Cities defect too easily

[Hurry]

I am playing as the French, and started a war against the Germans (you heard me right, it´s time to show who is who). I´m having hordes of tanks, and have little trouble taking his cities, but the problem is that the cities revolt and defect back to the Germans unless I have enourmous amounts of units in the captured cities.

For example, his city of Heidelburg (size 17) defected even though i had 20 units in it, excluding some artillery, bombers and fighters. This is just silly. Did Germany occupy Paris with half their army in WW2? It´s not just stupid, it also begs for frequent reloads, since the occupying units are destroyed if the city defects. I lose one single tank when I fight against his well dug-in defending divisions in the city, but lose 20 when the citizens revolt. Realistic??? Good for game balance???

I finally managed to keep the city when I put about 40 units in the city.

I sure hope Firaxis could decrease the number of units needed to garrison a city in the patch. It is almost impossible to fight a expansionistic war later in the game the way the rules are now.

And last a question. Has anybody figured out how many units are required to have a 100% chance of the city NOT defecting? My very unsure guess is something like 1 combat unit (i.e. not artillery, air units or workers) per citizen OR 2 units per resisting citizen, whichever is higher.

[Sabre2th]

Strange, I've never had a city revolt on me like that. How much production do you put into your culture?

[campmajor!]

Isn't it so that your cities only defect when your culture is weak? So instead of putting a lot of units in it, you should merely start building a temple!

[m_m_x]

i agree! firaxis should fix that in the patch.
what i do now, is have a settler (almost) in every battle,so i just raise the conquered city, and build my own instead.

[Rasputin]

Build Culture !!!!! This isnt a war game its a Civ game !!!!

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Rasputin
Build Culture !!!!! This isnt a war game its a Civ game !!!!

Exactly.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by Rasputin
Build Culture !!!!! This isnt a war game its a Civ game !!!!

Yes, but first the city must get out of resistance, then corruption levels make it impossible to build anything, so you have to rush it, which is pretty expensive if you capture a lot of cities. That doesn't always help either, maybe you need to rush temple + library in every city. I agree that the conquering strategy should be more difficult.. but 17 citizens fighting 20 units killing them all without any losses? It has happened to me, too, and it's silly. Did Paris revolt and throw out the germans in WW2? Their culture must have been superior to the German? Did ANY city do this? Has ANY city EVER revolted against a LARGE number of military units IRL?
I'm currently kicking Alexander's ass. Sure, his culture is somewhat superior to mine.. but it's their loss, really. You'd think that when they see me raze 4 cities in a row because of defection, the fifth one would think twice before they tried anything... but no.. they prefer to have their entire city wiped out. I did NOT enjoy destroying Athens, but the Greeks needed a lesson.
Besides, the AI players do this too. Before I declared war on the Greeks, they had conquered and razed most of Egypt. Now, almost an entire continent is wasteland...


Fred

[Akka]

I think that it's about 2 units for 1 citizen to be SURE that the city will not revolt. Of course, the bigger your culture, the less units are needed. I usually need only 1-3 units to keep a city. Not having any civil disorder also help a lot (or to be more exact, allowing civil disorder help a big size making the city revolt).

I do agree that it should require AT MAX 1 unit for 2 citizens to keep a city in check. And that in case of revolt, your units should not vanish, but be merely damaged and expelled from the city. It neither make sense that a city can overthrow 10 military division nor that it is balanced that you could lose your whole army just because it was located in a city you just conquered.

[Robert Plomp]

1. conquer the city
2. put 3 military units in it (more won't help)
3. take all their food

Let them starve intill they give up their resistance,
make sure the city won't be in disorder after that.
Build cultural improvements quickly and keep them happy.

I've conquered entire civilizations this way.

[Vercingettyrex]

Not sure but if this works but bumping up the luxury rate seems to help. Plus having lots of troops to quell those treacherous dissenters.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Rasputin
Build Culture !!!!! This isnt a war game its a Civ game !!!!

Exactly, the history of the world isn't replete with stories of conquest, it's a story of temple building...jeez, give us a break. Civilization has ALWAYS been a war game. Why? Because conflict is an integral part of history, and THAT is what Civ has always been - a rewrite of history with you at the controls.

Civ3 is the first game with "culture", and you want to say Civ isn't a war game? Come on...

Venger

[francoImpaler]

I can usually quell resistance in 2-3 turns with a couple of units. I have not played on diety so that could be a factor I guess. Otherwise it must be culture.

