Open letter to Tenochtitlan

Lord of the Isles · January 12, 2002, 21:58

[I've won games on all levels up to and including Monarch on standard size maps; this was my second game on Monarch using editor changes to decrease corruption].

Dear People of Tenochtitlan,

It was with sadness that I received the news that you had decided to revert to the Aztec Empire. Not only because it meant you had given up the benefits of staying part of the Chinese Empire but also because I realized, as I read the news of your defection, that I would never play Civ3 again.

I should explain, since because I have been a Civilization player since the early days of Civ 1 you may be disappointed to hear I have given up. I didn't mind when you declared war on me in 1300, despite our previously good relations. I had cornered you in the south of our continent and had you done nothing, I would no doubt have discovered technologies to beat you into pulp in the years to come. I appreciated your initial attack, when I was but two riflemen away from losing my border stronghold (thanks Soren). Appreciated but laughed, as I anticipated my response. My Empire was four times your size and I had a Mutual Protection Pact with the Germans (my only rival for 1st place). The threat of a German counter would stop the Greeks taking advantage of our war to attack me in the north.

So it was with relish, and no little gratitude to the Gods of Civilization, that I launched my counter-strike. In one turn I took your biggest two border cities.
The next your capital, fabled Tenochtitlan itself, fell to my Cavalry, Cannon and Riflemen. What empire of a mere 10 cities could survive the loss of its capitol and two biggest cities in two turns, not to mention the fact that the war so far had cost the flower of Aztec youth? The bodies of your cavalrymen littered the border.

But I was wrong. Your capitol jumped to another city, as if by magic. Your miserable, bleeding excuse for an empire was strong enough to subvert your former capitol back into the fold, and my occupying army of 8 Cavalry, 10 Cannon and 6 Riflemen was not enough to stop it. Despite the fact that the occupying army was probably bigger than all the surviving military in the remains of your empire. Despite my empire being ahead of yours in technology, culture, development, size and any other yardstick you care to mention. It mattered naught, and my troops were no more.

So I quit the game and retired to lick my wounds. As I always do when losing games of Civ, I considered the lesson the Gods of Civilization had taught me. I realized the lessons from this game were profound ones. Do not be great, or the gods will humble you. Ignore squares greater than 15 to 20 away from your capitol, for you cannot influence them. Be nice to tiny opponents, for they may suddenly grow and kick you in the teeth. Put not your faith in great Empires, huge armies, well developed infrastructure and trading, for greatness in Civ3 is measured by randomness and not these fleeting things.

Or to put it more simply, the lesson was this: give up Civ3, it's a piece of ****.

Yours sadly,

Lord of the Isles

[off to resume his career playing CtPII with the Cradle mods, many pounds poorer but a little wiser]

yin26 · January 12, 2002, 22:32

Classic! Of course, wait for the vermin to say: "Hey, buddy. You don't like cities reverting? Don't attack cities."

Zachriel · January 12, 2002, 22:55

There are several good strategies to prevent reversion. I hardly ever lose a city to reversion, and I do quite a lot of conquest.

Sorry the people of Tenochtitlan overwhelmed and destroyed your armies. They were apparently not as happy with your rule as you may have wished.

Post the game if you have it.

TheHobbit · January 12, 2002, 22:57

Raising the capitol? Its foolish to try to take a capitol of a nation no matter how small unless they will be wiped out very soon. Just raise the citys far away and plant your own new ones in their places with your own people! Simple, effective, and you don't have to worry about citys reverting.

korn469 · January 12, 2002, 23:02

Lord of the Isles

i'm sorry to hear you are leaving civ3, i agree that cultural reversion could be implemented in a better way, but it is fairly easy to prevent (i always destroy their most cultural city and have only had maybe two reversions in many many games) and certainly not Civ3's greatest flaw
if this was the straw that broke the camel's back, then ignore me, but if this is the only thing you think is flawed with the game i say give it another chance

Hrnac · January 12, 2002, 23:52

Having a city revert is not very fun. Being surprised when an enemies former capitol reverts is painful. Quitting Civ 3 because of this is a bit hasty don't you think?

