Disgusted

[bahoo]

Last night I disgustedly quit my civ game, and prolly don't intend to play anytime in the near future. The story...

I had 1 army of 3 knights, 4 regular knights, 1 musketman, and 1 catapault parked on a hill outside of Heliopolis prepping for an attack. Egypt demanded tribute from me, I said no, and they declared war much to my convenience. Next turn, I attack the city (pop: 12) and capture it I have enough movement to get a few troops into it. Between turns 1 resistor is quelled. I move the rest of my forces in to rest up and get their hp back (that's a total of 9 units), mind you the city is still in resistance so I can't hurry a temple or anything. Next turn, it deposes!

Bam, 9 units wiped out by an ill-conceived game concept and bad luck on the random number seed. My offensive war effort was thwarted and I had to beg for peace. I don't mind losing a superior troop to an inferior one once in awhile due to bad luck, because I know on average it may happen once in awhile but not often. But losing my whole dang offensive army is just plain ridiculous.

This concept of deposing, is completely unrealistic, makes no sense whatsoever, and is just plain unfun. Citizens should not be able to destroy an army without fighting!

I would like to know what possibly could have been done differently, I couldn't hurry improvements yet, and had what I thought was a substantial force there.

Firaxis, I want an answer as to whether this is gonna be modified in the next patch to allow for your troops to have the option to fight back or retreat. If it's not changed I can't see myself playing the game much more. If I wanted to sit around and build churches and colosseums all day, I'd play SimCity!

[Libertarian]

Oh, that's easy!

They're aware of the feature, and when they have a statement to make on it, they will.

[ledj]

I can image the frustration when the newly conquered city and all the military units were lost , especially with an army in it. What I will do is to sell the city to a remote civ (with low culture) for gold or techs. All your units will be transferred to your capital. The city will soon revert back to Greece, and you can re-take the city. This time , use the cannon bring the population down, and your own workers to populate the city will also help.

[Jodo Kast]

I think there is a forum for War Stories. You poor sod!

Next time concentrate on your Civ's Culture a bit more...

[bahoo]

Originally posted by Jodo Kast
I think there is a forum for War Stories. You poor sod!

Next time concentrate on your Civ's Culture a bit more...

First off, all my cities had temples/libraries/cathedrals and a few had colosseums...additionally I had 3 wonders.

Sure, I didn't have as many cities as Egypt and wasn't a religious civ (I'm convinced that religious civs are the best due to their huge cultural advantage), so my TOTAL culture number was maybe lower, but on a city by city basis it certainly wasn't.

And that's not the point anyway, I had a LOT of knights with swords and men with muskets, there is no possible way a bunch of pathetic peasants with pitchforks could've have killed them all! It's a broken, ill-conceived concept, admit it!

[ACooper]

Is that bahoo or boohoo?

You need 1 more unit than the population of the city, the problem has never occurred to me under these circumstances. And if it did I certainly wouldn't give up and whine about it here.

[Griff000]

Originally posted by Jodo Kast
I think there is a forum for War Stories. You poor sod!

Next time concentrate on your Civ's Culture a bit more...

That's a bit harsh!

I've had this happen lots of times, even when I'm culturally way ahead.

I've also had cities defect to culturally inferior Civs...

[bahoo]

Originally posted by ****gyRA
Is that bahoo or boohoo?

You need 1 more unit than the population of the city, the problem has never occurred to me under these circumstances. And if it did I certainly wouldn't give up and whine about it here.

Oh, that's so intuitive, of course it takes 13 armed trained soldiers to take on 12 untrained unarmed peons!

I could really care less what the 'formula' for victory is. I'd like the game to make sense and be somewhat realistic.

Please give me one historical example, or logical explanation as to how a bunch of civilians defeated an army of soldiers without a fight or them retreating.

[Ming]

Originally posted by bahoo
I could really care less what the 'formula' for victory is. I'd like the game to make sense and be somewhat realistic.

If you want realism, why are you playing a game
Why not just join the military and get a taste of "realism"

[Navyman]

Why didn't the Czechs or the Polish people think of deposing the Nazi occupying army? That would have saved Europe from a war.

