Aaaaaaaaaargh! City flipping can be just silly.

[kailhun]

I don't care what the formula is for city flipping, sometimes it just doesn't make any sense.
Nagoya, a japanese city I 'bought' say a century ago, has just flipped to the Japanese while I'm at war with them and winning. Kyoto has fallen, Satsuma has fallen (these were their major cities). My armies (20 knights and 15 swordsmen (approx.)) are closing in on their other (now) major cities. The samurai are falling like flies. The bulk of the Japanese army is in my empire (they were trying to cross to the Romans up north) and is being destroyed. Yet Nagoya decides they want to be Japanese again (culture my foot). This is just plain silly! Did Königsberg flip over to the Germans as the Red Army pushed on towards Berlin, crushing all in their path? I don't think so.



Grumble, rant, simmer.

Robert

[Atahualpa]

thats life

The only thing I have a problem with is, that _ALL_ of my units in the city are LOST!!!
Not that some could flee from the protestors!!!

ata

[FNBrown]

There's an easy solution for this.

I find that early in the game, I can take and hold enemy cities without too much risk of them reverting to their original Civ, because there hasn't been enough time for anyone to establish an overwhelming cultural advantage, and my early conquests are never far from home.

Late in the game, it's easy enough for me to produce settlers, and I just raze the enemy cities and take the workers instead. I find that the AI city site selection can be somewhat dubious, and I'd rather re-populate my conquered lands with loyal subjects in good locations.

[SixArmedMan]

Honestly, let's say you live in Canada in a relatively big city, say Calgary. The Americans come to invade. They ruthlessly destroy your army and have taken over your capitol. 10 years later, when your country is all but defeated... isn't it just logical to throw off your chains of oppression and declare your allegiance back to Canada??? Even when they have a huge of deployment of forces within striking distance of the city?

No, this is not a formula for suicide. This is a lesson in freeing yourself from the bonds of slavery... though I do see how they can be confused... Oh well.

[FNBrown]

I think it would be more realistic if the workers you enslaved while razing cities had the option of rebelling... maybe they could spontaneously convert to conscript units and wreak havoc across the continent or something.

[SirSchwa]

You can get over this by building a temple and a library immediately. That usually keeps them from turning against you. Sometimes they flip before you can build those improvements; in that case it's usually because I've overextended myself by conquering too many cities at once.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by SixArmedMan
Honestly, let's say you live in Canada in a relatively big city, say Calgary. The Americans come to invade. They ruthlessly destroy your army and have taken over your capitol. 10 years later, when your country is all but defeated... isn't it just logical to throw off your chains of oppression and declare your allegiance back to Canada??? Even when they have a huge of deployment of forces within striking distance of the city?

No, not really. Surviving will probably be foremost in people's mind and pissing off the enemy is not going to help you in that.

No, this is not a formula for suicide. This is a lesson in freeing yourself from the bonds of slavery... though I do see how they can be confused... Oh well.

Being occupied is not the same as being in bondage. Besides, I don't think people are this idealistic at the end of a war they just lost really well (If they'd lost badly, they'd have won ).

Robert

[kailhun]

Originally posted by FNBrown
There's an easy solution for this.

I find that early in the game, I can take and hold enemy cities without too much risk of them reverting to their original Civ, because there hasn't been enough time for anyone to establish an overwhelming cultural advantage, and my early conquests are never far from home.

Late in the game, it's easy enough for me to produce settlers, and I just raze the enemy cities and take the workers instead. I find that the AI city site selection can be somewhat dubious, and I'd rather re-populate my conquered lands with loyal subjects in good locations.

Interesting how a game-feature designed to stop the atrocity of war (because it makes it more difficult) has lead to a greater atrocity of wars where the practice of razing entire cities is commonplace.

Robert

[FNBrown]

Yeah, well... if you're going to be atrocious, you might as well be thorough about it, too.

[Dis]

designed features are never silly

[Worthingtons]

I think it would be more realistic if the workers you enslaved while razing cities had the option of rebelling... maybe they could spontaneously convert to conscript units and wreak havoc across the continent or something.