If you have been following these boards you should be aware that the size of the garrisoned force only helps to quell resistance. To the best of my knowledge it does nothing to prevent a city from reverting. This action should be filed away as a nice idea that was poorly implemented. I recall reading somewhere on this board, that Firaxis will be adding a message that will warn the player before a city reverts. If this is true, then the biggest pain (loosing garrisoned units) will be eliminated. The city will still revert, but your force will be able to be used to either retake the city or other things.

If I were you, I would simply wait and see what the next patch from Firaxis brings. If this issue is not addressed, then many more will surely follow you and give up on Civ 3. I feel fairly confident that this issue will be addressed in the next patch.

Keep the faith.

-Hrnac

notyoueither · January 13, 2002, 00:09

The reversion thing sux the way it is implemented. I hope it is high on the list of things to be patched.

There are a couple of things that can be done about it though, depending on the circumstances.

1. I raze cities I do not need. I always keep cities that have wonders in them. All cities fall on the continuum between these two. I put capitals in the same class as those with wonders.

2. Cities that I keep. They can be kept through one of several means. [edit: subdued, they may not always be kept, but in the end they are subdued.]

a: Small cities from culturally smaller or larger civs can be kept by garrisoning at least 1 foot unit per point of alien pop. I'll starve/rush build the city down to 1 pop and leave 2 foot units in it when all is said and done. Never lost 1.

b: Large cities from any civ (esp culturally superior civs). I use bombardment to reduce them as much as possible. I take the city when the operational situation warrants it, even if the city is not yet small enough to be easily managed.

If I have to take the city when it is still large (10 plus), then I'll leave 1 unit in it and begin starvation without even attempting to subdue resistors. This assures a reversion, so I leave a few fast attackers in position to immediately retake the city. When it reverts, I bombard/retake and begin starvation again.

Eventually, the city gets down to 1 pop, at which time 2 to 4 foot units prevent reversion. And if it does go (hasn't yet once they are at 1 pop) the loss is minimal.

As an interesting side effect of b, wars against large, advanced civs become more interesting. I know some cities are going to go, I just don't know when. It makes conquest a less straight forward matter and does not cost me a large group of valuable troops when the bad luck comes up.

Let me say first that I agree with those who find these strategies distasteful. But they work. That is why I really hope the developers add some severe checks to reversion / cultural take overs period. Let's say, Armies are absolute guarantees against it. Or maybe 10 individual units prevent it 100%. Or both. Something is going to have to be done or the game is going to continue to lose people for no good reason (not what the developers desire). I do not know of any gamers, no matter how big a fan they are, who will tolerate the random loss of their pride and joy stacks indefinitely (if even once).

I have not tested how the editor as it stands can effect reversion. Anyone tried?

Salve

Ironikinit · January 13, 2002, 00:46

It's not the city reversion rule that made him quit, it was one single city reverting, apparently.

I had a lot of trouble with reversion in my early games. I'm either better prepared or lucky, because in my recent games cities only convert one way: mine, when I culture rush a border town.

I admit, it was a big shock when cities I assumed were mine to keep started playing tricks. Some warning would've been nice, but now I know. It did make conquest tougher for a while, but as I said, it hasn't been a problem lately (knock on wood, eh.)

notyoueither had some good tips for those not too faint of heart to face flipping cities. My philosophy was to take them back and keep taking them back until they stay taken. Put in only a big enough garrison to quell resisters, and then start purchasing temples, libraries, colloseums, etc. I hope you brought your wallet to this war.

Zachriel · January 13, 2002, 01:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit

notyoueither had some good tips for those not too faint of heart to face flipping cities. My philosophy was to take them back and keep taking them back until they stay taken. Put in only a big enough garrison to quell resisters, and then start purchasing temples, libraries, colloseums, etc. I hope you brought your wallet to this war.

