Damn Overthrowing Fools

bisho · November 24, 2001, 06:22

Does it annoy the absolute hell out of anyone else those dodgey overthrows when u trying to conquer a civ???
I mean I can see they may be able to overthrow a city, but do they have to just then get rid of all the units therein!?!?!
For example, city with 2 infantry, 1 cavalry and about 15 bombers overthrows me, I can see reasons why and stuff but do all those bombers then just bloody dissapear!!!!!!!!
I can't stand it, that I lose 85% of my troops in a war through the civilians carving em up.

Oerdin · November 24, 2001, 06:31

Personally I liked the way CTP2 handled rebellions & slave revolts. X number of rebel/ex-slave soldiers spontaneously decided to attack you and wither they succeed or not depended on how many troops you had stationed in the city at the time. This makes sense. Just look at history; in 1944 the Jews in Warsaw really wanted to be rid of the Naxis so they started a rebellion. Unfortunately for them the Germans had alot of soldiers in that town so the rebellion go put down.

Let uprisings happen but give the defender a chance to put them down too...

bisho · November 24, 2001, 06:33

exactly, some way to notify the player, or give em a chance.

G.A · November 24, 2001, 12:42

Euhm, can people just learn to not put their entire army into a recently captured city?????

Venger · November 24, 2001, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by G.A
Euhm, can people just learn to not put their entire army into a recently captured city?????

First, that goes against both common sense and expected game mechanics - shouldn't garrissoned troops reduce the chance of overthrow? Second, they are required to quell resisters. Third, Oerdin is right, there is a better way. Did anyone at Firaxis play any of this genre of game when thinking about Civ3, or did they want to reinvent the wheel?

Venger

Magician · November 24, 2001, 12:56

If your civ culture is much lower than the rival civ, perhaps you should raze their city and build a new one instead of capturing it.

Zardof · November 24, 2001, 12:59

I usually send a group of settlers along with my troops. I raze each city I take then build a new one. All the improvements such as mines, roads, irrigation, are still there so it won't take long before your new city is built up. If you take a city with a very large population, you will have more headaches than the city is worth IMO. I don't start a new city in place of the razed one unless it is in a very good location.

Thoth · November 24, 2001, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger

First, that goes against both common sense and expected game mechanics - shouldn't garrissoned troops reduce the chance of overthrow? Second, they are required to quell resisters. Third, Oerdin is right, there is a better way. Did anyone at Firaxis play any of this genre of game when thinking about Civ3, or did they want to reinvent the wheel?

Venger

I believe that having a large garrison does lower the chance of a successful overthrow. It is important to note however, that units like catapults, cannons, artillery and air/naval units do not count for preventing defections/overthrows.

Venger · November 24, 2001, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Thoth
I believe that having a large garrison does lower the chance of a successful overthrow. It is important to note however, that units like catapults, cannons, artillery and air/naval units do not count for preventing defections/overthrows.

Indeed, although you could ask the Indians about the effects of cannon on local rebellion...

Venger

G.A · November 24, 2001, 13:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Venger

First, that goes against both common sense and expected game mechanics - shouldn't garrissoned troops reduce the chance of overthrow? Second, they are required to quell resisters. Third, Oerdin is right, there is a better way. Did anyone at Firaxis play any of this genre of game when thinking about Civ3, or did they want to reinvent the wheel?

Venger

Well, in this particular case there were 18 bombers ffs!

And quelling resisters doesn`t make the difference for whether there`s a tank or a swordsman, as I remember...

GePap · November 24, 2001, 16:51

They at fixaris should have kept the partisan and made them stronger.

Raleigh · November 24, 2001, 16:57

I don't know if bombers suppress rebellions. That's a good question. It would make sense if they did NOT, since what country would bomb its own city to suppress a revolt? Suppressino really requires nightsticks and more personal weapons. I know some of you will even point to tanks. That's fine because (tank) cannon fire directed from the ground at a single and several buidlings is still more accurate than bombing whole blocks or areas of town wholesale!

Thoth · November 24, 2001, 17:15

Based on bisho's experience, I'd say bombers have no effect on rebellions.

Raliegh: Tanks also mount highly effective crowd dispersal devices. (aka Machine guns)

D4everman · November 24, 2001, 21:34

Quote:

Well, in this particular case there were 18 bombers ffs!

Bombers won't help. You need ground units, one for ever resistor, preferably. If you conquer a rival city and it has aircraft or ships in it, they do not fight back....they die. Get the idea? They can't garrison a city.

Put ground units in the city and then turn everyone into entertainers and starve it out. The new citizens will belong to you and it will help stop an overthrow.

