No soup for you!

[CyberGnu]

Johhny, I meant after you have quelled the resitance, and you want to use the city for something... Otherwise it is kind of a catch 22... You can't build a temple unless they starve, and they will starve if you build a temple.

You see what I mean?

BTW, I see you are in Urbana. I have heard that Urbana is a mind numbingly boring as South Bend, IN. Any truth to that rumor?

[FrostyBoy]

Whenever I sneak attack and take a city on the same turn, all its buildings seem to be there, but I notice that if I attack a near by city during times of war, the city will only be left with maybe a barracks, if not, then nothing at all

[Venger]

Originally posted by dexters


The argument is false. The examples you give is two cities in god knows how many cities that were decimated.

Jesus Christ dude, screw cities, German captured FRANCE in pristine condition. Same with other small plots of land like:

Belgium
Holland
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Austria
Czechoslovakia
Hungary
Luxembourg

The Americans levels most Japanese cities except for Kyoto, the cultural capital of the Japanese.

Those were destroyed not by armies but by bombing, including two really really big bombs...

And if you think about it, capturing a city with a wonder does not destroy the wonder. The cities mentioned, Paris/Rome are important cities. You can liken them to having wonders. Could they have been destroyed? sure. In the case of Paris, as stated before, The French fell, so no fighting was needed. But I'm sure Hitler wanted to capture it in tack as well.

But in the course of human history, a disproportionate amount of cities have been leveled. Far more than the few that were captured in tact.

You just answered your own question - those cities were destroyed due to the massive amount of fighting needed to take them. The FIGHTING should destroy the improvements, not the capturing. If you garrison 10 units in a city and I kill them all but cannot capture it because all my units have moved, all the fighting is done but all the improvements stand.

In Civ2, you lost half of a cities improvements when you occupied it. That's a little more reasonable.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Soren stated that any culture improvements (library & temple) are destroyed once a city is taken over. You don't want an enemy civilization spreading their culture through their temple (artwork, beliefs, etc.).

Yeah, the first thing the Nazis did was destroy the Louvre... come on.

For the library - you have to rewrite the history books to make history look favorable to you & thus spread your culture more. Historically, Soren said this was accurate as well.

It's been mentioned, but many empires allowed much of the local heritage to continue. Rome for example. England.

And the AI isn't much for improvements so early on in the game many cities are empty.

They could maybe change that?

Also Soren might have programmed a few of the AIs to sell their improvements in cities heavily under attack. Who knows? If I knew I was going to lose a city that's what I would do.

Yep, used to do that in Civ2. Sell the most expensive unit and give it up. Kinda like taking what you can and fleeing the city...

Soren also said there is a 50% chance each non-culture building is destroyed. That seems high to me. Wonders (and culture wonders) in my opinion should NOT be destroyed from conquering a city.

True, especially wonders like The Pyramids or Universal Suffrage (how does Universal Suffrage get destroyed? Or Magellan's Expedition? Or half the wonders for that matter...)

Venger

[johnny faustus]

CyberGnu;

I don't know, but a city resisting its conquerors by means of squelching production/civil disorder makes sense to me (I don't mean the actual resistors - I mean the unhappy people that are left). As long as there are enough workers in the fields to feed the city, the city will not starve even though it's in civil disorder. You'll just have to live with the fact that the city is useless (except as a new base of operations) until you can bring about order. One way to do this, of course, is to build a temple, but since you can't do that, you'll have to jack up the luxury rate, connect the conquered city to your empire, and/or stop the war (the unhappy citizens tell you that they're unhappy because you're warring with their parent country). If you're culturally more powerful, there's also less unhappiness in the city.

Yes, it does suck. But it keeps you from just being able to march into Rome, produce units like a virus, and then conquer the rest of their empire by means of the obliging citizens in their former capital. It does make the game a little more fun though.

What doesn't make sense, in a way, is that you just suppressed the resistors! It would seem that you should just be able to coerce the sullen, conquered people into reinforcing your army, albeit at a penalty. I can definitely see a case for your "conquered workers" in that respect. Something like a territorial government that rules at a heavy penalty until you grant them citizenship. Of course, that could be abused, but you could ameliorate it by putting a time limit etc.

Well, this is getting long-winded, but I hope you can see my PoV.