I want to know, how the heck does mostly unarmed civilian resistors overthrow a city garrisoned by an empire's "Strike Corps?" I have yet to read an episode of history where the populace overthrows the invaders and gains the loyalty of the occupying army. Please, anyone point it out to me if I am missing something?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by bahoo
Oh, that's so intuitive, of course it takes 13 armed trained soldiers to take on 12 untrained unarmed peons!

While I've never had this problem in any game I've yet played, only ever moving enough troops in to quell resisters (number of resisters +1), a size 12 city has many, many more people than are in 12 military units.

However, there should be combat for a revolting city. It shouldn't be handed back for free. City fighting is vicious nasty stuff. Citizens should die, buildings should be destroyed. Victory shouldn't be certain.

[Gunter]

Do you want a good solution? Really? Realistic?

Go back to last auto save,this is the only way to fight against city dfeted,untill Fireaxis will do something,in the future....maybe.

[ACooper]

I'm just telling you how the game is programmed. It's not a "formula". It's either in the manual or has been posted here by either Jeff or Dan. (I don't remember which)


All I'm saying is that it's the way the game was made. Right or wrong.

I think the idea was to slow down the "wipe out another civilization in one turn" effect that could happen in Civ2.

[Libertarian]

Apparently, bombardment and air units don't count toward whatever the arbitrary formula is.

[felder]

Originally posted by bahoo
Last night I disgustedly quit my civ game, and prolly don't intend to play anytime in the near future. The story...

I had 1 army of 3 knights, 4 regular knights, 1 musketman, and 1 catapault parked on a hill outside of Heliopolis prepping for an attack. Egypt demanded tribute from me, I said no, and they declared war much to my convenience. Next turn, I attack the city (pop: 12) and capture it I have enough movement to get a few troops into it. Between turns 1 resistor is quelled. I move the rest of my forces in to rest up and get their hp back (that's a total of 9 units), mind you the city is still in resistance so I can't hurry a temple or anything. Next turn, it deposes!

Bam, 9 units wiped out by an ill-conceived game concept and bad luck on the random number seed. My offensive war effort was thwarted and I had to beg for peace. I don't mind losing a superior troop to an inferior one once in awhile due to bad luck, because I know on average it may happen once in awhile but not often. But losing my whole dang offensive army is just plain ridiculous.

This concept of deposing, is completely unrealistic, makes no sense whatsoever, and is just plain unfun. Citizens should not be able to destroy an army without fighting!

I would like to know what possibly could have been done differently, I couldn't hurry improvements yet, and had what I thought was a substantial force there.

Firaxis, I want an answer as to whether this is gonna be modified in the next patch to allow for your troops to have the option to fight back or retreat. If it's not changed I can't see myself playing the game much more. If I wanted to sit around and build churches and colosseums all day, I'd play SimCity!

Yeah, that totally sucks. It's a shame that Firaxis has made it make more sense to raze cities and then to capture them. I like the culture aspect of the game, but cities absolutely should not revert after capturing them. One strategy I use is I raze some and capture others. If you raze a few and get their borders to recede, I've found that the cities don't revert nearly as easily. Unfortunately, then you have to move in your settlers and re-settle the "holes" or else the damn AI will move in and plop cities in every available square (another major gripe of mine.)

[bahoo]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


While I've never had this problem in any game I've yet played, only ever moving enough troops in to quell resisters (number of resisters +1), a size 12 city has many, many more people than are in 12 military units.

Given the fact that when you draft a citizen you lose 1 population and get 1 unit, I would have to think there is about the same amount of people in each.

However, there should be combat for a revolting city. It shouldn't be handed back for free. City fighting is vicious nasty stuff. Citizens should die, buildings should be destroyed. Victory shouldn't be certain.

I agree with that, the troops should have to fight, and maybe some would die, and if in fact the resistors did outpower the military units there, you would lose the city, but the military there should at least get a chance.

Do you want a good solution? Really? Realistic?

Go back to last auto save,this is the only way to fight against city dfeted,untill Fireaxis will do something,in the future....maybe.

Too bad I turn auto-save off so I don't have the temptation to do exactly that when things don't go my way and the perhaps incorrect notion that it speeds the time between turns.

