Is culture really a nuisance in losing your conquered cities?

YefeiPi · November 6, 2001, 18:38

I saw this as a major complaint made by some people who believe that culture is an overdone feature in Civ3, which adds very little to the game and most times turn the cities you conquered against you.

I understand your pain and frustration, however, the game I'm currently playing actually allowed me to culturally engulf four foreign civ cities which were built by the A.I inside my territory. I hated these cities so much in the beginning, then all of a sudden, during one game turn, a screen popped up and informed me that a size 4 population German city have overthrown their government and wanted to join my civ! Then it happened to three more foreign cities at later times, I didn't even need to conquer these cities militaristically and they all just came to me!

I built all my own cities relatively close to each other and made sure that there were at least two culture generating city improvements inside EACH one. I also built 9 wonders (10 in total so far in my game). When I went on to conquer cities of other civs, the resistant population were easily crushed by my army and I've took over 15 German cities so far and not a single rebelled against me.

I think when your freshly conquered cities turns against you, it's maybe because the city is deep inside the enemy's territory, who is far away from yours.

Blunderdog · November 6, 2001, 18:54

At the moment, losing and gaining cities with culture is more of a mystery to me than a nuisance.

Playing on Regent as the Greeks, I assimilated an Egyptian city just to my north. Several turns later, the city hopped back to the Egyptian side (after I had built a courthouse to ease corruption). Many, many turns later, the city revolted back to my side.

Here's where I start to get confused. It's now a size-1 city, and that worker is unhappy. Why is he unhappy? Didn't the city want to be on my side? No amount of luxuries seem to appease the beast. Artificially expanding the population with workers didn't seem to work (although I can't recall at the moment whether they were listed as Greek or Egyptian citizens). Garrisoning troops won't work; we're democratic. And now another problem ... the Romans have eradicated the Egyptians! Yet I still have this unhappy Egyptian worker. Could that be causing unhappiness?

Now that I think about it, I guess I could just click on him and he'll tell me what's wrong. But I'm at work.

And what about the troops in a defecting city? Do they just go poof? France took over a German enclave in my territory and it was assimilated a few turns later. I know that France had several galleons and swordsmen in that city when it defected, yet when I get it there is just one infantryman (!) in there.

tmarcl · November 6, 2001, 19:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Blunderdog

And what about the troops in a defecting city? Do they just go poof? France took over a German enclave in my territory and it was assimilated a few turns later. I know that France had several galleons and swordsmen in that city when it defected, yet when I get it there is just one infantryman (!) in there.

Since units are no longer supported by cities, the units are still under the control of the French. I seem to recall someone saying that the units get recalled to the country's capital.

Marc

Pyrodrew · November 6, 2001, 19:34

Quote:

[SIZE=1] At the moment, losing and gaining cities with culture is more of a mystery to me than a nuisance.

Quote:

I think when your freshly conquered cities turns against you, it's maybe because the city is deep inside the enemy's territory, who is far away from yours.

I thought the was the case until the following happened, I was on my continent & the Aztec AI had their continent (Regent HugeMap). I built 4 cities in this order: CityA, then City B, then City C, then City D. I built 2 cities (City A & City C) deep inside the enemies territory (the AI was doing it so I wanted to do it to see if there was any advantage) & 2 cities (City B & City D) on the edge of his continent between my border & his border (my capital being MUCH closer). Our Culture Power was near equal. I built a courthouse in City A, a temple & a courthouse in City B, City C was between the Aztec Border & the Iroquois border with a temple, & City D had only a temple. The City I lost to the Aztec's Culture was City B (courthouse, temple, on my border)!

And it made the Aztec border appear somewhat warped. The city I never expected to be assimilated (or atleast 1st) was! So culture expansion is still a mystery to me.

Edited to add: I am not complaining about culture (combined with excessive corruption & no firepower it makes pacifist play style HIGHLY favored tho). Overall, I like the culture element. I'm just a little puzzled by it.

Howling Chip · November 6, 2001, 19:47

All games I have played have been at Regent level.

I like the culture affects upon gameplay and strategy. Culture as an attribute introduces new considerations for what to build, new options on how to deal with problems (like those cities surrounded on all four sides by your borders), new strategies where instead of war culture gets you that city you want.

When culture works against me, it has not ruined the game for me. Like so many attributes of CIV III that posts say need fixed, a lot of stuff in CIV III is not necessarily broke. It requires game play and understanding of relationships to cope with problems, or use them as an effective strategy.

(I am not making a claim that all things with CIV III are wonderful.)

incie · November 6, 2001, 19:55

I agree, culture doesn't "ruin the game". But having a city rebel when it's been under my control for hundreds of years and is now in the MIDDLE of my empire, nowhere near enemy borders, is just plain stupid. And it's a good way to invite the death of thousands, because my rule is a city that rebels once doesn't get recaptured, it gets razed.

edit: clarified a bit cuz I'm a moron

Blunderdog · November 7, 2001, 00:15

Oh, I like culture as well. I just don't understand it.

