No announcement yet.

What is enough to prevent city defections?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What is enough to prevent city defections?

    The subject line should say it all. I'm starting to get greatly annoyed by the defections. I'd like to hear about what you, through experience, think is a large enough amount of military units in different situations to prevent defections. One unit per population? Two? Does the ADM or health of the units matter?

    Do you think there's a unit amount that will guarantee the city not to defect?

    I think it's not good that Firaxis has not disclosed the formula for defections or corruption. Strategy gaming should not IMHO contain intuitive elements in this sense. The probability of any event should be calculable, after which it's up to the player to choose to take the risk or not, like for example in the case of combat. Otherwise performance becomes less dependant on skill and more dependant on luck.

  • #2
    It's defininitely NOT culture, despite what the military advisor says when it happens. I had a Zulu city defect to me, pre-1AD. In 1550, it went back. Over half the citizenry was mine by then, th place was producing 21 culture per turn on its own, and my overall culture is at least twice theirs. I had five units (one was artillery) in the city, with population of 12. Some clue as to what causes this either way would be useful. Incidentally the Zulu did not have Espionage, so the city was not subverted.
    No matter where you go, there you are. - Buckaroo Banzai
    "I played it [Civilization] for three months and then realised I hadn't done any work. In the end, I had to delete all the saved files and smash the CD." Iain Banks, author


    • #3
      If you don't want a city to switch sides on you... build a Wonder in it...

      I've never had a City switch sides that has a wonder built in it.
      Stop . Learn . Adjust . Strke


      • #4
        On the topis of defecting cities, i have a idea but need some backup info. Yes i have looked in the manual but didnt find anything. When a unit is created that reduces the cities population in a mixed civ city, does it remove a citizen that claims the old civ as nationality or your civ. If it removes a citizen claiming the old civ nationality first, wouldn't creating/ drafting some units to reduce city size help? Thus making the percentage of citizens in that city that claim your civ's nationality much greater. Which i believe would decrease the chance of it reverting back to your enemy after u capture it.

        Just starting to play Civ3 but have been reading the boards for a while. Anyone know if this idea would work?


        • #5
          Originally posted by napalm010
          If it removes a citizen claiming the old civ nationality first, wouldn't creating/ drafting some units to reduce city size help? Thus making the percentage of citizens in that city that claim your civ's nationality much greater. Which i believe would decrease the chance of it reverting back to your enemy after u capture it.

          Just starting to play Civ3 but have been reading the boards for a while. Anyone know if this idea would work?
          That's intrepid thinking there! I think it's kind of a system exploitation - I'd just as soon they fix the defection model a bit. But until they do, it not only fixes it but produces units you can use against the AI! I will try this soon as I am beginning a conquest of the Aztec continent and give it a shot...



          • #6
            Things that help prevent defections. (partly memory from a Soren Johnson chat, partly experience from losing lots of cities).

            This does not cover resisting cities, which are I think a thousand times more difficult to hold on too.

            Anyway, here's a list, +'s help, -'s hurt.

            + culture of your city
            + culture of your nearby cities
            - culture of their nearby cities
            + your total culture
            - their total culture
            + progressive government (I think, maybe just for resistors)
            + road link to rest of your civ (don't know if they have to be roads on your territory or
            + garrisoned units (just a small help, though).
            + courthouse
            + WLTKD
            - disorder

            I also think there's a certain random probability chance per turn in certain cases, either that or a weird hidden cumulative effect.

            In my current game I've built three very isolated distant cities. They kept getting absorbed by the adjacent civs. But I'm a weenie, and will reload older saves to see if I can save them. Well, I've been able to hold onto them by rush-building all the cultural improvements I can as fast as possible. (size 5 city with university, go figure). Even then, one city was lost, but I found it was retained with a WLTKD.

            Finally, in the war I was conducting just the other night, I capture the Aztec capital. had a 20-ish population, most resisting. I garrisoned with 8 or so tanks. Went into disorder. Then, two turns later, is was culturally absorbed... BY THE IROQUOIS!



            • #7
              Dont forget if in a Republic or Democracy, military units have no positive effect on unhappy people when garrisoned in city. The rules for both goverments say that no units can be used as military police.


              • #8
                I have been fortunate enough to only have one city defect in my entire time playing. It was a small outpost in the middle of a superior civilization, and I knew it would defect eventually. Other than that, its never happened. I always thought it was because I was culturally superior. From what has been said here, it doesn't sound like that is completely true. Of course, I've never had far-flung civilizations spanning the whole globe, though I have had island outposts which have NEVER been absorbed.
                Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

                I truly believe that America is the world's second chance. I only hope we get a third...