Yeah, Some lovely conscript warriers for My Elite Infantry to practise on (and maybe generate a leader ) , Sounds like a great idea

[Atahualpa]

Most of the time I conquer some cities and when I think I have conquered far enough I raze the city(ies) that come(s) next and there is far less chance of flipping.
Then I make peace and build everything up and reorganize.


Yesterday the Romans declared war on me! And lol I am the most powerful and most advanced civ. And I thought wow he must have good armies if he decides to declare war. LOL He had about 6 cavalries and that was it for offensive operations.
I mean I laughed, then took 24 tanks and moved in. He didnt stand a chance. Cant get the logic of attacking the by far most powerful civ with 6(!) cavalries. If he had 60 okay, but 6 is just ridiculous.
So I conquered a bit and stopped south of his capital. If he decides again that war is the only option then I will finish him off!
LOL gave me a good laugh though

ata

[MonsterMan]

I think that if the enemy uses propaganda against one of your cities, it will look to you like a culture flip. I lost a city to the zulus, which I had conquered some ten turns earlier. But because of distance from their capital and some of my culture was present in that city (18 points), I bought it right back. Easier than reloading and / or wasting troops retaking it. What did p*ss me off a bit was that my rush-bought temple and library had already been raized, but that's to be expected and they didn't have any built-up culture value or anything.

Anyhow, do try to buy back cities that flip, it may be easier than you think.

[kailhun]

Yes, the fact that captured cities are more or less empty is a feature that also bugs me no end.

Hah, a pune or play on words.

Robert

[bahoo]

Originally posted by MonsterMan
I think that if the enemy uses propaganda against one of your cities, it will look to you like a culture flip.

The AI is always on the verge of bankruptcy, how could they possibly afford the ridiculous costs of espionage actions.

Originally posted by FNBrown
There's an easy solution for this.

Oh, the oh so popular SOLUTION to the problem. Do this and do that, according to the game mechanics of course, not any sense of logic or pseudo-realism! Follow the exact requirements of the CORRECT strategy, (which involves no less than committing mass genocide and enslavement of other nations), and you can still win the game!

Well I got a SOLUTION for all of you, and YOU FIRAXIS !!!!! Make a patch, and in that patch, get rid of all broken, illogical, and stupid game concepts (only one I can think of off the top of my head being this one).

How's that for a solution?

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by bahoo

Oh, the oh so popular SOLUTION to the problem. Do this and do that, according to the game mechanics of course, not any sense of logic or pseudo-realism! Follow the exact requirements of the CORRECT strategy, (which involves no less than committing mass genocide and enslavement of other nations), and you can still win the game!

Well I got a SOLUTION for all of you, and YOU FIRAXIS !!!!! Make a patch, and in that patch, get rid of all broken, illogical, and stupid game concepts (only one I can think of off the top of my head being this one).

How's that for a solution?

Aww... genocide of little digital people... somebody call the waaaaahhhhmbulance....

[Bautou]

The most amusing part about war-related culture flipping is that you can have the most nasty, brutal war possible, with cities constantly flipping back and being reconquered/razed continually.

But, as soon as you take the last city of the brutally conquered civ, suddenly all those nasty resistors, malcontents, and rebels turn all rosy peachy to you as WLTKD breaks out all over your conquered zone.

I mean, I can understand celebrations back home, but in the newly conquered cities? One year they're burning down buildings, taking it to the streets, slaughtering massive garrisons and the next year they're dancing in the streets, celebrating your benevolent rule? Weird, even conquered people trying to suck up don't produce such an outpouring of emotion for their conqueror.

(Unless, of course, the civ you defeated drafted a lot of them, and then they stay mad at you for that forever. Way beyond 20 turns. Bug?)

[Willem]

Originally posted by kailhun


Interesting how a game-feature designed to stop the atrocity of war (because it makes it more difficult) has lead to a greater atrocity of wars where the practice of razing entire cities is commonplace.

Robert

Yes there are a few ironies in the game along those lines, that's for sure. Another one is the Leaders. You have to wage war to get one, so those players that try to play peacefully are essentialy penalized for doing so.

[Willem]

Originally posted by bahoo


The AI is always on the verge of bankruptcy, how could they possibly afford the ridiculous costs of espionage actions.

Maybe they're on the verge of bankruptcy because they've been taking part in esionage actions.

