Open letter to Tenochtitlan

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

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).

Wow you saw that? I mean, you were there? Man, you must be old.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
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).

That's why the French shot so many civilians caught setting fires. If there had been no fires, they would have had shelter from the winter. When Napoleon arrived in France, he had no significant army. Months means one turn.

[Akka]

Wow you saw that? I mean, you were there? Man, you must be old.

Either a poor sense of humour, either simple trolling sentences that shows only the extend of your stupidity.

Originally posted by Zachriel
That's why the French shot so many civilians caught setting fires. If there had been no fires, they would have had shelter from the winter. When Napoleon arrived in France, he had no significant army. Months means one turn.

Moscow would not have been a shelter for the french army, as it lacked supplies to spend the winter in Russia. And the city was deserted by most of the civilians who fled before the advancing army.

Well, just admit that it's not a good example, and move on.

[notyoueither]

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 . . .

Moscow. Not a chance. The civilians had nothing to do with Napolean's withdrawal. Yes, they set fires and burned half the city down. Napolean's Army still had plenty of places to shelter. What they didn't have is supplies. What they didn't have is Peace with the Czar. So they withdrew.

Jerusalem. Massive military force (I believe I said) was not present when the rebellion occurred. Next.

Mogadishu. One can hardly count what the US committed to the ground in all of Somalia as Massive. Additionally, the parts of Mogadishu the Americans had problems with were not then, and never were subdued. It cannot be counted as a rebellion if the initial conquest/pacification has not been completed now can it?

[Edit/] Oh sorry, forgot Saigon. Saigon never revolted on the Americans. What are you thinking? Are you counting Tet? You mean the VC offensive that resulted in the VC shooting their bolt without ever capturing Saigon? Are you talking about the offensive that resulted in losses from which their own leaders later conceded they would not have recovered? Thank god for Ho that the American people and politicians concluded the wrong things from Tet. NOT even close to being an example. [/End Edit]

Not et cetera, et cetera, et cetera . . .

The fact is that populations do not ever undertake rebellion with the conquering army undefeated and still in the area in full force. It would be suicidal. I am sorry to be brusk, but try not to be a twit.

BTW, Warsaw or Paris would have been nearly reasonable examples, except that neither had overly large garrisons in them dedicated to maintaining control of the cities. Certainly nothing massive. Hint, neither were recent conquests for the Germans. Furthermore, in neither case did the Germans lose much, if anything, as an immediate result of the uprisings.

Salve

[yin26]

You're right. One summer when I was a kid, I executed a hostile take over of my sister's bedroom in response to her consistent treaty violations. While she did make an attempt to rebel by force, such audacity only resulted in the confiscation of several hapless Barbie dolls, which were later ransomed only through several very lopsided agreements (she had to wash the dog for a week, for example, while I stayed indoors sipping some iced-tea).

I eventually moved on out of boredom with the horridly pink curtains. Come to think of it, this boredom with pink curtains might also help explain how France managed to survive as long as it did. Never underestimate the power of poor taste to convince people to leave.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Either a poor sense of humour, either simple trolling sentences that shows only the extend of your stupidity.

Third, I did not see the army of Napoléon vanishing suddendly . . .

I did see Napoléon's army being killed by frost, though, but that was some months later).

Either you have blatantly poor english or you're so full of yourself that you can't discuss an historical event without acting like some omniscient observer to the whole affair. Either way you deserved a ribbing, and I was more than happy to oblige.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
try not to be a twit.

(Ad hominem attacks demean both yourself and your otherwise reasoned arguments.)

When we play Civ3, we are overlooking things from a strategic level. From high above the world, we "see" that Napoleon enters a burning city, then leaves, his army in taters.

If you expect exactitude in a strategic game simulation, you will surely always be disappointed. This situation has happened many times in history.

Certainly the game makers think so. Here is a picture of (civilian) incendiaries in Moscow being executed. They would certainly qualify as resistors. In the five months Napoleon was in Moscow, he never succeeded in quelling resistance. Culturally speaking, he could not win their hearts and minds. Exhausted, his army fled and was largely destroyed by non-regular troops not under direct military control, the Cossacks.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Calorman

Either you have blatantly poor english or you're so full of yourself that you can't discuss an historical event without acting like some omniscient observer to the whole affair. Either way you deserved a ribbing, and I was more than happy to oblige.

Ok, so it was the extend of your stupidity. Thanks for removing all doubts.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Ok, so it was the extend of your stupidity. Thanks for removing all doubts.

Bah. I was only joking. You're no fun.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Zachriel


(Ad hominem attacks demean both yourself and your otherwise reasoned arguments.)

Zac, I was trying to gently suggest something. However if you prefer that I completely confine my comments to your statements, OK.

The examples you have provided are ridiculous. The arguments given to support them are beyond that. There is no kind way to say it (actually there was, but you didn't like it).

