Firaxis please...

[Capt Dizle]

Ogie,

I started this thread because Solver told me that several Firaxians were on the board looking through threads. I thought I would take the polite approach for once.

As far as being on the ignore list, several Firaxians have admitted that they see my posts. I feel good about the chances of seeing something done about this particular problem.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by reds4ever
its a game mechanic, it's not supposed to historically accurate,(like bishops only moving diagonally in chess) it's there to stop players sending out settlers out indiscriminatly without building any sort of infrastructure in their Civs

Actually, no. It is in to give builders a way to grow without violence. It is in to hamper the warmonger.

What it actually does is encourage warfare. Want to prevent a city from flippin to your neighbor the Indians? No problem, just raze their nearest cities. Or all of them.

Still, I could live with it minus the poofing troops.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Ogie,

I started this thread because Solver told me that several Firaxians were on the board looking through threads. I thought I would take the polite approach for once.

As far as being on the ignore list, several Firaxians have admitted that they see my posts. I feel good about the chances of seeing something done about this particular problem.

JT,

You Go Boy. Fight the good fight

Seriously I hope they're listening to you and to the host of other threads discussing this issue. Especially the very good thread discussing how to solve the flipping issue.

[Harovan]

I support jimmytricks position. The vanishing of units should be eliminated, they should be withdrawn either to the capital, or out of the borders, similar to the "Remove your troups or declare WAR" feature. Also, the city should not get a defender automatically.

[MiloMilo]

jt's post history aside, this is not trolling, and Firaxis would be doing themselve a disservice if they ignore the ideas presented in this thread.Many people agree that the culture flipping model implemented in the game is not perfect. I myself have 3 points to make:

1) It's not that bad. I enjoy the game very much as it is now, and if culture flipping does not change due to difficulty in reprogramming, I will not be upset. However,

2) It is worth looking into changing it. I hope that Firaxis does spend a little bit of time examining the feasibility and playability of modifying the current set-up. If they do, I suggest the following changes:

3) Make city size a factor - the chance to flip should be inversely proportional to the size of a city. A small border town will change allegiance more easily than a booming megalopolis. Also, give some warning about teetering cities, even if it's only one turn. Give us a chance to rush that courthouse or increase the garrison, etc. And finally, the military units should not disappear. Half should be instantly transported to the unfortunate nation's capital, and half should stay in the city garrison, under the control of the new civ. Some soldiers should switch allegiance just like the civilian population. Plus, with half of your own garrison in the city, rather than the one magically appearing regular defensive unit, it should be fairly difficult to immediately re-take the city.

I hope Firaxis, if they do read this, realizes that these are constuctive suggestions from people who greatly enjoy this product.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

One of the Firasix guys posted the flipping calculation after 1.21 came out. Flipping should be extremely rare for large cities. I'd like for cities not to be able to flip for the first 3 or 4 turns. Also, I'd like to see flipping result in combat similar to ctp2 where the revolting citizens turn into some military units and stage a rebellion. If they defeat the garrison the city flips, if not, no flip.

[Alex]

Then it seems that jimmy is not trolling. You never know...

But yes, I support his fight. Vanishing troops should disappear. I mean, disappearing troops should vanish. I mean, in the game. Whatever.

[centrifuge]

The fact that troops vanish after a culture flip, does not bother me at all. It's annoying to lose the troops, but I think that it adds to the game. Why is it unrealistic for the citizens of a town to hold an uprising against enemy soldiers who have just taken them prisoner?

[Fitz]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
One of the Firasix guys posted the flipping calculation after 1.21 came out. Flipping should be extremely rare for large cities. I'd like for cities not to be able to flip for the first 3 or 4 turns. Also, I'd like to see flipping result in combat similar to ctp2 where the revolting citizens turn into some military units and stage a rebellion. If they defeat the garrison the city flips, if not, no flip.

Sentance two and three here confuse me. Flipping should possibly be fairly rare for "your" large cities, but a larger captured city should flip immediately, not more slowly. After all, more citiezens to overthrow your troops.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by centrifuge
The fact that troops vanish after a culture flip, does not bother me at all. It's annoying to lose the troops, but I think that it adds to the game. Why is it unrealistic for the citizens of a town to hold an uprising against enemy soldiers who have just taken them prisoner?

I would rather see a solution of really hurting the troops in a city that flips. Kick them out of the 21 tile city bondaries and reduce military units to 1HP. This actually might make the cost of a flipped city more apparent and with only 1 HP they would have to run for cover or AI will eliminate them the next turn.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
One of the Firasix guys posted the flipping calculation after 1.21 came out. Flipping should be extremely rare for large cities. I'd like for cities not to be able to flip for the first 3 or 4 turns. Also, I'd like to see flipping result in combat similar to ctp2 where the revolting citizens turn into some military units and stage a rebellion. If they defeat the garrison the city flips, if not, no flip.

AW64, I couldn't agree with you more! This is by FAR the most realistic and logical approach that can be taken. Your troops fight the rebels and if you lose then you lose control of the city.

As an added bonus this would solve another little problem. The game gives the same antiflip bonus to the city to every unit; thus it doesn't matter wither you have a warrior or mech. inf.. It only matters that there is X number of units in the city. If the garrison had to defend themselves against rebels then Mech. Inf. would have a much greater chance of winning then a comparable number of warriors. This makes sense.

