Open letter to Tenochtitlan

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Uhhmmm, no. France signed an armistice with Germany.

If France had continued to fight, it could have been crucial. The fascists in France wanted to cooperate with the Nazis, so the fascist culture overwhelmed the demoralized forces of democracy. They believed themselves to be men of the future, and that fascism was that future. Ever since the great economic crash, many believed the great democratic powers were rotting from the inside,

Democratic culture was in retreat, but not for long.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
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.
Salve

Depends on how you define civilization. The Russian (Soviet) Empire lost pieces left and right, without combat. Russians army simply dissolved (and went looking for work). The West picked up those pieces, and is integrating them into NATO.

The French King lost control of a city that was well within his empire. How much of a garrison do you think he needs! He shoulda posted a rant about that one, or complained to Firaxis.

I'm sure there could be a better implementation of reversion.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zachriel


If France had continued to fight, it could have been crucial. The fascists in France wanted to cooperate with the Nazis, so the fascist culture overwhelmed the demoralized forces of democracy. They believed themselves to be men of the future, and that fascism was that future. Ever since the great economic crash, many believed the great democratic powers were rotting from the inside,

Democratic culture was in retreat, but not for long.

Uhhhh, Zac, do you really want to continue this?

The French Army and Air Force had ceased to exist as effective fighting forces inside France itself.

All that Britain and the Commonwealth could scrape together to assist had been destroyed. Most of the men escaped, but they had no equipment

Your take on what led the Petain government to conclude that peace was the only option is an interesting, if incorrect one. Simply put, the French were done whether they favoured Democracy, Communism, Fascism, or Martians. Done like dinner.

BTW, culture does not apply to metaphysical government types as a game model. It applies to individual empires. If your ally makes peace with your enemy, it has nothing to do with cultural reversion (or defection). It has to do with the relative merits of War, Peace and politics for your ally.

Salve

[ACooper]

I apologize for my former laugh. It was improper and impolite.


It can be annoying when you lose a city, but there are ways to combat it. When you take a city, keep more troops than the population. Keep your culture up as high as possible. It's simplistic and unbalanced, but until it gets rebalanced there is nothing else you can do. Maybe in the next patch or two they can balance it to make it a little more fair. Hopefully anyway.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Depends on how you define civilization. The Russian (Soviet) Empire lost pieces left and right, without combat. Russians army simply dissolved (and went looking for work). The West picked up those pieces, and is integrating them into NATO.

The French King lost control of a city that was well within his empire. How much of a garrison do you think he needs! He shoulda posted a rant about that one, or complained to Firaxis.

I'm sure there could be a better implementation of reversion.

You have a good point about the Soviets losing Eastern Europe. That is a very good example of Cultural defection, however...

The Soviets acquiesced to the dismantling of the empire they could no longer afford. In past instances of attempts to leave the Soviet block, the Red Army crushed the movements with ease. In the 80s, the Soviet govt decided not to oppose the movement militarily. That is the only reason it worked.

Furthermore, the former Warsaw Pact states did not immediately join NATO. NATO would not have accepted them if it would mean war with the USSR. It was only after the complete disintegration of the USSR and after Russia was assured of her place in the world (membership of the G7, etc) that NATO began to integrate some of the Central and Eastern European states.

The case of East Germany is slightly different, but again, Soviet/Russian acquiescence was required for the reunification of Germany to proceed. If they had objected strenuously, things would have been significantly different.

re Louis. He lost control of the Assembly. They then lost control of the city. All of it enabled when Louis refused/sent away military forces that could have crushed the movement with ease.

Yes, a better implementation of reversion would be welcome.

Salve

[Zachriel]

BTW, culture does not apply to metaphysical government types as a game model.

Civilization III is an abstraction, and the model represented refers not so much to political countries, but to civilizations, as in Western Civilization. Any more specific application would be unwarranted in a simple and generalised simulation.

The French Army and Air Force had ceased to exist as effective fighting forces inside France itself.

All that Britain and the Commonwealth could scrape together to assist had been destroyed. Most of the men escaped, but they had no equipment

The French Navy was still in existence. The allies destroyed these fleets to prevent their use by the fascists.

If your ally makes peace with your enemy, it has nothing to do with cultural reversion (or defection). It has to do with the relative merits of War, Peace and politics for your ally.

And exactly what is cultural defection or loyalty except the relative merits of war, peace, and political philosophy as decided by the people who make up a civilization.

