keep 4 pop points content.

I'm ok with #1 (frankly, I'm just not seeing what others are apparently seeing. And I do a fair amount of fighting), but #2 needs fixing. The AI needs tweaking so it doesn't self destruct, and you really shouldn't inherit unhappiness.

As for realism... well, both sides of the argument can dredge up historical examples that can be used to support their opinion. Whatever.

-Arrian

[faded glory]

Ethelred. Im not going to respond to your childish flames anymore. Your just not worth the time and effort, especially after the Mods had warned us.

[DrFell]

'One in twenty vs. eight out of ten is quite a difference'

You misunderstand. What I said was, one of every twenty cities I capture revolts, *because* I selectively capture, and mostly raze. If I captured every city, 80% would likely revolt back - at least from the late medieval period onwards. So you see, it all fits.

[Myrddin]

faded glory

You were the one warned about flaming

Most other posters seem to follow the request for civility, while you don't seem able to manage a civil apology

BTW why have you got a CTP signature?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Myrddin
faded glory

You were the one warned about flaming

Most other posters seem to follow the request for civility, while you don't seem able to manage a civil apology

I was flamed first. Scoll up and look. I only responded to a few halfwit insults.

BTW why have you got a CTP signature?

Cause I do

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Newbie is youbie. I have been playing computer games since the Apple ][ and cassette tapes. Played Civ since it was an English boardgame. Not even all that new here. Just decided to stop lurking. I figured I would have gotten myself banned if I was dealing with Lib. I wouldn't be able to help myself.

That's exactly what happened to me. And they made me change my name.

[Dinner]

It's to bad they don't treat city sqitching like CTP2 treated slave revolts. In CTP2 if a city had to many slaves and/or not enough stationed military units then the slaves would rise up and there would be a battle. Sometimes you won anmd some times you lost but unlike Civ3 you at least had a chance. The same sort of thing would happen when enemy civs would try to bride your city away from you; x number of people would revolt (based on unhappiness) and your military units had to fight them to put the revolt down.
It's so simple and still Firaxis doesn't get it...

[DrFell]

I always thought 'partisan' units would be best, something relevant to the era like archers, longbowmen, etc. These units could pop up next to the city and attack it. Of course undefended cities could just flip without a fight.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by faded glory
Ethelred. Im not going to respond to your childish flames anymore. Your just not worth the time and effort, especially after the Mods had warned us.

I flamed you with art, skill and a mature technique. You responded with infintile drivel not worthy of an adolescent.

You were warned. I wasn't. I can flame without using forbidden words.

Don't bring a club to a flame fight.

And contrary to your claim in another post you DID start the flaming. It was aimed at Firaxis. It need not be aimed at someone on this thread for it to be a flame.

Here is a link so you can increase your culture. The language should not beyond you limited skills.

http://www.hamncheez.com/~noeffort/tftl.htm

Its running a bit slow at the moment. However its worth it. Even if you allready have more than the minumum culture. Shakespeare is always a Wonder.

Well its loading real slow. So I would suggest shift-clicking on that link to open it in a new window. Its a 5.8 meg flash movie. I have a copy on my hard drive.

Ten minutes later and its still loading.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You were warned. I wasn't.

WRONG... EVERYBODY HAS BEING WARNED. You are NOT above the rules. If you are going to act like a jerk... you will be restricted, whether you use swear words or not!

I hope this makes our position TOTALLY CLEAR!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DrFell
'One in twenty vs. eight out of ten is quite a difference'

You misunderstand. What I said was, one of every twenty cities I capture revolts, *because* I selectively capture, and mostly raze. If I captured every city, 80% would likely revolt back - at least from the late medieval period onwards. So you see, it all fits.

I did understand what you said. I was pointing out the difference between the two versions.


I choose to use the cities. You chose to rush on to the next instead of developing them. I figure the idea is to create a civilization that stands the test of time. You are trying to create a Mongol empire that collapses if it ever slows down and leaves devastated cities in its path.

I don't have your difficulty with captured cities. What you are experiencing is the result of your own strategy and not something inherent in the game. Don't blame Firaxis for the choices you make so you can rush the AI.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming


WRONG... EVERYBODY HAS BEING WARNED. You are NOT above the rules. If you are going to act like a jerk... you will be restricted, whether you use swear words or not!

I hope this makes our position TOTALLY CLEAR!

Sorry if I misunderstood.

I don't think I was being a jerk. I do agree I was flaming. I just thought I did it in a somewhat entertaining manner.

[Willem]

Originally posted by faded glory



Ohhh.......Im sorry Moron Of course dont blame the ****in game!?

Its not the devolopers fault it is a flawed pile of ****! Its yours for reading into the phoney hype!


Well...you can go to hell.

Its obvouisly the fault of the devolopers. Oh I refuse to adapt? Thats a load of bull kiddo The fact is the whole war thing is a fuxin mess. Almost all the cities you capture are raised. And the ones that arent defect. This **** doesnt happen...it shouldnt have been like this!
-------------------------------------------------------


Ming I'll chill out. Sorry for the flames. I just had to say that!

Well as was mentioned, with the new patch it's entirely possible to avoid a cultural flip. So if you can't be bothered learning how the game works, then it's your ****ing problem, no one else's. If the game is to tough for you, then I suggest you try a hearty round of Tic Tac Toe, you can't lose in that game. And don't bother flaming me for this post, you've already amde it on my ignore list.