[Venger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
1. conquer the city
2. put 3 military units in it (more won't help)
3. take all their food

Let them starve intill they give up their resistance,
make sure the city won't be in disorder after that.
Build cultural improvements quickly and keep them happy.

I've conquered entire civilizations this way.

Unfortunately, CyberShy is right on the money. As sick as it is, the best strategy is to STARVE YOUR CAPTURED CITY TO DEATH. You do not need to worry about reversion, it will keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller. In fact, as it shrinks, if a worker turns up who can work without being unhappy, you can use them on ahigh shield square to get some production as you starve millions of people to death, like a Somali Warlord or Taliban leader.

Frankly, I find it offensive that this is the only way to deal with captured cities. Thanks Firaxis, I'm Joseph Mengele now...

Venger

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Hurry
I am playing as the French, and started a war against the Germans (you heard me right, it´s time to show who is who). I´m having hordes of tanks, and have little trouble taking his cities, but the problem is that the cities revolt and defect back to the Germans unless I have enourmous amounts of units in the captured cities.

For example, his city of Heidelburg (size 17) defected even though i had 20 units in it, excluding some artillery, bombers and fighters. This is just silly. Did Germany occupy Paris with half their army in WW2? It´s not just stupid, it also begs for frequent reloads, since the occupying units are destroyed if the city defects. I lose one single tank when I fight against his well dug-in defending divisions in the city, but lose 20 when the citizens revolt. Realistic??? Good for game balance???

I finally managed to keep the city when I put about 40 units in the city.

I sure hope Firaxis could decrease the number of units needed to garrison a city in the patch. It is almost impossible to fight a expansionistic war later in the game the way the rules are now.

And last a question. Has anybody figured out how many units are required to have a 100% chance of the city NOT defecting? My very unsure guess is something like 1 combat unit (i.e. not artillery, air units or workers) per citizen OR 2 units per resisting citizen, whichever is higher.

I agree, something has to be done about city defections. There are 3 problems:

1. It happens too easily.

2. There is no way to tell if its gonna happen. I am not saying that there should be a sign that says "xxx city will defect in y turns, do something now". There should be some sort of rough indication, say, the culture advisor should tell you "the people in xxx city may leave us because our culture sucks" or something like that.

3. All military units are lost when the city defects. That's just a bad design decision. Its ok if, say, 10% of the units are lost. But the bulk should be removed to another city. Or better yet, a defecting city should generate a number of infantry type units to fight the garrison.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
1. It happens too easily.

Yep.

2. There is no way to tell if its gonna happen.

The biggest problem. I'd rather forget reversion and have the city spawn a "partisan" unit from Civ2 two hexes away.

"the people in xxx city may leave us because our culture sucks" or something like that.

I'd settle for the city being in disorder or something, as it is now, cities just leave out of the blue for no damn reason. I am convinced culture is just a politically correct add on that derides from gamplay...

3. All military units are lost when the city defects. That's just a bad design decision. Its ok if, say, 10% of the units are lost. But the bulk should be removed to another city. Or better yet, a defecting city should generate a number of infantry type units to fight the garrison.

Similar to my partisan. I think that's a more suitable system than the "your 7 armies that conquered Thebes vansihed in the rapture when Thebes defected back to the Greeks".

Venger

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Venger


Exactly, the history of the world isn't replete with stories of conquest, it's a story of temple building...jeez, give us a break. Civilization has ALWAYS been a war game. Why? Because conflict is an integral part of history, and THAT is what Civ has always been - a rewrite of history with you at the controls.

Civ3 is the first game with "culture", and you want to say Civ isn't a war game? Come on...

Venger

You may have played civ as a war game , but that doesnt make it one... the reason they put culture into game and city revolts is to make it harder to just go storming the world without actually putting any effort into city improvments. If you arnet meant to build temples then why include them...??

Yes war is part of civ, you wouldnt need so many damn military units otherwise and would just stick to playing simcity But war is not the do all and end all of civ, it is first and foremost about building citys !!! If war was al lthe world needed then i ma sure tribes in africa would rule the world as they havent developed anywhere near as much as some european nations, but it is the european influence that now rules the world (america was born from europe too) So culture plays a large part in real world, maybe not like the way it is implemented in civ 3 but then agai nciv 3 is a game not real life civ 3 just has facets that try to represent things from the real world, they put artificial rules in palce to try and force you to build city improvements.