Simply put, the French were done whether they favoured Democracy, Communism, Fascism, or Martians. Done like dinner.

And if all there was was France, then they would have been done. But they were just one part of a much larger civilization. So, if they had fought, if traitors in Vichy had not joined with the Nazis, they could have made a difference to the eventual outcome of the war. Vichy deported tens of thousands for the Nazis and did it willingly. Petain and others were put on trial and convicted.

Cultural defection is a game abstraction, and if you insist on some arbitrary closeness to actual events, you can always explain it away. I'm sure this is exactly the kinds of events the game makers were trying to simulate in the game.

Not only that (back on topic), by relating Civ3 to these kinds of events, I can almost always have an idea when a region is in trouble culturally.

[notyoueither]

Well Zac, I'm sure your view point would be shared by some, but...

Since Britain, France, Germany and Italy were the only combatants (at the point in time we are discussing) AND all four of them would be regarded as members of the Western Civilization, I would guess that you are discussing some soon to be released WestCiv Civil War title, not civ 3.

Salve

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by yin26
Classic! Of course, wait for the vermin to say: "Hey, buddy. You don't like cities reverting? Don't attack cities."

yes, classic yin as we all know, napoleon took moscow with a superior army and stayed there forever.....

anyway
take occupied people off every work, starve them. bring in your workers and let them join the city (forced colonization). have cash when going to war, so raise your luxury rate. be prepared to occassionally face the rebellion.
alternatively, go to play EU with yin. watch as natives massacre your outposts although they are supposed to be at level 1 of agression.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Well Zac, I'm sure your view point would be shared by some, but...
Since Britain, France, Germany and Italy were the only combatants (at the point in time we are discussing) AND all four of them would be regarded as members of the Western Civilization, I would guess that you are discussing some soon to be released WestCiv Civil War title, not civ 3.
Salve

Democratic societies v. Fascism. Use a little imagination.

There are many, many examples in history like this. Every example could be rejected as not very exact, but certainly the game makers had something like this in mind. This particular example even parallels gameplay qutie well. I have often ripped into an enemy capital captuing the wonders there (Eiffel Tower), then had nearby cities flip to my civ.

Think of it as picking figures out of clouds. Try squinting just a little.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The French King lost control of a city that was well within his empire. How much of a garrison do you think he needs! He shoulda posted a rant about that one, or complained to Firaxis.

As far as I know, none of the French cities joined England, Prussia, Russia nor Austria (nor any other country, in fact). Though, there was lots of civil disorder and then a change in government when the King was deposed.
So it looks like that it was some side-effects of anarchy rather than cultural defection

[Libertarian]

I apologize for my former laugh. It was improper and impolite.

Good, Shaggy. Strawmen are beneath you.

[GePap]

With a game like civ3, there are two things you can aim for, realism or gameplay fun. If the two can be joined, thats the best, but if they can't, make a choice. City reversion in Civ3 is neither realisitc nor fun. If a city I had not troops in reverts, fine. If a city I had the normal defensive garrison of 2 reverts- a pain, but still, it was only a small garriron. If a city with the 4th Army group reverts, destroying the entire army group more easily than the combined strenghts of the enemy armies that fight me- NOT OK, NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER OK.

This is a SIN, both in terms of realism and fun. realisitcally, no city can take on large armies and win (look at warsaw after the uprising in fall '44, wait, you can't, the Poles revolted, the Germans brought in the big guns, and blasted the city flat). In game terms this undermines the players game without having given them a chance to counteract this effectively- a random and perhaps devastating effect.

Then there is the problem of forcing persons into strategies- lets get a few thigns stragiht. Back in the middle ages, cities passed hands between rules quite often, even big, culturally important ones. Most revolts back then were, as they are now, over missrule, not what nationality one was, since back then that concept was not as ensrhined and drilled into our heads. Your king was your king, wherever they came from. So city reversion prior to discovering nationalism is historically funky. Even after nationalism, it takes a lot. Look at paris in WW2. Huge city, culturally vital. How many troops did the germans garrison in and around Paris? Not many. Did Paris rise in revolt at any moment before a huge, friendly army was one zip code away? No! Perhaps the fact that the Parisians didnt want their city to become a battleground and be wipped out by far superior german forces had something to do with their patience.