Oh, and Urbana isn't really a cluster of shacks in the middle of a cornfield like some claim. Champaign-Urbana has a little jazz, a little haute culture, some big acts, some good (?) clubs, and a godawful sprawling commercial area (it looks terrible). Frequent trips to chicago are of course necessary . Otherwise, there's nothing to do except drink & f---. Ah, the great Heartland!

[Sratava]

It looks like it's kind of random as to what's destroyed when you militaristically or culturally take a city, because I've taken size 20-something cities and had to rebuild everything except Aqueduct and Hospital. Yet you people speak of factories, barracks, police stations and such being left over. So I think it may be random -- but weighs heavily in favor of everything being destroyed.

[AHO]

Sid and the boys have made it abundantly clear that one of their goals in the designing of Civ3 was to provide several options to victory, most of them peaceful. It appears that they've gone out of their way to make victory through conquest a much more "challenging" prospect through their rules changes (no improvements in a captured city, etc.) and through the AI's military omniscience (funny how they always make a single-file bee-line toward my weakest city).

Bearing this in mind, here's my solution (feel free to heckle!). Since it is VERY difficult in the upper levels of difficulty to keep up with the AI players' territorial expansion and scientific advancements without military conquest to level the playing field you're gonna have to go with a military solution. Choose the Aztecs for their "civ abilities": militaristic and religious. The militaristic capability gives you battlefield promotions creating more leaders to complete your Wonders (so you can keep up) and the religious capability gives you No Anarchy Between Governments. When you capture a size-11 city, switch your government to despot (you can switch immediately, no anarchy) and rush-build, at minimum, a Temple, a Colosseum, a courthouse, and a cathedral. Sure, that'll put 4 guys in your population under the whip, but they're just gonna starve anyway! At least this way they won't die in vain. After you get your stuff built and the captured city has become productive, switch back to your preferred government (again, no anarchy with the religious capability) and everything should be alright. Right?

[TCO]

It seems like the descriptions here sound very similar to how the game functioned in Civ2. Is it really different?

[CyberGnu]

Johnny, you still misunderstood me.

I'd rather let the people starve than let the city stay in civil disorder. So the choice isn't between resisting the invador by civil disobediance, but by refusing to work the fields even though they starve to death. You see what I mean?

I quite liked th model in MOO2. A conquered population would only work half as efficient as a normal population, but would slowly convert to normal.

Urbana sounds a lot like South Bend, then... a place affectionably known as 'the fetid armipit of the world' or The Place That Should Not Be. (As you might be able to tell, I'm not overly happy here...).

[Barchan]

Although it's true that Paris and Rome were spared in WWII, its only because they were declared "open cities" under the Hague Conventions for Land Combat. This meant, in essence, that defender would evacuate the city and had it over to the attacker. Actually, Hitler had ordered Paris to be defended to the last man; fortunately the local Wehrmacht commander had a deeper appreciation for the cultural impact of such a historic city and declared it open to allies as they approached. But I think we'd be asking a bit much from CivIII to expect it to fully comply with both the Hague and Geneva conventions regarding armed conflict. As I've pointed out before, the intentional razing of places of education and worship are forbidden under the Laws of Armed Conflict, but it's a core element of the game anyway.

Also, I'd have to point out that the Nazis, while they didn't burn the Louvre down, did loot a hell of a lot of artwork and cultural artifacts from the occupied territories, both civilian and governmental. I don't have the details handy, but I recall that the old Tzar's palace in Leningrad was cleaned out, particularly the "Amber Room", which was, if you will, a small wonder for Russia in it's splendor and opulence. And then, of course, there was the notorious plunder of, and attempt to eliminate outright, several European cultures, most notably those of the Poles, Jews and Gypsies. Given the half the chance, Hitler would have gotten rid of the Russian culture as well.

But CivIII is just a game, after all. Many of the mechanics and rules are designed for playability and balance and not to comply with reality. And sometimes, that really is a *good* thing. ITRW, it takes a special kind of person to "starve off" thousands of people until the rest fall in line and do what they're told. "Uncle Joe" Stalin may be missed in game terms, but I doubt anyone's sitting at home today wishing he were back in power....

[Barchan]

Oof, double post. Lousy dial-up timeout....