illogical

[ak]

I just took an enemy city after a hard fought and planned battle. So a couple of turns later, the city deposes my governor - with 10 of my units garrisoned in it. OK, now that ticked me off, but I'm thinking, well that's the culture thing, so I'll deal with it. Next turn I take the city back again with some adjacent units and my worst fears were realized. The garrisoned units *vanished*. We're talking mucho shields into the ether. Boy - I felt like putting the game on the shelf and going back to a normal life, right then and there. But wait, surely there must be some logical explanation as to why that happens...........NAH!

[Peets]

Try to make a temple in the captured city asap.

[Wrong_shui]

or try taking evey city in 1 turn, so they have no one to go back too

[ak]

looks like a quick temple might be a fix but I don't know if it's foolproof.

[Skanky Burns]

Some helpful hints:

* Bombard the population down to a small number (like 1)
* Garrison more units with attack value > 1 (arty, etc dont count) than population
* Have higher total culture than the cities former owner
* Generate your own culture in the captured city (aka temple rush)
* If worst comes to worst, bring along your own settler, raze the city and build a loyal one in its place

[sophist]

And then use the resulting workers from the razing to improve your new city

[Tassadar]

Hmm,
I wonder if after 'cultural imperialism' capture one can have workers/sttlers join the city to prevent the city from reverting back to the enemy? This is a problem I seem to have constantly.

Regards Tassadar

[bahoo]

Originally posted by ak
But wait, surely there must be some logical explanation as to why that happens...........NAH!

No one has been able to produce a logical reason yet.

Tons of ways around it have been figured out, but as far as a logical reason as to why your troops dematerialize, nope, nadda!

[ak]

thanks for the hints Skanky.
A couple of points:
- I did have a higher total cultural value - though the AI was relatively high too.
- there were a couple cannon in the mix which may have thrown the equation off - as in your comments. Other than culture, I'm wondering if the number of non-arty units you garrison is the greatest factor in determining revolt chances.
- you have to decide up front if you want to raze the city and you just don't know which ones will revolt. I tend to want to spare fat, strategically located cities. Unfortunately, the revolt doesn't happen till after you've decided to spare it and it's too late to raze at that point.
- I think it's strange to have the units vanish, as opposed to being booted to your nearest city, or something to that effect.

[henry296]

The only explanation I can come up with is that those troops were killed during the coup to cause the city to go back under than control of anohter civ.

Todd

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Wrong_shui
or try taking evey city in 1 turn, so they have no one to go back too

This might be the best approach, because once I was the highest cultural civ and kept losing one Iroquois city conquered by me. DEspite my units were cavalry and musketman and the Iroquois only had spearmen and knights. Until one turn I decided to raid in the same turn a near Iroquois city, which ended those revolts.

But yes, losing 5-6 cavalry with artilery (+2 or 3) in a sudden to a civ that only has knights really sucks!
And when I get other civ's cities, I don't think it's fair to me to get a hoplite defending it. Or even a musketman if they don't even have the technology to make one!

If I didn't sell any arms to any militia, how can they rebuff their governors and defend my newly aquired city with state-of-the-art weaponry?

[Jaybe]

Ak,
As Firaxians have stated before, another factor in city reversion is the relative distance to the respective capitals. I suppose that the city was a lot closer to their capital than it was to yours.

Other potential remedies I have read here are to put a few (not too many) combat units in the city -- junk/obsolete units since it may still revert; add some workers/settler of YOURS to the city so there are fewer of their citizens (proportionally).

Bombard it down to 'town' (6 or less) size before you storm it. Larger Cities/Metropolises are just begging for trouble.

I once took a town (4-6 squares from its capital), and based half my air force there. Couple turns later it was all gone. They were a small power anyway, so I said "just never mind" and granted a peace treaty. Good lesson, though.

The chances of it happening are supposedly lower with the version 1.16f patch.

BTW, I object to your thread title "Illogical". So are many aspects of the game -- but then again, so are many aspects of "reality".

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by ak
I just took an enemy city after a hard fought and planned battle. So a couple of turns later, the city deposes my governor - with 10 of my units garrisoned in it. OK, now that ticked me off, but I'm thinking, well that's the culture thing, so I'll deal with it. Next turn I take the city back again with some adjacent units and my worst fears were realized. The garrisoned units *vanished*. We're talking mucho shields into the ether. Boy - I felt like putting the game on the shelf and going back to a normal life, right then and there. But wait, surely there must be some logical explanation as to why that happens...........NAH!