Then there are the 'strategies' one can use to stop city reversion. Point one, even if it has not happened to you does not mean that its not a problem- I have never been in a crash with a drunk driver, do i get to say that drunk driving is not an issue? Two: Because it has not happened to you does not mean it won't, since none of us really know how this works. Three: what if I don't want to do that?
Lets say there is this big, culturally important city of 20 on my borders, the key city of an enemy civ, and I want to take it, but I also want to be able to enjoy it as is, a big city with culture and industry? In civ2 and civ1, and SMAC, and MOO2 i could take a alrge, developed enemy stronghold to enhance my capabilities vis a vi the enemy or others. According to Civ3, i have to flatten to the ground and drive into starvation the people there before I get the privilage of getting to use the ground. For the most part, a cost benefit annalysis would probably show that razing the city and building your own there is cheaper in time and resources. This is not REALISTIC, nor is it FUN.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Bautou
In anycase, here's a save game file of mine where the effect is particularly strong.

I couldn't find your post. You may have to zip it as there is a size limit on the forum.

[Zachriel]

Post an example. I just don't have the problem you guys are complaining about. It doesn't appear to be random to me, but rooted in playing style.

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Libertarian


Good, Shaggy. Strawmen are beneath you.

[DilithiumDad]

This is a fun challenge, not a fault with the game! Here are my two favorite solutions, besides simply razing all captured cities:

1. Always rush-build all possible culture-producing facilities in bases on the front lines before you attack. Cultural considerations should be a key part of all military campaigns. You should always be backed by strong culture, especially along hostile fronts.

2. Don't raze 'em --give them away! You can give away cities the same year you conquet them, and then you don't ahve to deal with the 5 R's: resisters, revolt, reversion, resources (especially food), and rush builds of cultural buildings. Just give the cities away to a weak friendly civ. The advantages are that the small civ will love you, it will increase their treasury so you can trade for more lucrative deals later (ie you will end up with most of the gold generated by the city anyway), and finally the chances are good you can culture-capture it at a later date, if you really want it (usually it's better just to let your appy keep it so as to limit the number of cities you own!).

Due to a major bug in the diplomacy function, the AI will not give you even one gold coin for even the hugest city. They seem not to value cities, ecpet that they will never trade away their own. But this is no problem, just give it away for free. Your ally will get a free garrison unit (best currently available) so recapture will be unlikely. I use this "instant city giveaway" ploy during conquest to maintain a balance of power.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DilithiumDad
This is a fun challenge, not a fault with the game!

I agree. I don't give away cities (a perfectly legitimate strategy), but I do keep an eye on cultural hotspots.

[Ironikinit]

Sometimes cities are easier to convert. For example, I just played a game where I fought the English and took cities from them. Not only did none revert, London didn't even have heavy resistance. The battles were tough, but the cities were easy to co-opt.

I think one strategy to follow to avoid flips is to advance on an even front. Don't drive in a narrow wedge cutting a swath through to the enemy capital. Take border cities all along the front.

I'll try giving them away sometime, but I never seem to have comfortably weak allies.

[Bautou]

Originally posted by Zachriel


I couldn't find your post. You may have to zip it as there is a size limit on the forum.

Oops, you're right. Here it is.

[Zachriel]

Thanks Bautou for posting the game. You must have blown right through the Russian defenses. However, your military forces are stretched very thin. You are using a very few units to control millions of people, with 20 cities still in resistance. Your men can't be everywhere at once, and the people have taken to the streets, burning buildings, blocking roads, sniping at your men, throwing gas bombs, etc.

I counted 87 resistors:

Kalinin 6
New Nuremberg 1
Bryansk 1
Kursk 5
Kharkov 2
Sverdlovsk 12
Odessa 10
Grozny 6
Rostov 4
Vladivostok 3
Kiev 3
Moscow 4
Novgorod 4
St. Petersburg 3
Riga 5
Minsk 2
Krasnoyarsk 4
Kuibyshev 4
Dnepropetrovsk 3
Magnitogorsk 4

I believe in TOTAL CONTROL of the newly conquered cities. I borrowed the cavalry wall between your civ and the Greeks and used them to garrison these cities, one unit for each resistor, plus a few other scattered unused units. That is all I did. I did not rush any improvements. Starting in 1896, I played each turn without making adjustments through 1904 without a single flip. By just using garrisons, flips are eliminated for the next several turns.

I do not recommend playing this way, of course. I would normally rush as many cultural improvements as possible each turn. If you build cultural improvements, you can return your cavalry to guarding the Greek border. Net cost, $0.

