Temporary Occupation of Cities

[polymths]

One aspect that has always annoyed me is that when you marched into a hostile city, you take over that city indefinitely. This basically makes certain aspects of allied warfare impossible or stupid.

Say, for example, an ally joins me to fight an aggressor and I lose a city to the aggressor. Then I counterattack but fail to liberate the city. The ally can then drop a paratrooper and take over my city permanently!

What would be nice is if all cities under war might be simply "occupied" and their final status not determined until after the war ends and a some treaty negotiation takes place, similar to Europa Universalis. Of course, it is factored into the equation who occupies the city, who is the original owner, etc.

In any case, I hope there is some fix around the pheonomenon of allies liberating an allied nation's when it is really taking it over! I mean, in WWII, when US troops entered Paris, did US suddenly end up owning Paris???

[tniem]

Definitely one of the diplomatic options that needs to be addressed. I do believe that this was on the list (correct me if I'm wrong). And would have to guess that any allied nation during war would give you back all cities.

Also, an option for peace would be to return all cities with other conditions. At least that is how I see the new diplomatic options.

[Zanzin]

I agree, it's something that should definately be covered in the computers thinking.

[Nemo]

i thought i saw something about cities refusing to work, or revolting to rejoin original civ after being captured. was that a post i read, or something i read on a preview site? i don't know any more, all of it is getting mixed. anyway i saw something about this somewhere

[Grumbold]

The problem is the timescale. You may counterattack in a turn or two but that is 2-40 years later. It sounds like Civ III will be allowing for increased revolt chances which is probably about as much as we can expect.