                • #9
                  i've never lost one of my own cities to defection, i usually lose the enemy cities that i capture, so here's my solution: if you plan to take some enemy city, make a settler and some extra workers. as soon as you capture the city, raze it. then take your settler and build one of YOUR cities right on that spot and put those extra workers that you built in the city too, to increase the population quickly.

                  after you raze an enemy city, take those workers that are created by the razing and send them to your other cities and add them to those cities. foreign workers don't like working for you, so you just relocate them. that's how i handle the ai cities most of the time. i only keep cities that have wonders in them, unless that wonder is worthless at that stage in time, since foreign wonders that you capture NEVER produce culture...



                  • #10
                    I've never had an original city defect, either. But then again, I always build cultural stuff to keep 'em happy.

                    I have had captured cities defect. Sometimes the message hints that it had to do with culture, sometimes it's just a straight tossing out of the governor. Either way, there seems to be a positive correlation between the number of unhappy citizens of the prior owner and the probability of defection. The more unhappy citizens, the more likely the defection.

                    Also, Wonders aren't the answer. I've had cities with wonders in them defect several times. It seems the only things that work are reducing the population, building "happy face" generators, and increasing the luxury rate.


                    • #11
                      The AI places their cities badly anyway. To my great pleasure, in Civ3, I am now encouraged to raze them, whereas it was an under-the-table kind of thing in Civ2.


                      • #12
                        I've had an original city defect. It was the stupidest thing you can imagine, here's what happened:

                        i founded this city called Tarsus around 1500BC, the city defected to the Aztecs around 1900AD. At the time, the city was a size 25 city, producing a lotta culture each turn, it had all the improvements possible, plus a couple small wonders, it had above average culture. The closest Aztec city was about 35-40 tiles away! And at the time, the aztecs were getting conquered like mad by the americans and the english, they were down to like 5 cities. There is ABSOLUTELY no reason why my city should have defected, im pretty sure this is a bug in the game, there's no reason why that city would defect.


                        • #13
                          Cities you have captured have a greater chance of defecting if they are closer to their original capital. What I do to keep them from defecting is bombard the crap out of the city until it is down to at least population 3, preferably 1 or 2. Once you take it, garrison an equal number of troops per resistor (I usually don't do more just in case they revolt). Then rush build a temple or something if possible. The sooner you can get it connceted to your capital by roads or harbors the better because the people will be happier because they benefit from your luxuries then. Also, if you take a big population city and you are still attacking their original civ, they will be mad about this, don't be afraid to starve them if you have to by making them all entertainers. If you can bombard then enough to get their population down, you should be able to hold onto the city, I haven't had one revert yet since I started.

                          Jacob's Law "To err is human: to blame it on someone else is even more human."


                          • #14
                            I have found that the proximity of your capitol (or Forbidden City) in relation to the proximity of the opposing capitol plays a huge part in determining if a city will defect. In fact if I am planning to expand in a particular direction I will start building the Forbidden City or palace in a city very near the border I am expanding into (ahead of time). This way I will have a much better chance of retaining cities once they are captured. Often the palace/forbidden city build is lagging behind my offensive actions (can anyone say "impatient") In these cases I do exactly what quinalla stated previously (Garrison Troops=Population, rush-build next culture building as soon as resistance as ended, and get a road in there fast for luxuries, and finally prevent the city from going in to civil disorder at all costs! starvation...who cares?!)

                            The approach mentioned above works well when you are planning the attack/offensive. Of course the AI will sometimes decide which way you will be expanding for you (when the attack you first). If you want to retain a city that you are taking in a counter attack, but have not even started the Palace/Forbidden City in a spot that will allow you to retain the city long term. You do have an option...Force the AI to move it's capitol to a better spot (for you). It seems that the when you destroy the AI's capitol it will move it to the city with the next highest population. With some careful planning this can allow you to "move" their capitol to a position much farther away from the city(s) you would like to retain (sometimes even off the continent!). This tactic can be time/turn consuming, (you may have to raze one or two cities first in order for the capitol to move to the location you want). But if executed properly you can safely gain 3-4 cities without having any defect back to the original owners.

                            If anyone has had luck with other strategies, please let me know!


                            • #15
                              I'm having a brain lockup right now. Please enlighten me on the meaning of WLTKD, I can't seem to think what it means. Thanks.
                              It does not belong to man who is walking to direct his own step.
                              Jer. 10:23