So again to take a real life example .. America truly rules the world we live in, we are al lbeing slowly americanized (for good or bad depending on your point of view) did america get there by crushing her enemies in war?? No !!! Culture wins out, people are striving to get what Americans have!!

[Garth Vader]

Culture seems to mean jack. I had the highest culture in the game and cities would revert the first turn after I quelled the resistors. The more units I move in the citied the more units I lose.

I somehow held on to Berlin and in the next war with the Germans 400 years later it reverted again even though it had ~800 culture of mine and was half Russian. By then I had twice the culture of the Germans.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Rasputin


You may have played civ as a war game , but that doesnt make it one... the reason they put culture into game and city revolts is to make it harder to just go storming the world without actually putting any effort into city improvments. If you arnet meant to build temples then why include them...??

I've always built temples, because in order to get a city able to produce the money and production I need it must grow and be prosperous. Even in Civ2. I play on Deity, and without temples, and other improvements you are SCREWED. Culture has nothing to do with it.

Yes war is part of civ, you wouldnt need so many damn military units otherwise and would just stick to playing simcity But war is not the do all and end all of civ, it is first and foremost about building citys !!!

So again to take a real life example .. America truly rules the world we live in, we are al lbeing slowly americanized (for good or bad depending on your point of view) did america get there by crushing her enemies in war??

Uh...Americans have had to defeat:

Britain
France
Mexico
Spain
Each other
Numerous Indian nations

Just to get our continent. This doesn't include overseas wars.

Venger

[Green Giant]

I always build a temple first in conquered cities and have never had a problem with this. It helps the city hold its own culturaly until you can develop it more.

There could be something wrong with the game, or there could be something wrong with your strategy. Adapt, you should try it.

EDIT: missing important word

[OneFootInTheGrave]

The way Iam currently dealing with it is by having two tanks outside all of the cities I capturead in the last few turns (until I root out the whole civ. They rebel like crazy, live just artilerry inside thay wont die anyway, and than kill the conscript with two tanks... damn, but that's it. I'd say it is unrealistic, maybe it could be left as an option when you do not put two, three units or more to calm the resistance down, for the city to rebel, if you put them in there should be no way the city could rebel. ( the city should loose pop points too after rebellion) Other than that it is unfair and bogs down the gameplay.

Please change it in the patch.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Fredric Drum



Yes, but first the city must get out of resistance, then corruption levels make it impossible to build anything, so you have to rush it, which is pretty expensive if you capture a lot of cities. That doesn't always help either, maybe you need to rush temple + library in every city.
Fred

First off a temple/courthouse works far better than a temple/library. I have never lost a town back in this game. Second of all a temple only costs around 120 to rush. Not much at all.

When you take the city pull in all the workers so they starve. Less people means less troublemakers plus once you start letting it grow again the new births will be your people. You can also speed up the elimination of enemy population by pumping out workers.

[Robert Plomp]

it doesn't happen too easy at all !
it adds much more fun and realism to the game.

The simple 'conquer and continue to conquer' strategy doesn't work anymore. THAT's GREAT

If you want to conquer your enemie, keep in mind:
1. you need culture
2. you need to pause now and then because your people start to grow weary about the war
3. micromanage the cities you took

that's much better then 'take and move your units to the next city'

[Venger]

Originally posted by Shiva
First off a temple/courthouse works far better than a temple/library.

It should work better, not sure if it does though, with the courthouse being the paperweight it is...

I have never lost a town back in this game. Second of all a temple only costs around 120 to rush. Not much at all.

What level are you playing? On regent it's 250 to rush a temple...

When you take the city pull in all the workers so they starve. Less people means less troublemakers plus once you start letting it grow again the new births will be your people. You can also speed up the elimination of enemy population by pumping out workers.

Yep, the starvation method is sick, but it does work...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by CyberShy
it doesn't happen too easy at all !
it adds much more fun and realism to the game.

I cannot believe you just said it adds realism to the game...

The simple 'conquer and continue to conquer' strategy doesn't work anymore. THAT's GREAT

Sure it works, but rather than being somewhat realistic and fun, it's now tedious.

If you want to conquer your enemie, keep in mind:
1. you need culture

No you don't. You need to keep up the offensive. It's already been shown how easy it is to blitzkried your opponent.

2. you need to pause now and then because your people start to grow weary about the war

No you don't. If you've done your homework and made a secure prosperosu base, you can crank the luxuries and still turn a tech every 4 turns...