Razing is one solution, but I want to win their hearts and minds. I use the culture rush also. Once you know where your cultural weak spots are, it isn't that hard to allocate resources. It can be expensive though if you are in Republic or Democracy.

I just finished a game where I blitzed the Persian Empire, twelve cities in about as many turns with no reversions. I used Tank Armies, plenty of bombers, rushed the Temples, and made sure to blast the cultural centers.

GePap · January 13, 2002, 01:31

The simplest solution to city reversal is to utterly annahilate your opponent (take all their cities, kill all their settlers) and to do it quick. If that is impossible, raze all cities taken. If you find that morally reprehensible, starve or bomb to death all but a few dazed survivors. If that morally reprehensible, put in lots of troops in, spend lots of money, and hope. If you find that infuriating, never go to war, and if you find that boring, well, out of luck.

Personally, I do lots of spending, but keep few troops in- that keeps the infuriating aspects ( I just lost a tank corp to a mob!) down.

TinCow · January 13, 2002, 01:52

I rarely have problems with reversion and I also do a lot of conquest. My experience has taught me that the best war is a short war. Since I'm always Repulic or Democracy, attacking another civilization is a bit tricky for me. If I'm going to attack, I make sure that I can totally defeat the enemy in a few turns or I set concrete objectives that will force the enemy to make a favorable peace. It seems that cities never revert on the AI turn after you take them. As a result, I garrison as much as I can in the city immediately to cut down on resistors and to prevent counterattacks. The following turn, I move everything out of the city except for the units which were damaged in the attack and one full strength unit for emergency defense. If I then lose the city to reversion, I've only lost a couple badly damaged units and I have the spares around to take the blasted place back.

If worst comes to worst and I get a very nasty reversion, I use this thing called Autosave and change history in my favor.

notyoueither · January 13, 2002, 02:16

Yes, Autosave.

I usually try to avoid it, but it is a completely justified solution to a situation where your 20 Modern Armour disappear in a haze of stones. I wouldn't hold it against anyone.

Actually go 1 further, save at the end of every turn. It's a habit I have acquired during of years of dealing with sometimes buggy computers. Always save when important work is finished (such as a turn that may take as much as an hour or 2 to complete.)

By saving at the end of turns you could react to any particularly egregious action by the as-yet-unfinished game.

Salve

Captain · January 13, 2002, 02:53

call me a sap but I hate razing cities - not for gameplay reasons but because it feels "evil". in terms of gameplay, it's the best thing you could possibly do. keep a couple of settlers handy when warring, raze the city, plunk down your settler and add in the captured workers (not so much that you're in the minority of course). otherwise, it's lose the elite of your armed forces to some stupid rock-throwing urbanites. stationing outside the city works too but most of the time, you don't even want those cities cause there's way too much corruption and it'll take forever to rebuild to a good level.

still, i get the feeling i'm selling my soul or something everytime i burn a city down and half a million people just "disappear".

yeah, i know it's just a game....

notyoueither · January 13, 2002, 03:50

Captain

No, actually, it's not JUST a game. It's a passion. For some. Maybe for you.

It's like a great book that you write as you go. You suspend belief. For a brief while you are not John T Citizen, who collates reports for CorpX. No, you are Emporer X and you control the destiny of millions or billions.

I can empathize with anyone who finds themselves forced to perform personally distasteful actions just to succeed at Civ. It undermines the passion. Hence, it undermines the game. And let's face it, *personally distasteful* barely begins to scratch the surface when it comes to genocide.

I think they went the anti-conquer line of thought too far. I think that culture was a fairly big bone to throw at the builders. I love it. However, I don't think they needed to add the insult to the conquerors of making their massive armies meaningless in the face of culture and random rock-throwing mobs.

Oy vey! At least it ain't done yet. And thank god the editor has much to be discovered/patched in it.

