Taking cities with culture

[Mike_W]

It doesn't seem consistent for human or ai. I lost several cities to the ai this way even though I'm about tied for #1 in culture. Once I even lost a city to the English who are the least cultivated civ. And when the ai founds a new city right next to my cities (of size 20+) nothing happens and they live there happily with a city of size 1. Mind you that all the cities I lost through culture were conquerred cities that went back to their previous owners. I guess that could affect things.
I guess the big question is whether losing a city through culture depends more on total overall culture of the 2 empires or the location of that city with respect to other high culture cities.

[Kolyana]

I've got a thread out there in which I rant about this. Well, a half hearted rant anyways.

Seems that the city once belonging to someone else plays a big part. I imagine that the culture aspect is mis-leading ... they aren't leaving you because of culture, they're leaving you because they simply want to belong to their true nation.

Additionally, it's not your overall culture, but the culture of that individual city versus those around it ... that's the tue measure.

Popular thought is that distance from your capital may be involved.

Some have said that the garrison may be also ... but I rebuke that. In the city I lost I had a garrison of over 12 troops. :grr:

[Blaupanzer]

The algorithm involved in culture switching is the subject of several threads here as well as the Soren Johnson chat. Lots of questions at this time and not a lot of answers. However, the garrison, the number of foreign citizens, the proximity to the gaining capitol versus the losing one, and the level of unhappiness all play in the odds relating to a switch. Clearly a random factor in there as well. The relative strength of the two cultures is important, but that is not sufficient all by itself in causing and preventing switches.

[Mike_W]

I agree with you on the garrison part. I'm currently fighting a tough war with the Persians who are my cultural and scientific equals. At the beginning I was keeping the cities I conquerred but then they started converting back to the Persians. And the city I'm thinking about had a lot of units in it (including an army). But it was indeed very far from my capitol and in the heart of the Persian empire. So basically I decided to reload and raze all Persian cities after conquest. My progress is slower (I can't repair my troops as quickly and don't have access to railroads on Persian territory) but it's safer. I just have to secure that island afterwards so that they don't recolonize later.

thanks for the info

[Mike_W]

Personnally what I'm going to try from now on is to keep conquerred cities very happy. I think it's the best way to go.

[Zanzin]

The easiest way to make sure that conquered cities don't revert back to their old civ is bombard the living crap out of them before you capture them - like, down to one population!! Capture that city, make the one pop an entertainer - you can't have any unhappy people who want to revolt. Then you get another pop, and it'll be one of yours...and so the assimilation begins. It makes the captured cities useless for a while, but you can build them up again, and it also means you don't loose the city back to the other civ. It's a strategy that's worked for me quite well.

[Zorkk]

While that does work very well, for those of us that don't want to capture just pop 1 cities, there is an alternative.

First off, I do advocate bombing the crap out of the city. You wanna get it below pop 6 for sure... i prefer 4 or 5. When i take over those cities, the first thing I build is a temple. I work it one turn, and then rush it (save about 1/2 the gold by letting it make 1 shield). keeps your people happy, and also creates some culture in that city. This has helped me keep a lot of cities, on other continents, much closer to a civ's capital than my own.

And as I write this, a new idea does come to me. I'm just thinking, that the exisiting culture buildings (when you take over a city) are NOT going to work in your favor. The other civ built them, so perhaps that helps the population be faithful to their old masters? and When an AI takes a city, isn't the first thing they do is sell most (if not all) of the improvements you've build in that city? Also when I think about it, cities I take over that I have to build all improvements in, rarely convert back (unless I keep them undergarrisoned), yet that big 12 pop w/most improvements capital will go back the next turn. hmmm... food for thought....

Anywaz.. something else that may help. There's usually a point in the game, where your cities can't grow no more, and you have more than enuf military, so just produce workers. Later in the game, when your conquoring your neighbor, they can come in usefull to add to the population of those new cities you just annexed. and if you take one that's 4 or 5, and add 4 or 5 of your own workers, i really think, will help keep the city in your fold.

Zorkk

[Grim Legacy]

I plan my assaults with "reverting chance" in mind.

Artillery is great for 'reducing' rebellion afterwards. As is some induced hunger.

[MarshalN]

I still wonder though, is it even possible to get a city of other civs to convert to you? Sometimes the AI pops a city next to my capital when it's making 40 culture a turn, and still, no conversion....