In this thread we have been discussing the overthrow of powerful armies by the civilian populations of recently conquered cities. We have been discussing the complete annihilation of those forces solely at the hands of those civilians. We have been discussing the distressing situation where the people controlling those forces are given no opportunity to react to the rebellion before the *battle* is lost. The examples you provided fit none of these points of discussion. The arguments provided in support of those examples have added nothing, because they address neither the lack of ability to respond while large armies are being destroyed nor the absurdity of civilians destroying those armies.

When we play Civ3, we are overlooking things from a strategic level. From high above the world, we "see" that Napoleon enters a burning city, then leaves, his army in taters.

Correct. We are playing a strategic game.

Yes, Napoleon left Moscow.

However, he did not leave on account of any actions of the population of Moscow. The population had nothing to do with it. BTW, he left with his army largely as intact as when he entered the city.

The forces that destroyed his army were supply, weather, and the Russian Army, including Cossacks (they were part of the Army).

Weather is not an aspect of this game. Neither is supply. Cossacks are (they're called Cavalry). [Edit/] Actually, they're called Cossacks, the Russian UU (certainly not a disembodied force). [/Edit] None of these forces (neither supply, nature, nor the enemy army) involve civilians and paving stones. In short, Napolean's defeat in Russia is a nonsensical element introduced into the discussion.

If you expect exactitude in a strategic game simulation, you will surely always be disappointed. This situation has happened many times in history.

Exactitude? We aren't asking for exactitude. Now I am presuming to speak for many who contributed to this thread, may they grant me their indulgence. We are asking that an unacceptable absurdity be patched, modded or otherwise banished from the game.

We've suspended disbelief. We are granting that a civilization starts as a single settler who magically spawns all that follows. We are granting that technological advance is centrally determined by some supreme demi-god / benevolent force on behalf of each civilization. We are granting many, many, nay countless abstractions. But we ain't granting the Incredible Disappearing Army! It ruins the game for many. It is intolerable for others. The blood-thirsty actions it forces you into in order to avoid it are distasteful to most of the rest. In short, as a game feature, it SUX! Clear enough?

Certainly the game makers think so. Here is a picture of (civilian) incendiaries in Moscow being executed. They would certainly qualify as resistors. In the five months Napoleon was in Moscow, he never succeeded in quelling resistance. Culturally speaking, he could not win their hearts and minds. Exhausted, his army fled and was largely destroyed by non-regular troops not under direct military control, the Cossacks.

5 months in Moscow? Sept 14 to Oct 19? Did the calendar change on me while I wasn't looking? Is this some Eastern-Orthodox thing I am unaware of? If your facts are out of line the arguments they support can be no better.

Non-regular troops? Yeah, General Famine leading the Icicle detatchment from the Army of the Four Horsemen. Cossacks certainly were not non-regular. They were part of the Russian Army Establishment in this era and were most certainly under the command of the accomplished Kutuzov.

I am sorry Zac, but I do not wish to squint at these clouds with you.

Salve

[Libertarian]

Ad hominem attacks demean both yourself and your otherwise reasoned arguments.

Except in PMs, right?

[Flight]

i still think partisans are a great way to embody civilians becoming militant, why did firaxis do away with them?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Flight
i still think partisans are a great way to embody civilians becoming militant, why did firaxis do away with them?

Yeah I kind of miss them myself. You'd think that with the importance of roads in this version they'd be even more useful. They should have been beefed up instead of dropped.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Flight
i still think partisans are a great way to embody civilians becoming militant, why did firaxis do away with them?

Yes, partisans were a lot of fun.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
if you prefer that I completely confine my comments to your statements, OK.

I appreciate that.

I have run many invasions, even against other continents. By keeping in mind the lessons of history, I almost never have a reversion. When I do, the reasons are clear by analogy with history, and clearly according to my understanding of the game.

If you prefer your playstyle; hey, that is your privilege. But like the U.S. in Vietnam, everytime you think you have a hold of something, it may slip through your fingers like water. Like Napoleon in Moscow, you may find that big armies are not enough. And like the Romans in Jerusalem, you may have to raze a beautiful and productive city in order to "keep" it.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by notyoueither
5 months in Moscow? Sept 14 to Oct 19?

Thanks for the correction. Five weeks. (typo)

[Zachriel]

I don't think anyone disagrees on any of the major event in history, which are well studied and documented by experts in the field -- just on its application to the game.

The partisan model in Civ2 was probably more intuitive for most players. It represents how the army can be safe in the city and in control of the streets, but partisans in the hills prevent any use of the means of production; and if the partisans are numerous and a little lucky, maybe even destroying the garrison.

(Destruction of the garrison would be the equivalent of a flip. And if they are equivalent, then a flip is entirely legitimate. The game is just not showing the intervening moves as being on too short a timescale. They probably should it.)

But, the flip also represents other events such as defections (Marc Antony), cultural assimilation (West absorbing the East Bloc countries), and the like, which is probably why the gamemaker chose this model.