I have asked myself the same question and there is no rational explaination. Take World War II for example. France certainly had more culture than Germany but you didn't see Parisians taking the city back destroying the Wehrmacht without a fight. I believe that *if* a captured city is allowed to revolt it should do so in a manner similar to slave revolts in CTP where a number of conscript basic units (the number based on the captured city's population) attacks your garrison. If they win they retake the city, if you win you crush the rebellion. In one game I had all but wiped out the Egyptians who had less culture and one of their cities kept converting this one turn. Making it worse this was a city I had captured many turns earlier and had built a Temple and Courthouse in but it still converted. It had a population of 6 and I kept adding units to it and saving the game it every time it converted back to Egypt. I would reload (yes I cheat sometimes!) and add more units. It took 15 units to prevent the city from converting! This is enough to fill 5 armies! I'd like to know how a city of 6 could overthrow 12+ infantry/cavalry. I can't believe Firaxis actually has made it easier for cities to be converted by culture in the patch. I don't think genocide is the best answer either (razing the city and/or bombing it killing all but 1 of the population).

[Allemand]

Those Egyptians are famous for switching sides. Against them, I never leave any units in a large city until I have the population restructured. If they revert, I raze the city on the next turn.

For small cities, the best way is to add some of your non-Egyptian workers to the city and send any captured Egyptian workers back to be added to your cities. Captured workers are too slow in the fields but work fine in the city if they're a minority.

[Venger]

I must restate as I echo Davwhitts well stated post - there is a better way. As he said, genocidal destruction of entire cities is offensive and dull. CTP did indeed have a better way. I have even offered that these cities should lose population points and have a guerilla unit spawn, a 6/6 unit that requires no support from the sponsor (old owner) Civ. This would be a much smarter, more elegant way to handle the concept of resistance in a captured city.

But to simply give it back over culture is a real gameplay joke.

Venger

[Vonotar]

Originally posted by ak
I just took an enemy city after a hard fought and planned battle. So a couple of turns later, the city deposes my governor - with 10 of my units garrisoned in it. OK, now that ticked me off, but I'm thinking, well that's the culture thing, so I'll deal with it. Next turn I take the city back again with some adjacent units and my worst fears were realized. The garrisoned units *vanished*. We're talking mucho shields into the ether. Boy - I felt like putting the game on the shelf and going back to a normal life, right then and there. But wait, surely there must be some logical explanation as to why that happens...........NAH!

Either the units were destroyed when the governor was desposed (not sure if this is what happens) or, more likely, the AI could have disbanded the units in order to add shields to whatever it wanted to build.

It's not impossible for your units to vanish as the AI could have done something during it's turn.

[Darkknight]

A library is better to build for culture then a temple. It only takes 3/4 of the time and gives +3 culture rather then just +2 for a temple.

[down th' pub]

So Darknight, you play a scientific Civ, for the others, the temple is cheaper.

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by Darkknight
A library is better to build for culture then a temple. It only takes 3/4 of the time and gives +3 culture rather then just +2 for a temple.

But revolts are more likely in cities with unhappy populations and temples help more than libraries in that manner. Not sure how much though so I guess it depends on how unhappy the city is as to whether a temple or library is better. It still doesn't make sense though. I can't imagine the Mongols getting kicked out of Kiev because they failed to build a temple or library.

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by Vonotar

Either the units were destroyed when the governor was desposed (not sure if this is what happens) or, more likely, the AI could have disbanded the units in order to add shields to whatever it wanted to build.

I fail to see how entire armies can suddenly vanish though. If they were destroyed then by who? If by the citizens of the city they garrison should they be allowed to fight back? Why is there no battle? Even if victorious the city should lose population points and some of the troops should be able to retreat (especially cavalry and tanks).

It's not impossible for your units to vanish as the AI could have done something during it's turn.

I do not feel comfortable with the idea that the AI can mysteriously make my armies vanish and cities convert. Culture is a good concept but Civ3 takes it too far. How many cities have changed sides in history due to culture?

[Vonotar]

Originally posted by davwhitt
I fail to see how entire armies can suddenly vanish though. If they were destroyed then by who?
...
I do not feel comfortable with the idea that the AI can mysteriously make my armies vanish and cities convert.

Umm, pick a city, pick a unit in the city, right-click, choose disband

Unit disappears!

There's nothing to say that the AI isn't doing precisely this straight after the city switches from you to it. After all if the troops are captured when the city converts it would actually make sense to disband them for shields as they would still have their original nationality.

When you regain the city on the next turn the troops are gone.

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by Vonotar

Umm, pick a city, pick a unit in the city, right-click, choose disband

Unit disappears!

There's nothing to say that the AI isn't doing precisely this straight after the city switches from you to it. After all if the troops are captured when the city converts it would actually make sense to disband them for shields as they would still have their original nationality.

When you regain the city on the next turn the troops are gone.

Simulations are suppose to mirror, as closely as possible, reality. Does anyone seriously think in 1939 Parisians could have overthrown the Wehrmacht and turn their tanks into an addition to the Louvre? Also, from my experience when I capture an enemy town with culture I do not get extra shields.

[LeaninCowboy]

The rioters have eaten the enemy army.

Gawd its so obvious. Didnt you notice after re-taking the city that the citizens were smiling with red liquid smeared across there mouths ?


Sheesh.