[pchang]

City conversion is a random event. Every turn there is a chance of it happening. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes not. Anyway, cities captured in ancient times rarely revert. In modern times, switch governments to communist and turn those enemy people into happiness improvements. I have found that cathedrals from scratch use up 6 pop points.

[Mike_W]

I think one of the biggest factors of whether a city will revert or not is the nationality of the citizens. I just recently had an interesting experience:

I was fighting the Persians, a powerful civ equal to me in almost every department (including culture). I conquerred a pretty big city of theirs and naively decided to keep it. I put most of my units in it after the battle so they could be repaired. After 2 turns the city reverted back to the Persians. I reloaded and decided to raze all their cities instead. After clearing the island (their main island with their capital city was still intact and right next the the one I just cleared) I decided to re-colonize it with my own settlers. No problem. No conversions after several turns (>10). So it seems that the original nationality of the city and that of its citizens has a very big influence whether or not a city will convert.

[rah]

I have NEVER had a city revert. Even when I take cities on another continent.

My usual tactic is reduce the pop. Through starving in Mon,rep,dem
or rush building in Desp or Com.

Temples go up the second resistance is over.
If in desp or com, I'll even rush that cath to knock the pop down 8.

Granted I play religious. So this is easier. Heck, If I'm on a major city grabbing offensive, I'll drop into com or desp just so I can save money rushing the temple and Cath. And then a few turns later when the borders restablize to my definition , I'll revolt again. In my most recent game, I've changed governments over 10 times. Might as well take advantage of the religious atribute.


I reduce it 2 or 3 pop then repop with my workers and maybe one from a civ that I have already eliminated. I never let the old civ's pop be larger than 50% of the whole. SO I tend to agree that the population makeup is a large determining factor.


RAH

[rah]

Opps, and one other note.

If I have a large waste land near my capital, I'll waste a settler and build a city in the middle of it to offer to a large AI that is on another continent. Good profit. The city will usually revert once or twice and I can sell it right back to them and even get a free defender for my cap. This will work till the City culture expands it to the normal two reach of the city. After that, I have yet to see one revert to me, So that must be the other major deciding factor.

Rich

[Easy Rhino]

on option would be to capture the cities you want, but then take and raze the cities between those and the rest of the enemy civ.

That way, there's a cultural no-man's to discourage culture swaps.

ER

[CB2034]

I use to lose a lot of cities by having them reverting but not anymore. I do what a couple of u guys do by rush building improvements but i start with a library then coliseum then temple. And to more then halve the cost I dont wait one turn like a few of you guys mention. I instead disband a weak unit in the city and then immediatly rush build the improvement. Yes it is expensive but I dont have to wait for the pop. 4 cities to grow back to 12 or whatever size they were.

[IronSpam]

City conversion may not be a completely random event. In a recent game where I was playing the Americans and won by Space Race Victory, I had a border Aztec city that I was trying to convert for the longest time. I had successful defections with two other of Montezuma’s cities many hundreds of years before. My “cultural attacks” even included a concerted effort to build wonders really close to the border cities, actions which would seem counterintuitive in Civ I or II.

This one city was a real thorn in the side, because its presence made our national boundaries snake through the continent, creating a weak spot pointing to the center of the nation. I was unlucky with a long winding border with the Aztecs. Geography worked against me early on and I wasn’t able to secure a “choke point” on my continent. If this city turned, the border would consolidate.

After all the efforts dating back to the Ancient Era, the city finally converts in 2009, just before the launch of my spaceship in 2010 (the year we make contact). It was my first Space Race victory, and I wanted to see the graphics again, so I reloaded the autosaved game to watch them. Of course, I had to watch the AI moves and go through the motions of repeating my own moves. As the sequence of events unfolded, the offending city which held out so long once again converted.

I guess I’d have to do this a couple of times to see whether there’s only a chance the city converts or whether it’s predestined to happen in 2009. Could the probability of the city defecting have increased from a very low number to something close to a hundred percent?

I can think of two reasons why it happens in this year. I had built enough cultural momentum that the conversion chance increased greatly just that year, or perhaps the Aztecs in this one place reached a real low in their satisfaction index, and I missed it.

[MarshalN]

My guess is that after the event happened, the game is seeded so whatever reload you do, you can't change the event, just like an outcome of combat. So you'd probably need to reload a few turns back and observe

[Mike_W]

I agree with you MarshalN. I re-loaded a lot of games and the outcome of the battles NEVER changes. Same for city conversions. Whatever I would do before the end of the turn after which my city would convert (increase luxuries, add entertainers), it never changed the final result.