Controlling taken cities

[scientific civ]

I'm Dutch so I don't have the game yet and I was wondering if gaining control of a city you've taken from your enemies is hard. Does it take long and is it irritating? I read that a taken city once revolted and killed all the military units located in the city. And that guy moved all those units in the city to gain control over it. Is that really necessary? If you attack and take a city with two units, and one survives so you have only one unit in the city, do you have to amass a whole army to prevent a revolution or whatever in the city? I assume the city will produce nothing during that period as well, huh?
scientific

[scientific civ]

thanks for answering my question.

[MDR]

It depends on the difference in tech between you and your opponent. If you bombard the city, it's not that hard to take. However, holding on to it is a different matter. You need a large number of troops as an occupying force, and then you need to supplant their culture with your own, building libraries, temples, and the like. Cities will produce, just very slowly. Resisitors don't build anything.

Hope that helps.

[shammy]

dont have much of an answer.. but i find this extremely annoying.

my civilization has 20+ cities, enemy has 7 and im in modern age.. they are in industrial age.. i have totally supreme culture compared to them, i have democracy, they have monarchy..

all my cities have thousands of points in culture.. then, i decide to attack the enemy,. i easily run over the first city with my panzers and halt there, leaving 8 panzers and 5 bombers in the city plus some infantry.. then i end turn

next thing i see.. the city deposed itself back to the enemy because 'they admire enemy culture'.. HUOH, what are my military unites there for? when i was able to destroy all the defenders etc , then suddenly i end up loosing every single unit i had placed in the city because of some riots.. and then i have to retake the city.. this totally blows. i learned to hurry a temple as fast as possible to the conquered city but,. even with that this concept is still so annoying i cant believe it..

[Wolfgang76]

As the manual states you cant use Military units in a Democracy as a "police force". Which kind of limits thier use as only a token looking unit. I have captured cities and not left any units there and still crushed the rebels and I have left over 12 units to "change the rebels minds" with them turning back to thier old empire.
If I am mistaken then please correct me but this has been my experience and its in the manual (for whats that worth).

2cents..

[Arrian]

In my experience (I've played out about 4 games now), holding captured cities hasn't been all that problematic, but I have lost control of a couple. My thoughts:

If you are attacking an enemy on your continent, and you are not hitting their capital, I'd just put in a bunch of troops and rush build a temple and library. That has worked every time for me (it helps that my overall culture is usually excellent). If you are hitting their capital or high-culture cities overseas, I would be careful about moving a large army in there. In my best game to date (Warlord/Greeks) I took an Indian city (may have been the capital), which was on a medium island well west of me. I moved in several Modern Armor, a Mech Inf., a Radar Artillery and a Stealth Bomber. Next turn, it revolted back to India, and my army was gone. It didn't really hurt me, since I had more troops, and I kept the city the 2nd time around. Still, I think a prudent tactic is to move in a couple of beat up or possibly obselete units in order to attempt to control the resistors/defend the city, but hold the cream of your army back in case the cesspool defects on you

-Arrian

[9 ECAC Titles]

I have had a few cities revolt, but none since I began hurrying temples. I have also tried the following:

+ Capture and turn the enemy workers, send them to the cities and join the cities. This creates population of your ethnicity within the city which helps calm things down.

+ Interpose a bunch of units between the newly taken city and any others. This appears to "break" the cultural connection between the city and its neighbors (this may be an illusion), and has the practical advantage that if the city flips out on you, the enemy can't reinforce immediately and you can just take it back on the next turn.

Having said which, there are some cities that simply will not deal with new rulers. I have yet to raze a city, but I have been very tempted, even in cases in which there doesn't seem to be any reason for the bastids to prefer their old, inferior culture.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by shammy
dont have much of an answer.. but i find this extremely annoying.

April 1940. Nazi Germany invades France. It is a success.

May 1940. Life is back to normal. Everyone is speaking German, but hey, they're Germans now! We Love The Adolf Day is celebrated in Paris as the troops, no longer needed here, mass on to further glory on the eastern front.

- At least, that would have happened in Civ2. Not in real life, and not in Civ3.

[Arrian]

In my most recent game, I fought a nasty little (ok, not so little) war vs. the Persians. They had rushed me with their immortals, which failed (barely... I was sweating), and then I took two cities from them. One of these cities moved me closer to their power base. Shortly thereafter, I discovered Replaceable Parts, which allows you to "see" rubber on the map. Guess who had the only rubber deposits on the continent? Uh-huh, the Persians.

Worse, the rubber was pretty close to their capital, in between two major cities. I pondered this briefly, and then set one city to building settlers (it was so damn big it was polluting anyway). Upon invading, I only kept one Persian city out of the 6 I captured (the closest to my homeland). I razed 4 and allowed them to recapture their old Capital because I didn't want to risk losing a bunch of troops trying to hold it -AND- the Indians, who had jumped in on my side, were threatening to wipe the Persians out. Anyway, I used my settlers to build BABYLONIAN cities on the old persian city sites and the workers I got from razing the persian cities completed the infrastructure. I also managed, through a combo of expanding cultural borders (rushbuilding temples/libraries) and stationing various units, to block the Indians and halt their expansion, thus allowing the Persians to survive. The Persians are pretty much screwed, and I could take them out with minimal effort, but I don't want the 2nd strongest civ on the planet - my neighbor, no less - getting any stronger.

-Arrian

[Aiya]

I know this is cheap, but it worked for me.

My cities revolted and went back to their original rulers mostly during peacetime. So when this happens, I reloaded and declared war on that civ. It helped most of the time.

Only once, as I was exterminating the french from my island, one of their city just can't stand my rule anymore. I brought out my units to await their revolt, and reclaim the city next on the same turn. 4 turns later, Joan was beheaded (immortal my @ss!) with the fall of their last city.

Funny thing, all french citizens are happy (no rebellions) once their Civ no longer exist.

[Garth Vader]

May 1940. Nazi Germany invades France. It is a success.

Civ 3 mode
June 1940 France reverts back to it's old self. Entire Wermacht vanishes overnight. Hitler perplexed as to how his army can survive countless engagements with enemy forces, but disintigrate in the face of inferior culture.

My biggest problem with cities reverting is that it seems to always happen to me in 2 turns. I can't rush anything first turn because of the dissenters, I leave some units there and the dissenters go away. But the next turn it reverts

I think the dissenters should be there longer and if there are enough of them they could overwhelm the defenders and revert, but if a city is filled with defenders it shouldn't revert no matter what the cultural differential.