The worst mistake that could occur in this forum at this time, is that the people who actually play the game not state their grievances for fear of some troller pouncing on it. The developers are still working on the game right now. They really will benefit from the actual players stating their likes and dislikes. They will also be able to fix those really weird bugs that require thousands of individual play styles to find.

Like the guy who thought, hey, why should I build a city with my beginning settler? Why don't I explore for goddie huts? Hey, I got a warrior. Lets go attack Paris. Hey, we took Paris. Hey, I don't have a Palace in my first and only city... Some years and a few cities later; still no palace and wow, no corruption. Many years later and 250 cities with no corruption. Everyone should do this!

Keep on truckin

Salve

nato · January 13, 2002, 06:39

I just want to say that reversion like Lord of the Isles describes is one of my two main problems with Civ3 (other being boring old stack movement).

I cannot stand the way it works in this game. Like anything else, you can work to minimize it, but not too well. I always have more culture and rush built temples, but that doesn't help much. What is the point of culture, if having twice your opponent's culture doesn't help prevent defections much?

I also can't stand the solution of razing. I can not and will not pretend I'm some barbarian horde commiting genocide. Yeah its a game, but pretending to be a monster is not a fun game for me.

My other problem is that defection just falls out of the sky on you randomly. No warning, no method, just random vanishing armies. It is like playing in a world where lightning bolts suddenly strike entire legions dead. Randomness not strategy.

I would like to again propose my suggestion of not allowing cities to convert to a civ you are at war with as long as you have a 3-6 unit garrison there.

I know Civ3 is different from Civ2 ... but I think these kind of defections really ruin Civ3 (not Civ2) ... just casting my vote.

Thanks for reading. Sorry if this sounded whiney, but it is maybe my #1 complaint with Civ3.

nato · January 13, 2002, 07:02

I just had another idea ...

Currently, it SEEMS like 1 military unit per unit of population will prevent defection ...

How about changing it to 1 military unit will stop 2 or 3 or 4 units of population from revolting?

This would be a simple change and leave things mostly the way it is now for those who are currently happy. Plus it should be super easy to program, so it would be feasible!

ALSO, tell players just how many population units each military unit quells, so it is predictable and not so random.

Still hoping to stumble on a solution most people would be happy with ... anyone like this idea?

Again thanks for reading.

Zachriel · January 13, 2002, 10:33

Quote:

Yes, Autosave.

I won't say I've never reloaded, but I never consider those victories.

Reversion is a playable game feature. The King of France didn't believe the mob was a match for his highly trained gunpowder army either. But it was his own capital he lost control of, then his head.

I would consider that a loss, too.

Zachriel · January 13, 2002, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
I just had another idea ...

Currently, it SEEMS like 1 military unit per unit of population will prevent defection ...

How about changing it to 1 military unit will stop 2 or 3 or 4 units of population from revolting?

This would be a simple change and leave things mostly the way it is now for those who are currently happy. Plus it should be super easy to program, so it would be feasible!

ALSO, tell players just how many population units each military unit quells, so it is predictable and not so random.

Still hoping to stumble on a solution most people would be happy with ... anyone like this idea?

Again thanks for reading.

There are acually two features of the game. Resistance and cultural reversion. With resistance, it takes one military unit per resistor. I use TOTAL CONTROL. That is lots of military the first turn to suppress any opposition. With cultural reversion, it is important to get that Temple up immediately, even if you have to force-build it while the city is still in resistance.

I have only seen one writer with the courage to post a game he believed was flawed due to cultural reversion. That game was easy to fix. A garrison worked; or force-building a cathedral; or even force-building a temple in a nearby friendly city, all stopped the reversion. With this lesson in mind, it is possible to anticipate reversion and take appropriate measures.

(I had to use force-building in this case because he didn't save the game a turn or two before the reversion, but even a simple garrison worked.)