Akaoz · November 24, 2001, 21:59

I have had the following happen to me before I learnt to work around this ‘feature’:

I used to fall back to a central city in newly occupied territory after a campaign. I had at one time 43 mech inf, 15 mod. armor and about 50 support units (arty and bombers). They where garrisoned in a size 4 city that was one of the first to be occupied by me from a civ that was in awe of my culture. I had never razed a single city in that game and the resistors had been put down for several turns and we where in the 6 turn of a peace treaty. Then it swapped sides and my entire army goes poof! This was on Regent level btw.

I tried to go back to the auto-save just for kicks and moved my entire army of over 180 mech inf/mod. armor. more into the city. No dice. It still swaps. That is just wrong.

Now I just leave a small conscript force (resisters + 1) in an occupied city and a 2 mech inf and an armor unit just outside it to take it back if it revolts.

-Alech

bisho · November 24, 2001, 23:23

yer, starving them out seems to be the go, personally i preferred the partisan uprisings and stuff they were cool. I don't mind the idea of these overthrows, but the units should be thrown outside the city or something, losing them all seems a bit strong.

Akka · November 24, 2001, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by G.A

Euhm, can people just learn to not put their entire army into a recently captured city?????

True. It's like this men that send tanks against pikemen. It's just so OBVIOUS and LOGICAL that they will die !
People are just so strange, they expect something to happen like it's supposed to happen. What a weird concept.

Karhgath · November 25, 2001, 00:44

Quote:

True. It's like this men that send tanks against pikemen. It's just so OBVIOUS and LOGICAL that they will die !
People are just so strange, they expect something to happen like it's supposed to happen. What a weird concept.

Well, if they send one or 2 tanks againsta well defended city with pikemen, they might get unlucky and lose. It doesn't make the game stupid, it makes the player stupid IMHO. That's like sending 2 men with a stock to attack a bank, hehe.

Well, I dunno, using a newly conquered city as a new base of operation, a new airport and a new port, is, well, not very bright. You wait a little usually, so that the dust settles.

Also, I always put a good amount of units to quell the resistance, about a dozen tanks and a dozen mech inf(in modern age), and never had any city revolting. Ok, I had a bigger culture than them most of the time, maybe that's why.

Another thing to ask is, what do you mean by "lost all my units in the city"? Are we talking about 5-6 units, or about 20 here?(not counting bombers, artillery, etc.) To quell resisters, I usually put 2x the time of citizen in various troops, and in one turn I usually quells all revolting citizens, and never have a problem afterward. Might be a trick you could use.

Now, I do NOT agree that you should lose all your units. Some might get detroyed and other just fall back, but not all of them destroyed. Things like artillery and bomber might probably be destroyed, but the rest shouldn't, or at least not all of them. That's silly, and I agree.

halley · November 25, 2001, 04:48

I think what pisses people off is not the fact that the city rebels, but that their entire army that was garrisoned in the city just vanished. Maybe a patch that made any troops garrisoned in the city be automatically moved to the nearest friendly city.

Akaoz · November 25, 2001, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by halley
I think what pisses people off is not the fact that the city rebels, but that their entire army that was garrisoned in the city just vanished. Maybe a patch that made any troops garrisoned in the city be automatically moved to the nearest friendly city.

I could also live with damage to the units, but to have them all disappear is just dumb. How did a size 4 city kill over 250 units?

-Alech

Edit: I also find it amusing that one warrior can order the destruction of a size 40 city... How does he do that?

BigBopper · November 25, 2001, 14:05

If you leave 2 spearmen to defend a large city you have just taken, you deserve to have them be killed and the city revolt. However, the way Civ III models this is just insane. I've had smaller cities overthrow and thus kill defenders many times the size of the city. And yes my culture was greater than the civ I was at war with. It makes no sense that revolters with improvised and or lower tech weapons can overthrow a large occupying army that is not only larger than them but has better equipment. (Or does the population turn into demigods that can crush tanks with a single glance?) As for the notion of not keeping your occupying army garisoned in front line cities, where the hell are we to keep our army? Away from the war where they might get hurt? Why did firaxis model revolts without modeling the ability to put them down? (and brutally at that)

Teemur · November 25, 2001, 15:12

I think one good solution to this would be if the city revolutions would be made to last multiple turns. Every turn each revolting citizen would have a chance to damage or destroy a unit and this would continue until the revolution is suppressed or all the defending units gone. This would allow you to escape or bring reinforcements if it seems like you are losing.

GePap · November 25, 2001, 16:58

Teemur- your idea would best be modelled with a partisan unit. I say 4/5/1, move as explorer. Venger said once 5/5/1, move as explorer. If you feel the attck it too low, give partisans bonuses in attacking cities with their own citizens (local support) or give the defenders no bonus (local unfriendliness), much as was done in Colonization.

Kc7mxo · November 25, 2001, 17:50

Isn't it ironic that people want to fix problems in civ 3 with ideas from civ 2?

har har har har. firaxis tried to reinvent the wheel, but i think its kinda square.