Does this normally happen when you lose a city?

mr.buddylee · November 20, 2001, 10:58

The evil French declared war on me and in retaliation, I took the battle to their homeland. I loaded up a few ships with knights and longbowmen (a total of 6) and I attacked the city of Lyons. The battle went well, I lost a bowman, but took the city. My knights and bowmen were both pretty beat up, so I moved them into the city so they could rest up and continue the battle.

While I was waiting, the French retook the city because they had a higher culture. All my units that were in that city were gone when the city was lost. I guess its because they were stationed in the city, but still, that seems odd. Does that normally happen? It seems like they should be kicked out of the city or something. I understand how a city can be taken over by culture, but a city and 5 units (my whole pitiful army

)? That seems a bit much.

In a happier note, I later went back and retook the city, but once again lost it to culture, so I went back, and burned it to the ground.

Raleigh · November 20, 2001, 11:08

I think the units revert to the culture conqueror. It is a double edged sword. Having military units in a city makes it less likely to be conquered through culture, but then losing the city means losing the units.

Akaoz · November 20, 2001, 11:09

"Does this normally happen when you lose a city?"

Yes, when you loose it to culture.

-Alech

Akaoz · November 20, 2001, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Raleigh
I think the units revert to the culture conqueror.

Nope, they just disappear.

-Alech

TheDarkside · November 20, 2001, 11:16

Yep, your elite-veteran-crack units of special forces brought up through strict discipline and military training become overwhelmed by the culture and disband themselves to join the ranks of sanitation workers and ballet dancers within the city.

PS no offense to sanitation workers... but ballet dancers are free to take offense

dr.charm · November 20, 2001, 12:08

While this ticks me off, it does make a certain amount of sense. I *would* tweak down the chances of it happening, especially during a war, but having the units disappear does make sense. It made me more angry when I thought that the enemy was getting my units, but when I realised that he wasn't, it's much easier to deal with.

During a war, a conquered city should have a difficult time throwing off the yoke of the conqueror. During peacetime however, the troops stationed would begin fraternizing etc. etc., and I can see it being fairly likely.

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

mr.buddylee · November 20, 2001, 13:02

Well, I guess I can live with my troops disappearing. Now, a couple follow up questions if you don't mind:

1) If my troops had been outside of the city and the city was converted would I still have lost them?

2)France was on a different continent than my mainland, so is it even worth it to try to take over that continent? Corruption is pretty bad on my mainland, so would it really be worth it to try to build up cities that are away from my mainland?

Thank ye.

Morganstern · November 20, 2001, 14:31

I'm beginning to believe that the decision to take or raze a city is one of the most important decisions in the war aspect of the game. In my current game played on Warlord level, I've been ahead most of the time, but am now in second behind the Aztecs, although I just burnt two of their cities to the ground, and took another one. Their rating superiority made it pointless to attempt keeping their cities, and I have Pyramids, which will aid my newly planted city in growing. OTOH, I took a city from them that was originally French and near my border, and have had no inkling that it would revert to the Aztechs or French (who are now stuck on an island somewhere due to pillaging by the Aztechs).

I've traded a border city with the Russians (who are in fourth place) back and forth several times - it's a key strategic city, being on the water and having a horse resource. I've decided it was a mistake not to raze the city the last time around, since the Citizens are mostly Russian, and it's close to Moscow. I'm currently pummelling the city down to half its population, and will raze the City and replace it first chance I get.

As to attacks on the Iroquois, at first it was necessary to raze cities, but after that Civ got weaker, I found I could retain the cities, which was important, to keep the Russians from moving in on their shared border. I even took the Iroquois capital this way.

My take on all this - it's a judgment call based on location and strength of the AI Civ..

Zorkk · November 20, 2001, 14:56

As has been pointed out in many other threads here, cities can be a very important commodity for trade.

So you took a city from france.... did they have any technology you wanted? Or perhaps they have a luxury, or a huge pile of gold? that city isn't going to do you any good, but you could ransom it back to the original civ for a whole lotta stuff in trade.

