Thread Tools
Old May 10, 2001, 21:23   #1
polymths
Warlord
 
Local Time: 16:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 101
Temporary Occupation of Cities
One aspect that has always annoyed me is that when you marched into a hostile city, you take over that city indefinitely. This basically makes certain aspects of allied warfare impossible or stupid.

Say, for example, an ally joins me to fight an aggressor and I lose a city to the aggressor. Then I counterattack but fail to liberate the city. The ally can then drop a paratrooper and take over my city permanently!

What would be nice is if all cities under war might be simply "occupied" and their final status not determined until after the war ends and a some treaty negotiation takes place, similar to Europa Universalis. Of course, it is factored into the equation who occupies the city, who is the original owner, etc.

In any case, I hope there is some fix around the pheonomenon of allies liberating an allied nation's when it is really taking it over! I mean, in WWII, when US troops entered Paris, did US suddenly end up owning Paris???
polymths is offline  
Old May 10, 2001, 21:40   #2
tniem
King
 
Local Time: 19:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hope College
Posts: 2,232
Definitely one of the diplomatic options that needs to be addressed. I do believe that this was on the list (correct me if I'm wrong). And would have to guess that any allied nation during war would give you back all cities.

Also, an option for peace would be to return all cities with other conditions. At least that is how I see the new diplomatic options.
tniem is offline  
Old May 10, 2001, 23:21   #3
Zanzin
Prince
 
Zanzin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 441
I agree, it's something that should definately be covered in the computers thinking.
Zanzin is offline  
Old May 11, 2001, 02:14   #4
Nemo
Prince
 
Nemo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:59
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: numsquam
Posts: 683
i thought i saw something about cities refusing to work, or revolting to rejoin original civ after being captured. was that a post i read, or something i read on a preview site? i don't know any more, all of it is getting mixed. anyway i saw something about this somewhere
Nemo is offline  
Old May 11, 2001, 03:26   #5
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:59
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
The problem is the timescale. You may counterattack in a turn or two but that is 2-40 years later. It sounds like Civ III will be allowing for increased revolt chances which is probably about as much as we can expect.
Grumbold is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:59.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team