[Encomium]

On my northern border were the average sized Romans. The city of Actium (a '12') had always been Roman for millennia. It had never been attacked let alone conquered by anyone.

Suddenly, it flipped to me! A size '12' city with thousands of years of cultural connection to Rome, which wasn't all that far a way on that same continent.

I just don't see any realism in this.

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Willem


Yes there are a few ironies in the game along those lines, that's for sure. Another one is the Leaders. You have to wage war to get one, so those players that try to play peacefully are essentialy penalized for doing so.

Yeah, this one has alos been bothering me. In this game I'm relatively peaceful which has resulted in me not having many wonders. The AI seems to beat me to them all the time. I don't really mind as most are not really needed, but I do find myself wishing for a leader every now and then.

Robert

[Navyman]

Just wanted to let people know that an invaded city of pop 4 I was using as my springboard for assaults reverted and taking with it 12 bombers, 12 mech inf, and 6 tanks.

It's a good thing that Normandy or Liege didn't revert back to the Germans or the Allies would have lost their entire invasion force to thin air. Why didn't the Germans think of that?

Needless to say, the next game I start will be SMAC.

[Carver]

Originally posted by FNBrown
I think it would be more realistic if the workers you enslaved while razing cities had the option of rebelling... maybe they could spontaneously convert to conscript units and wreak havoc across the continent or something.

I second that. Those enslaved workers should rebel every so often and turn into domestic insurgents (almost like terrorist cells). It would be alot of fun too, since killing conscripts is so easy.

[bahoo]

Originally posted by Navyman
Just wanted to let people know that an invaded city of pop 4 I was using as my springboard for assaults reverted and taking with it 12 bombers, 12 mech inf, and 6 tanks.

It's a good thing that Normandy or Liege didn't revert back to the Germans or the Allies would have lost their entire invasion force to thin air. Why didn't the Germans think of that?

Needless to say, the next game I start will be SMAC.

Yeah, it's pretty much just plain dumb and doesn't make sense.

FIRAXIS has yet to make any attempt to explain the logic behind it in spite of the hundreds of threads griping about it. The extent of their explanation was during a chat when someone asked why troops disappeared when a city deposed and the answer was somewhere along the lines of, "What else would happen to them?". (AHEM, they would probably retreat or fight!!!).

But of course we all just whine too much on the General Forum and there's too much "noise" for the FIRAXIANS to answer questions here, their time is much more "efficiently" spent in the Strategy Forum pandering to all the fanboys.

[Willem]

Originally posted by bahoo




FIRAXIS has yet to make any attempt to explain the logic behind it in spite of the hundreds of threads griping about it.

Then what's this then?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=39825

[Encomium]

Originally posted by kailhun
I don't care what the formula is for city flipping, sometimes it just doesn't make any sense.
Nagoya, a japanese city I 'bought' say a century ago, has just flipped to the Japanese while I'm at war with them and winning. Kyoto has fallen, Satsuma has fallen (these were their major cities). My armies (20 knights and 15 swordsmen (approx.)) are closing in on their other (now) major cities. The samurai are falling like flies. The bulk of the Japanese army is in my empire (they were trying to cross to the Romans up north) and is being destroyed. Yet Nagoya decides they want to be Japanese again (culture my foot). This is just plain silly! Did Königsberg flip over to the Germans as the Red Army pushed on towards Berlin, crushing all in their path? I don't think so.



Grumble, rant, simmer.

Robert

You're right. But it is not just about flipping cities.

Ever have your BORDER flip right onto your improvements, even onto your garrisoned fortress?? Crazy.

Then, the other civ says YOU moved troops into that tile (you didn't; the border flipped) and blames YOU for any war - and they will start the war even if you are militarily stronger than they are! Worse, every other civ with blame YOU forever for the war. It's more than irritating - it's a joke.

Borders should be determined by diplomacy and warfare, not Sid's weird ideas about "culture borders".

[bahoo]

Originally posted by Willem


Then what's this then?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=39825

It explains the equation, that's it.

I don't care what the equation is.

I want them to explain where my troops disappear to, and why they refuse to fight back when a city revolts.

There has been NO explanation to that from Firaxis, wanna know why? Because there isn't a logical explanation, period!