By the way, you should save a Great Leader to rush a Forbidden Palace. That would help stabilize your new Russian territories. Also making peace with the Russians is warranted, though I allowed the state of war to continue for the duration of this test.

[JohnE]

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.

In my current game, I am trying for a Domination win as a Communist civilization. Under these circumstances, here is my strategy:

1. Put relentless pressure on the AI. They tend to draft citizens into defensive units, reducing their population.

2. Bombard the city until all defenders have one hit point, then take it. This will also reduce the population.

3. If the city is big enough, draft as many units as possible.

4. Station as many units with attack factors as possible, with at least one per population point.

5. Population rush a temple ASAP, even on the first turn after resistance has been quelled if possible.

6. Population rush a library ASAP.

7. Cause starvation.

8. Add workers of my own nationality if it looks like the above steps will not reduce the population to one within five turns of conquest.

In short, under Communism I am a ruthless bastard and kill as many of my opponents' people as possible as quickly as possible.

Under representative governments, things are a little different. Since you can't population rush, other methods of reducing population become more important, as does adding population of my own nationality. Rushing cultural improvements becomes expensive, but since I don't plan to take many cities as a Democracy, it's not that bad.

Ironically, my Democracies raze more cities than my Communisms, since when in Communism I want all cities regardless because I am out to conquer. In Democracy, once my civilization is big enough to dominate the game, I only take cities in retaliation for unprovoked war, in order to get peace.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by JohnE
In my current game, I am trying for a Domination win as a Communist civilization. . . .

Those are all legitimate strategies (JohnE, you tyrannical despot!).

However, I have found it is not necessary. With careful attention to resistance and overall culture, it is possible to civilize (conquer) without flipping.

[Kilroy_Alpha]

Personally, I always liked the model they used in civ2 with the partisans. They could have determined they number of partisans the civ gains using it's culture in some way, as well as the size of the city taken. Although I doubt this can implemented at this point, it would have been much better if they had carried over that feature from civ2.

Anyway, whenever you take a city (talking about real life here), it's usually NOT a good strategy to park a shitload of military right on the lawn of city hall (right?). At least not if the people you're conquering can be considered extremely hostile (what I WOULD like to see is no resistance if, say, you take back a city for an ally - liberation is not implemented in civ3). No occupying military can match hordes of really ****ing pissed citizens - there's just too many of them. Which makes me wonder, is the chance of a city reverting based on the number of resistors, the number of total citizens, or what?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kilroy_Alpha
Anyway, whenever you take a city (talking about real life here), it's usually NOT a good strategy to park a shitload of military right on the lawn of city hall (right?). At least not if the people you're conquering can be considered extremely hostile (what I WOULD like to see is no resistance if, say, you take back a city for an ally - liberation is not implemented in civ3). No occupying military can match hordes of really ****ing pissed citizens - there's just too many of them. Which makes me wonder, is the chance of a city reverting based on the number of resistors, the number of total citizens, or what?

What are you talking about? Human history? Surely not!

Name an example of a city successfully rebelling in the face of massive military presence. Especially recently conquered cities. As if the shell shocked survivors of any German or Japanese city had either the desire or the will to continue to fight in 1945! Bah!

Quite simply put, a hostile power conquers a city. People rebel. Soldiers shoot to kill. There is no press, there is no empathy. The rebellious population of a recently occupied city would (rightly) be regarded as vermin to be exterminated or bombed into oblivion since they are essentially volunteering for the forces of the recently conquered power. In short, during the war or briefly after its conclusion, is a very unwise and unhealthy time for ANY civilians to get uppity with ANY military force.

Salve

[GeneralTacticus]

What are you talking about? Human history? Surely not!

Name an example of a city successfully rebelling in the face of massive military presence. Especially recently conquered cities. As if the shell shocked survivors of any German or Japanese city had either the desire or the will to continue to fight in 1945! Bah!

Quite simply put, a hostile power conquers a city. People rebel. Soldiers shoot to kill. There is no press, there is no empathy. The rebellious population of a recently occupied city would (rightly) be regarded as vermin to be exterminated or bombed into oblivion since they are essentially volunteering for the forces of the recently conquered power. In short, during the war or briefly after its conclusion, is a very unwise and unhealthy time for ANY civilians to get uppity with ANY military force.