3. micromanage the cities you took

Micromanage EVERY city. Every city deserves your full attention.

that's much better then 'take and move your units to the next city'

They aren't mutually exclusive. I build fantastic cities out of each and every city I conquer...and move to the next one.

Venger

[Robert Plomp]

Venger, it does add more fun to the game.
but not if you want to play it like you played civ2.
civ2 is another game. Civ3 is new, new strategies and new things you have to take care of.

You need culture if you want to grow an empire.
You don't need culture indeed if you want to have more or less a barbarian empire.

Of course you can keep people happy with much lux etc.
and of course the big cities with much city improvements (incl police) won't show much anarchy........... but again...... most 'barbarian empires' don't have cities like that. And if they do....... then they do have much culture as well.

Yeah yeah, micromanage every city.
I was talking to the people that lose their cities all the time by defection. They do not micromanage. (pherhaps they do micro, but they don't manage)
You appear to control the conquered cities thus I wasn't talking to you.

And yes, I build great cities as well out of my enemies ashes.
I do that by having a big culture, micromanaging everything, never have more then 3 units in a (conquered) city.

And I have big fun.

[Robert Plomp]

I cannot believe you just said it adds realism to the game...

of course it does.
When the germans conquered The Netherlands the dutch people resisted for 5 years.
When they took paris, they could control it for 4 years.
The germans starved most of europe, but as soon as their soldiers started to retreat and the winter (starvation) was over big parts of europe freed them selves.

Paris as the ultimate example.

Of course it's realism that a conquered city won't accept you as a leader immediately.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by Shiva


First off a temple/courthouse works far better than a temple/library. I have never lost a town back in this game. Second of all a temple only costs around 120 to rush. Not much at all.

When you take the city pull in all the workers so they starve. Less people means less troublemakers plus once you start letting it grow again the new births will be your people. You can also speed up the elimination of enemy population by pumping out workers.

Okay, I'll try a courthouse, but.. temple costing 120 gold?? I don't have the game here right now, but it's gotta be more?

And I'll try the starvation tactic... it's a bit less silly than simply razing magnificent cities forever.

Still.. something is weird here. I've also lost a former Egyptian city to the Greeks... this city was faaaaaaar away from the Greeks, and they had never had control of it. And it was not my nearest city to the Greeks. It defected to Greece a very long time after I conquered it...
Ok, the Greeks had slightly better culture, but why didn't a closer city defect? Why was there no warning? Absolutely no clues... why no logic? It just happens randomly, and there isn't a thing you can do about it. And yes, the city had temple, colosseum plus lots more that I had built.


Fred

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by CyberShy


of course it does.
When the germans conquered The Netherlands the dutch people resisted for 5 years.
When they took paris, they could control it for 4 years.
The germans starved most of europe, but as soon as their soldiers started to retreat and the winter (starvation) was over big parts of europe freed them selves.

Paris as the ultimate example.

Of course it's realism that a conquered city won't accept you as a leader immediately.

Resistance is one thing... feel free to resist all you want! And feel free to dramatically lower efficiency and increase waste/corruption. Defection is something completely different. The citizens of Paris did not wake up one day thinking.. "hey, let's gather a few neighbours, arm ourselves with roller sticks and frying pans and run the german soldiers and tanks out of town... heck, while we're at it, let's kill all of them!"


Fred

[GePap]

As I said in a long forgotten thread, bring back partisans! and make them stronger than in civ2 since Civ3 has the notion of nationality, civ2 didn't. I had some ideas of how to use them in that thread, so I won't repeat, but in terms of gameplay, it would certainly also help the gamer if he lost cities to the A.I. since now, you could attempt a campaign of liberation with your irregular units while your main army fights for life (much like the Soviets in WW2). As is, if one of your cities falls, you have to wait and see if your citizens rise up and Kill all their army just as it happens to you.

The great problem with the current system is that no one seems to know the 'rules' governing this, so no matter what you do, besides razing the city, you can never know.
to CyberShy: Yes, western Europeans resisted, but there is no example of them actually beating a single German unit and taking their cities back themselves, without allied support. The Poles tried for warsaw, which lead to a massive, bloody battle. Since the Soviets would not help, the Germans finally won and basically, razed Warsaw. The only nation in WW2 to liberate itself was Yugoslavia, and they did it through Partisan warfare. Ergo, Bring 'Charlie' back!

[Venger]

GePap is correct - spare us the defection, but a city should spawn a 5/5 partisan that treats all squares as roads...

Venger