[Morganstern]

While I can partially understand Bahoo's frustration (I've been there), the new rules of the game dictate that you don't put your entire army into a size 12 city during what must be an early age in the game (since you're still using Knights). Firaxis has introduced an interesting risk factor into the game. Most games come with an element of chance. Firaxis enables several ways to handle this: (1) leave most troops outside the city and attack again if the city deposes, (2) Raze the city, (3) decimate neighboring cities to reduce the effect of culture, or (4) don't take the City.

Bahoo took a gamble and lost, and compounds the risk by disabling AutoSave. Honestly, I just don't see what Firaxis is supposed to about this!

As far as this being unrealistic, Ming probably had the best response to that! Even if we can assume realism is important, and it is to a degree, I don't see the unreality of a large city that was living as another Civilization for hundreds of years rejecting its attackers. Temporary occupancy is possible and was achieved in WWII, but is not the norm when you have a co-equal or stronger civilization; indeed, the French experience in WWII is notable in being an exception to the modern experience.

Finally, let's not forget where much of this comes from. Many posters in these forums were whining about ICS after CIV 2; Firaxis comes up with the corruption and deposing models as reasonable responses, and what does Firaxis get? More whining!

[gachnar]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Oh, that's easy!

They're aware of the feature, and when they have a statement to make on it, they will.

This is completely off-topic, but you really do have the attitude of a 9 year old...

On a more on-topic.. well... topic...

Tell me that you didnt grab a large city right near the Egyptian capital. Or that you cleared out all the surronding cities first.

If nothing else, it was sloppily executed. You must have known that this was possible. Not historically, but according to game mechanics.

If you really want to imagine a scenario where this could happen, try this: Your troops, injured and far from home, realized that they would be treated much better by Egypt than you. They started the revolt.

[bahoo]

First off, what is ICS?

Originally posted by gachnar


Tell me that you didnt grab a large city right near the Egyptian capital. Or that you cleared out all the surronding cities first.

If nothing else, it was sloppily executed. You must have known that this was possible. Not historically, but according to game mechanics.

If you really want to imagine a scenario where this could happen, try this: Your troops, injured and far from home, realized that they would be treated much better by Egypt than you. They started the revolt.

I could buy the troops defecting thing, but they don't, they just vanish. If the troops did defect I think it would certainly have to take longer than 2 turns for them to adore Egypt, considering they've been diehard greeks all their life (and I pay their wages).

Come to think of it, the city was near their capital, and it probably was poorly executed according to the game mechanics. I'm just not a big fan of the raze most enemy cities and build your own strategy the game enforces.

How exactly would burning all of a city's neighbors' houses to the ground and enslaving them as workers make them like me better? Not to mention burning down their capital.

And as far as realism, this is a historical empire simulator. It ought to strive to be as realistic as feasible while still allowing fun, easy game play. The whole way deposing works seems un-realistic to me. I agree it's completely realistic that the citizens would continue to hate you for years on end, but it would not be without force that they could oust you.

[TrainWreck20]

If I understand how it works, when the city defects, the units inside are disbanded and are not available to the new city owners. That seems to be my experience.

As for believability, I kind of agree with the injured/exhausted/overwhelmed line of thinking. Perhaps they love the local women and decide to stay . Is that in the cultural count? That would explain why they just *vanish*. Mind you, this line of thinking is just self-defense so that I can still enjoy the game.

[Dis]

wimp

oh boohoo. I'll cry for you if I had the capability (my tear ducts were destroyed in the gulf war).

maybe you can sue someone for descrimination and get reparations.

civ2 is for panzies and wimps. Civ3 is for real men (and women)

[MrWhereItsAt]

ICS - Infinite City Sleaze (or something...)
A Civ 2 strategy where a player would found excessive numbers of size 1-2 cities as oppposed to some large cities. This is because a settler (1 pop point) can found a size 1 city that exploits 2 map squares, thus meaning double the productivity of any additional pop point. Considered a cheat (?), personally I think any inventive way around game mechanics to give an advantage (like this), especially after full patching of the game, is more than acceptable. It IS a game, innit?