[Panag]

Re: Firaxis please...

Originally posted by jimmytrick
eliminate the poofing units when a city flips...just move them out of the cities territory. Please?

hi ,

an option in the editor could take care of this , ....

have a nice day

[Zachriel]

Re: Firaxis please...

Originally posted by jimmytrick
eliminate the poofing units when a city flips...just move them out of the cities territory. Please?

That option is already available. Just post your troops outside the city limits. Station a minimum garrison in the city, and keep attack units nearby to recapture any cities that succumb to a "whiskey rebellion." Usually, a small stack of attackers can keep watch on several cities.



I'm not against change, though. If anything, I'd like to see them bring back partisans.

[vondrack]

idea: more complex city flipping mechanics

Originally posted by planetfall
I would rather see a solution of really hurting the troops in a city that flips. Kick them out of the 21 tile city bondaries and reduce military units to 1HP. This actually might make the cost of a flipped city more apparent and with only 1 HP they would have to run for cover or AI will eliminate them the next turn.

I, too, raise my voice to support an adjustment in this aspect of the flipping. While it always works for me in my games, I do realize that poofing troops are not okay, as one can hardly imagine ANYTHING reasonable that could explain what happened to them.

An idea crossed my mind... what about this? I know it is rather an idea for the Civ4 than for a Civ3 patch, but what do you think?

Domestic Advisor: "Mr. President, the citizens of Warwick have decided they no longer wish to stay with us. They demand we remove our troops from the city and let them choose their own destiny. What shall we do?

a) LET THEM GO...
relocates ALL the troops to your capital, leaves the city undefended, but part of the new empire

b) USE FORCE TO QUELL THE REBELLION...
Launches a combat that would go much like the regular combat, with half (two thirds, whatever... the rest would represent small children, women, your sympatizants etc. - and would make up for the city population after a quelled rebellion) of the citizens becoming the basic defensive unit of the era, but fighting as a single "army" against individual garrison troops. The troops might have an HP or two taken out prior to entering the combat to simulate the effect of sabotages and desertions...

Both the garrison troops and the citizen army would have their mobility increased by a fixed amount (say, one half of the "normal" chance that a regular mobile unit retreats successfully) - effectively making all of them capable of retreat. Citizens may decide to give up the rebellion (i.e. "retreat") seeing they are not likely to win over the troops... saving at least (some of) their lives. The garrison units would sometimes be able to flee the city, even if hammered down to 1 HP (as retreat is possible only when a unit is down to 1 HP) - unlikely to retake the city on the next turn.

In the end:
a) all the armed citizens get killed or the citizen army "retreats" - you retain the control of the city, possibly with some of your units damaged/killed, but you face great unhappiness (even resistance?) and there is a decrease in population (some armed citizens got killed fighting your garrison).
b) all your troops get killed or retreat - you lose the control of the city, but you may save some of your garrison troops, even though hammered down to 1 HP, located just outside the city (thus difficult to withdraw to safety in the next turn...). Population decrease possible, as some citizens might have lost their lives kicking your troops out of the city. One basic defender unit remains stationed in a city and swears loyalty to the new empire.

In both cases, some city improvements might be destroyed as a result of the fight (using a dice roll for every improvement capable of being destroyed in such a fight, with specific buildings - like barracks, police station, courthouse - having a greater probability of being destroyed, as they are natural primary targets for rebelling population).

c) IGNORE THEIR REQUEST...
Not sure about his, but it may allow the city representatives to initiate the fight on their own (without offering you to withdraw the garrison troops), it may cause your garrison troops randomly lose some HPs as a result of sabotages... I am open for ideas on this one...


This might address various (if not all) complaints seen on the forums:

1) You would be warned that a city wants to break apart from your empire.
2) You would have a chance of giving a city up with no troop losses/damage at all (but having them relocated to your capital, thus probably not capable of immediate reconquest).
3) You would be able to fight for the city - a strong garrison (strong, not numerous!) would mean better chances of quelling the rebellion.
4) Large cities would be more likely to forcefully overthrow your rule, which would be logical - the less citizens may revolt, the lower the chance they would succeed in defeating your garrison troops (while this would not lower the possibility of a small city _demanding_ to join a rival of yours... just it would lower its chances to do it without your consent).

To effectively implement this idea and prevent humans from exploiting it, the unhappiness factor would perhaps have to be brought in... you do not let your own city go? All your other cities suffer unhappiness (maybe proportional to their culture... the less culture, the more understanding for the rebels, the bigger unhappiness - he does not let _them_ go, what if _we_ want to go?). You do not let a previously enemy city go (or, a city with citizens mostly of other nations)? Your nation feels its fine (or feels only a bit uneasy about it, depending on the government type), but the nations concerned would decrease your reputation rating with them (you treat our people in your country bad!).

Just an idea anyway...

Comments?

[Zachriel]

Re: idea: more complex city flipping mechanics

Originally posted by vondrack
Massive snipping zone ahead . . .
I do realize that poofing troops are not okay, as one can hardly imagine ANYTHING reasonable that could explain what happened to them. . . .
b) all your troops get killed . . .

Comments?

Isn't "hardly imagine ANYTHING" equivalent to your option "b) all your troops get killed," but without the intermediate steps?