Zachriel · January 13, 2002, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
The simplest solution to city reversal is to utterly annahilate your opponent (take all their cities, kill all their settlers) and to do it quick. If that is impossible, raze all cities taken. If you find that morally reprehensible, starve or bomb to death all but a few dazed survivors. If that morally reprehensible, put in lots of troops in, spend lots of money, and hope. If you find that infuriating, never go to war, and if you find that boring, well, out of luck.

Cultural reversion has a strong historical basis. For instance, when Israel revolted from Rome, did Caesar blame Firaxis? No, he sent in the Legions and razed the city.

Willem · January 13, 2002, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Yes, Autosave.

I usually try to avoid it, but it is a completely justified solution to a situation where your 20 Modern Armour disappear in a haze of stones. I wouldn't hold it against anyone.

Actually go 1 further, save at the end of every turn. It's a habit I have acquired during of years of dealing with sometimes buggy computers. Always save when important work is finished (such as a turn that may take as much as an hour or 2 to complete.)

By saving at the end of turns you could react to any particularly egregious action by the as-yet-unfinished game.

Salve

Or simply have Autosave enabled, and the game will do it for you.

GePap · January 13, 2002, 11:44

The complaint is not about the fact that citizens revolt, and that sometimes those revolts are based on nationalistic, cultural reasons (as opposed to revolts over missrule, which don't occur in Civ3, only riot). Ths complaint is that the way they are implemented in the game is false and detrimental to gameplay. I once recommended that we have disasters in civ3, but many said this was random so no good. well, city reversion today is about as random. Firts, you get little warning, and second, the troops stationed there are wipped out with no problem. Did the Romans just fall over and die? Loosing the garrison to weak rebels (one or a copule of defending units) is acceptable- loosing entire legions and their siege equipment, and their support cavalry is not because this simply did not happen. Yes, the Isrealites revolted against the small garrisons in the region and then the romans brought in the big guns to wipe the revolt away.
But your example is valid in a way- The Romans tried the cultural buying strategy many say works well, the one even I use (hey, financed new theaters, better infrastructure), and assumed (like many of us) that that would work. But it didn't and the cities revolted anyway- so the got frustrated and said, what the heck, lets just raze them this time and avoid the problem. How Civ3

Willem · January 13, 2002, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
call me a sap but I hate razing cities - not for gameplay reasons but because it feels "evil". in terms of gameplay, it's the best thing you could possibly do. keep a couple of settlers handy when warring, raze the city, plunk down your settler and add in the captured workers (not so much that you're in the minority of course). otherwise, it's lose the elite of your armed forces to some stupid rock-throwing urbanites. stationing outside the city works too but most of the time, you don't even want those cities cause there's way too much corruption and it'll take forever to rebuild to a good level.

still, i get the feeling i'm selling my soul or something everytime i burn a city down and half a million people just "disappear".

yeah, i know it's just a game....

Ever since Civ I, I've been starving out most of the cities I conquer for the simple fact the AI tends to put them in ridiculous places and/or they don't fit in with the rest of my empire. About the only ones I've EVER kept are the ones with Wonders in them. I've been wanting a raze function for a long, long time. Now if I could just get my military up to the point where I can consider taking a town or two!

Willem · January 13, 2002, 12:02

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Captain

I can empathize with anyone who finds themselves forced to perform personally distasteful actions just to succeed at Civ. It undermines the passion. Hence, it undermines the game. And let's face it, *personally distasteful* barely begins to scratch the surface when it comes to genocide.

Salve

Then don't think of it as genocide. Think of it as turning the people of the city into refugees. Even when you're starving them, consider that they're leaving town of their own free will. Maybe Firaxis should add an animation of hordes of little people escaping the city just before it gets razed, and disappearing into the countryside. It might make razing a more acceptable option.

ACooper · January 13, 2002, 12:46

Quit because you lose a city?

Now that says more about you than it does the game.