That city that went Egyptian-Greek-Egyptian-Greek went to my culture supposedly because the citizens overthrew their Egyptian oppressors.

There is one citizen in this furshlugginer city. He is unhappy, he is Egyptian (even though there is no longer an Egyptian state). Why is he angry? 100% "We cannot forget the cruel oppression you have bore down upon us." This makes absolutely no sense.

Unleash the bulldozers!

TheDarkside · November 7, 2001, 00:23

I just dont like how when I conquer an enemy city I have to rush build temples and libraries not only to prevent it from being assimiliated into 3rd party countries who had no part in this war, but also to get some borders back! Some times a capture a 15+ size city and since its got no culture when i capture it its previous borders are gona and now its gotta starve like half the population to death before i can rush build these culture buildings

AND lemme tell you, rush building is NOT cheap!

GenTomGun · November 7, 2001, 00:43

I ran across a very important statement in the manual....about war and its effects on culture.....
you can find it on page 114 at the top

And i quote ..... "During wartime footing, cultural improvements produce half the number normally produced per turn."

This is the answear to why you capture a city and the next turn or two you lose it again from a "cultural attack".

yin26 · November 7, 2001, 00:57

Yes, I remember reading that. But it doesn't make clear if that's an offensive or defensive war. That distinction IS made for war weariness, however.

smellymummy · November 7, 2001, 02:15

Maybe these new citizens of your civ, now stateless (because the egyptians/whomever where crushed) are still mad at you, because before the end of their motherland, you where still at war?

One game for example I had conquered the romans, but not all, as I left the cities in the ocean unharmed. Maybe thirty turns later, I attack them again.... The very-happy-newly-conquered roman cities started revolting while the rest of my civ was having a we love leader day.

These new cities continued to be a problem, until the roman citizens started to be assimilated. I had plenty of happy face impr/luxuries/etc though to help.

smellymummy · November 7, 2001, 02:19

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Yes, I remember reading that. But it doesn't make clear if that's an offensive or defensive war. That distinction IS made for war weariness, however.

I believe it's referring to the state of mobilization... It would make sense, since I'm looking at one game now where mobilization is wartime, and my capital is reporting only 23 culture points per turn - yet there is tons of wonders and improvements (they add up > 23)

Hamster_O_Death · November 7, 2001, 02:47

It's also important to keep in mind that cities with a small garrison will have an easier time switching allegiance due to culture.

I was having a horrible time conquering an opponent with strong culture, until I started having a few weak or damaged units occupy captured cities until I could push back the enemy culture.

Just keep your garrison up in conquered territory. It makes sense, when you think about it realistically.

Blunderdog · November 7, 2001, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by smellymummy
Maybe these new citizens of your civ, now stateless (because the egyptians/whomever where crushed) are still mad at you, because before the end of their motherland, you where still at war?

I was never at war with the Egyptians. We just outcultured each other a few times. Later on, the disgruntled Egyptian worker became a ... disgruntled Greek worker. And he still spouted the "we can never forget your blah blah blah" line. I finally just rush-built a settler, abandoned the city and rebuilt on the same site. Stupid and annoying.

FuFu15 · November 7, 2001, 21:48

yea. especially when it takes FOREVER to autoload back a couple turns with the sheer amount of units on the screen. (forever as in u have to re-move 985796798 units)

my solution: i just conquered beijing, pop of 28. i razed it. was on a different continent and i was going to sue for peace after i took it. saves a lot of headaches. besides seeing how it was on a different continent i prolly woulda got like 2 shields outta it...

Peterk · November 8, 2001, 00:55

Part of the reason this aspect of the game is getting a bad rep is because of the shock-value when it happens the first. People get all happy when they take an enemy city and then when the computer takes it back they feel that it's a cheat of some sort.

It used to bug me a little too since no amount of troop presence seems to stop the revolt from happening either - a size 3 city has gone back to it's previous owner with about a dozen of my military units inside it. Very scary stuff.

Finally got a handle on it by using the following tactic - you have to garisson heavily to quell resisters every turn but also try sending some workers in to dilute the native population with some of your own people. Keep diluting in this way until you can keep in under control and at least get some production out of the new city.

Pyrodrew · November 8, 2001, 02:33

Quote:

I was having a horrible time conquering an opponent with strong culture, until I started having a few weak or damaged units occupy captured cities

Someone mentioned in another thread that they had 8 units in a size 2 city... and after a few turns lost them ALL from culture. He really needed that city for the oil too. His analogy was the US sending troops to Saudia Arabia for oil & the troops deciding to blend into the Arab culture because of the cute harem girls.

Stationing troops does work to stop rebellions tho... just not stop culture from absorbing the city. I agree tho you shouldn't lose your troops when a city decides to switch back to another culture.