On the other hand, why not trade or give it to one of the other civs on that continent? Then it's out of your hands, you should have gotten something nice for it, and now france, and whatever civ get to fight over the city.

Zorkk

Dis · November 20, 2001, 16:55

think about it this way. You have a city of 1 million people ganging up on an army regiment of several thousand people. the populatin wins and kills the army divisions. It makes me less pissed off thinking of it that way

Spam Shark · November 20, 2001, 17:03

I think if your goal is to eliminate the civ in question you might as well raze the cities and use settlers to build new ones to replace them. That way you don't have to worry about resistors or having them revert to their former owners.

Akaoz · November 20, 2001, 19:37

"1) If my troops had been outside of the city and the city was converted would I still have lost them?"

No.

I have found that placing one more unit in a city then there are resisters works just fine in order to suppress them. It seems to make no difference how well trained they are, so I use conscripts or regulars for this. I usually have some more or less useless/outdated units just standing around anyway.

I then place an elite force just outside the city and wait for it to revolt. If it doesn't; great. If it does; I'll take it back in no time.

-Alech

Venger · November 20, 2001, 21:18

First, Akaoz is right. Citizens+1 garrison will supress this nonsense.

Second, that's nuts. Like most things in Civ3, it's a good idea but with wrong values. Cut that down to 1 garrison for two civilians and it'll be tolerable...

Venger

Bakunine · November 20, 2001, 23:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger
First, Akaoz is right. Citizens+1 garrison will supress this nonsense.

Second, that's nuts. Like most things in Civ3, it's a good idea but with wrong values. Cut that down to 1 garrison for two civilians and it'll be tolerable...

Venger

Just make then starve and in a few turns you can leave just 3 or 4 units behind. If still conquering in ancient times rush build anything ASAP.

But i must agree that one military unit for two citizens and one surplus military unit would be nicer. But i have no problem has it is now too.

Akaoz · November 21, 2001, 10:02

What annoys me is that when the war is over and the resistors are silenced and everyone in the city are happy, and I’ve rush built a few cultural buildings; then they revolt! Taking my 20 unit strong army of elite tanks and inf with it...

I have a feeling this happens as a result of a propaganda attack, but I have seen it happen in the middle ages, before spies are invented... I have done some testing with a few save games and, barring a problem with the randomizer seed, it sometimes doesn’t matter how many units you place in a city. It will revolt. And take your whole army with it.

This just doesn’t make sense to me. Esp. b/c it happens even if you are the culturally leading civ by far. So I’m stuck with a work around: Small garrison of expendable units, and a crack force just outside the city to re-take it when it revolts...

-Alech

eao · November 21, 2001, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Spam Shark
I think if your goal is to eliminate the civ in question you might as well raze the cities and use settlers to build new ones to replace them. That way you don't have to worry about resistors or having them revert to their former owners.

Why not keep the city, switch to Despotism or Communism, and hurry production on a city improvement like Temple and Cathedral? This will kill off the foreigners, and subsequent citizens produced will be of your nationality.

Morganstern · November 21, 2001, 13:58

I'm puzzled about the posts that advocate giving cities to another Civ. I can't imagine too many scenarios where that would be advantageous. In my experience, these cities have been on my border, and I have far more to gain by getting that land, either through the existing city or a new one I build, than just giving it to another Civ. I imagine you could give it to a faraway Civ, but that Civ is just as likely to lose the City to your more immediate rival neighbor than you - what is accomplished?

Have the other Civs really been that generous when receiving a City?

Boracks · November 21, 2001, 15:41

The only time I have given away a city is when its my only one on an island with 3 or 4 other cities of other civs.

In my second game I did this twice when the Romans declared on me and landed troops on one of the islands. Seeing that I wasn't going to hold the city, I sold one of the improvements and then found another civ that had something I wanted (like tech and gold/turn) and traded them the city.

Net was I lost two cities (to two different civs), gained 3 tech and income and the Romans lost more units than I did (sea battles) for no gain.

Not a winning position but it felt good to screw the Romans like that.