[Bilo]

Originally posted by bahoo

And as far as realism, this is a historical empire simulator. It ought to strive to be as realistic as feasible while still allowing fun, easy game play. The whole way deposing works seems un-realistic to me. I agree it's completely realistic that the citizens would continue to hate you for years on end, but it would not be without force that they could oust you.

I don't think it's unrealistic at all, I find it as a well designed game-concept. You've probably seen (or at least heard of) the movies "Braveheart" and "Lawrence of Arabia" both are based on real events and are good examples of the citizens revolting against a foreign rule.
Additionally your assumption of that the Egyptians under your rule are unarmed is not valid, in my opinion. If a group of people have the will to fight against their rulers, they will find the weapons in one way or another(think about IRA and PLO).

[TrainWreck20]

Part of the problem is that the game, IMHO, takes place in two time frames - combat time and 'Civ' time. The problem is a turn in civ can be decades....so ten years after the city was conquered, it has essentially reverted to what it used to be. The loss of the units is more of a problem. I agree that some of the 'garrison' units should be lost, maybe 'absorbed' into the local population or separated culturally from the homeland. Hard to imagine all of them, but I guess this is the supposed case.

The effect is really on the combat, which occurs in the 'combat' time frame. Several turns of combat would in reality occur in a span of a few weeks/months/maybe years, so there would not be time for assimilation, theoretically.

I, personally, have had very few (can't think of any right now) cities revert during a war. Usually occurs shortly after it ends. Seems like a 'grace' period of a few turns after conquest would take care of the majority of the problem for me. That would allow time for units to move on.

[felder]

Originally posted by Bilo


I don't think it's unrealistic at all, I find it as a well designed game-concept. You've probably seen (or at least heard of) the movies "Braveheart" and "Lawrence of Arabia" both are based on real events and are good examples of the citizens revolting against a foreign rule.
Additionally your assumption of that the Egyptians under your rule are unarmed is not valid, in my opinion. If a group of people have the will to fight against their rulers, they will find the weapons in one way or another(think about IRA and PLO).

Really...so basically in Braveheart, William Wallace's army chilled in a city for a little while after conquering it. Then "poof" because the English have such sexy women and Shakespeare all of Wallace's army suddenly disappeared and the city was under English control again.

Hmm...perhaps that was the director's cut.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
ICS - Infinite City Sleaze (or something...)

Infinite City Sprawl

[MrWhereItsAt]

Infinite City Sprawl

DOH! Well then, don't I feel stupid.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Ming
If you want realism, why are you playing a game
Why not just join the military and get a taste of "realism"

Admit it, Ming, that´s a silly argument.

If someone enjoys playing with a flight simulator, would you tell him 'Earn enough money, and get a Boeing of your own'?

Or if he enjoys SimCity, does that mean he is a failure in life, because he didn´t succeed in getting elected Mayor of his hometown?

Moreover, it´s not just the military: CivIII is a step back in realism in many different areas. I think the most disappointed people are not the would-be Napoleons, but those who hoped for a game that is more of a Sim-Civ.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Admit it, Ming, that´s a silly argument.

No it's not... It's just a game. There are TONS of things that aren't realistic in it. To complain about one specific element not being realistic is a joke. Tell me that the effects of Wonders are realistic... tell me that a Great Leader can walk into a town and complete a Great Wonder in a single turn... Much of the game isn't realistic.

The complaint he has is just another rule of the game. To actually say that he is going to stop playing the game because of ONE of the many rules and to DEMAND that it be fixed before he ever plays again because it's not realistic is just plain whining...

It's one of the rules of the game... deal with it

[Rasputin]

the game uses concepts to portray realism as realism is hard to program into a game. The concept of towns deposing you is a good one, you now have to do more than just build military and rush around the planet. This isnt a war game its a game of civilisation. To keep that town you conquered, build your culture borders to extend to the town first, then conquer it, then immediatly out the citizens to entertainers to keep them happy, next turn rush build temple etc , then you should find you keep the city.

I have had a few citys despose me but i usually leave me main armed force outside the city and olny enter with small forces, then if the town despsoes me i improve my culture border before attacking again.