Zachriel · January 13, 2002, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Ths complaint is that the way they are implemented in the game is false and detrimental to gameplay. I once recommended that we have disasters in civ3, but many said this was random so no good. well, city reversion today is about as random. Firts, you get little warning, and second, the troops stationed there are wipped out with no problem. Did the Romans just fall over and die? Loosing the garrison to weak rebels (one or a copule of defending units) is acceptable- loosing entire legions and their siege equipment, and their support cavalry is not because this simply did not happen. Yes, the Isrealites revolted against the small garrisons in the region and then the romans brought in the big guns to wipe the revolt away.
But your example is valid in a way- The Romans tried the cultural buying strategy many say works well, the one even I use (hey, financed new theaters, better infrastructure), and assumed (like many of us) that that would work. But it didn't and the cities revolted anyway- so the got frustrated and said, what the heck, lets just raze them this time and avoid the problem. How Civ3

I wouldn't say that reversion in the game is "random," but no doubt a better implementation would be appreciated by many players -- at least a warning the turn before.

The Romans left just one cohort (600 men) in Jerusalem. Like in Civ3, the residents took advantage of the opportunity to revolt. The Romans did invest in city improvements, but lost any value of these improvements through the excesses of the procurator Gessius Florus. There is always a certain randomness inherent to account for local conditions, but a despotic government with 0% luxuries probably exasperates the situation.

Anyone want to post an example? I really don't have any, since I usually win cities through reversion, not lose them.

Zachriel · January 13, 2002, 13:47

Another example showing the how a large military force can be lost by reversion:

Vichy France. The Germans conquered half of France. The other half volunteered for the Fascist cause, to which many had sympathy. Individual French citizens resisted the collaboration, but the Allies lost a large and powerful region of France, including military units, when it flipped.

notyoueither · January 13, 2002, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel
Another example showing the how a large military force can be lost by reversion:

Vichy France. The Germans conquered half of France. The other half volunteered for the Fascist cause, to which many had sympathy. Individual French citizens resisted the collaboration, but the Allies lost a large and powerful region of France, including military units, when it flipped.

Uhhmmm, no.

France signed an armistice with Germany. According to the armistice the North and Western coastal regions were to remain occupied by the Germans. The French were left to govern themselves in the rump that was left. I am unaware of any British or Commonwealth units being lost as a result of the armistice being signed.

At any rate, over to your point of there being historical foundations for reversion. Well yes, and no. I agree with you mostly, BUT...

Rebellions, while at peace, do not result in the city switching to another empire. That is not how rebellions and politics work.

And rebellions do not usually occur, let alone succeed in immediate proximity to massive military force. Your example of poor Louis and his botched attempts to deal with the French National Assembly is a good one, except for the fact that at critical points he rejected the notion of moving additional military units to the capital to back up his authority.

Finally, most of the people in this thread are not saying Firaxis should do away with reversion entirely. However, it seems most people think the way it has been implemented is silly, the actions forced upon us to combat it are extreme, and we don't like it. That's all.

Salve

notyoueither · January 13, 2002, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Cultural reversion has a strong historical basis. For instance, when Israel revolted from Rome, did Caesar blame Firaxis? No, he sent in the Legions and razed the city.

Yes he did. Although he didn't have to declare war on another empire to do so, because the rebellious area was still a part of the Roman Empire. They did not immediately join another.

Salve

Blackadar1 · January 13, 2002, 17:19

****gy, your comment says worlds about you as well and it isn't good. Troll.

Bautou · January 13, 2002, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel
Anyone want to post an example? I really don't have any, since I usually win cities through reversion, not lose them.

While I think that the wartime cultural defection effect is too strong, I do somewhat understand it though I do wish that it was not so overbearing. In anycase, here's a save game file of mine where the effect is particularly strong. It's the modern age and I've just conquered most of Russia except for a few small islands in the bottom right hand side of the map.

Due to the extreme slowness of naval movement, it'll be quite some time before I can get a force to those islands (yeah yeah, plan ahead, I know, I had thought that my AI allies would be able to handle that one city though). In the meantime, I lose 1-3 cities on the Russian mainland per turn (despite rush-building temples and having the Russians in admiration of my overall culture).