Salve

Exactly right. I think that if a city successfully defects, then the military in it should either die or be sent retreating in dissaray, however they should GET A CHANCE TO FIGHT BACK FIRST. It's true that there are times when citizens will ise up, fight and win against a professional army, but this is actually generally in internal revolt rather than in occupied areas. This prolly has something to do with the fact that soldiers will often desert rather than attack their own people. Look at e.g.the Shah of Iran in 1979, (I think) the Philippines in 1986, or South Korea in 1988. However, this is generally due to poor morale among the army, or cowardice on the part of the military leaders (in South Korea and the Philippines there was also pressure from the U.S. not to respond too violently). Also, if an army sees a whole population of millions of people all revolting, they're probably just not going to WANT to fight.
So: revolts can and do happen and can be succeful, but usually not when the enemy is ready and able to fight. Also, Warsaw isn't a very good example, because the fightin was between the Wehrmacht and the Polish Home Army. If you want to see the real power of civilian revolts, look at the Warsaw Ghetto; sure, the Jews lost in the end, but they were taking on professional SS troops who were armed with tanks and flamethrowers, using homemade weapons, and it took the Germans months to win.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Name an example of a city successfully rebelling in the face of massive military presence. Especially recently conquered cities. As if the shell shocked survivors of any German or Japanese city had either the desire or the will to continue to fight in 1945! Bah!

Moscow v. Napoleon
Russians burned the city. Napoleon was forced to retreat as
irregular forces (Cossacks) chased Napoleon all the way to France.

Jerusalem v. Romans
Rebels killed the Roman garrison. Rome had to reinvade -- twice --to reconquer the city. The Romans razed the city to prevent any more successful rebellions.

Mogadishu v. Americans
The Americans never established effective control of the city, and so never quelled resistance.

Saigon v. Americans
The Americans beat Hitler, didn't they? Surely they should be able to control a little backward country in S.E. Asia. NOT!

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera . . .

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Moscow v. Napoleon
Russians burned the city. Napoleon was forced to retreat as
irregular forces (Cossacks) chased Napoleon all the way to France.

Jerusalem v. Romans
Rebels killed the Roman garrison. Rome had to reinvade -- twice --to reconquer the city. The Romans razed the city to prevent any more successful rebellions.

Mogadishu v. Americans
The Americans never established effective control of the city, and so never quelled resistance.

Saigon v. Americans
The Americans beat Hitler, didn't they? Surely they should be able to control a little backward country in S.E. Asia. NOT!

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera . . .

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Moscow v. Napoleon
Russians burned the city. Napoleon was forced to retreat as
irregular forces (Cossacks) chased Napoleon all the way to France.

Jerusalem v. Romans
Rebels killed the Roman garrison. Rome had to reinvade -- twice --to reconquer the city. The Romans razed the city to prevent any more successful rebellions.

Mogadishu v. Americans
The Americans never established effective control of the city, and so never quelled resistance.

Saigon v. Americans
The Americans beat Hitler, didn't they? Surely they should be able to control a little backward country in S.E. Asia. NOT!

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera . . .

I don't think people have a problem with cities rebelling per se. I certainly don't. It is the atrocious loss of every single military unit within the city that is unacceptable.
If there was some kind of battle for the city that would be great, even if your military units were just automatically dumped outside it would be a hundred times better than simply losing all of them.

Surely you must understand how utterly irritating it is for a player who has fought a slow and bloody battle for a city and finally taken it with his triumphant tanks/soldiers, only to have them to meet sudden irrevocable fate the next turn?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Calorman
Surely you must understand how utterly irritating it is for a player who has fought a slow and bloody battle for a city and finally taken it with his triumphant tanks/soldiers, only to have them to meet sudden irrevocable fate the next turn?

I am well aware of the frustration. Octavius was somewhat peeved when Antony and his legions threw in with the Egyptians (Antony apparently liked to be treated as an Egyptian god, as was traditional in Egyptian culture.)

It is possible to minimize the risk of reversion -- once you know how it works. To my knowledge, no one has posted a game which was not easy to "fix" to prevent reversion.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Moscow v. Napoleon
Russians burned the city. Napoleon was forced to retreat as
irregular forces (Cossacks) chased Napoleon all the way to France.
[/i]

False.
First, it's probably soldiers that set Moscow on fire, under orders from the Czar or Koutousov, not civilians.
Second, it was not the fire that forced Napoléon to retreat, but the winter coming. And it happen some months later.
Third, I did not see the army of Napoléon vanishing suddendly, without any civilian losses, because some peasants decided that they wanted to be back to mother Russia (I did see the Napoléon's army being killed by frost, though, but that was some months later).