Firaxis please...

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Zachriel

Isn't "hardly imagine ANYTHING" equivalent to your option "b) all your troops get killed," but without the intermediate steps?

Not really. The option b) actually says "all your troops get killed OR RETREAT". The way it is now, the outcome is always the same and equals total annihilation of all the troops stationed in the city, with no consequences for the population/infrastructure of the rebelling city. The troops just vanish... which, although acceptable as far as consistent game rules are considered, somehow makes me feel "it's weird..." I mean, if it happens once, okay - the city underground movement developed a brilliant plan and disarmed/killed all my troops (especially if there was a weak garrison). But if it happens every time, even with several fortified MechInf, then I can hardly imagine anything that might explain the logic behind it...

If you think of my mobility bonus idea, that would actually mean that regular mobile unit garrisoned in the city would have a very high (or above average) chances of escaping it, while normally "immobile" units would have the chances mobile units have in regular combat. That would usually result (at least, I imagine so) in most/many/some units escaping. Rarely, ALL garrison units would get KILLED - they would be more likely to retreat/escape, badly damaged.

Basically, I like the idea of having my garrison units badly damaged, left vulnerable in the enemy territory, but I would at the same time wish to have a possibility of completely losing a weak garrison facing an overwhelming opposition.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by vondrack
Not really. The option b) actually says "all your troops get killed OR RETREAT". The way it is now, the outcome is always the same and equals total annihilation of all the troops stationed in the city, with no consequences for the population/infrastructure of the rebelling city.

If they troops aren't killed, they regain control of the city, their lost hp recovered. And of course, the local governor will try to keep it quiet, minimizing any bad publicity -- "only a minor distrubance" "under control" "a few drunks". The game player just don't see this insignificant outcome. You are only notified when you lose the city.

When Jerusalem rebelled against Rome, they killed the garrison. When the news arrived on the Emperor's desk, it just said that the city was lost. There was no chance for the Emperor to prevent it. Those decisions and battles were made by Roman authorities in Jerusalem. He could only reorder its recapture.

A sudden notification of a city flipping is both imaginable and historical. Of course, I'm not against some sort of game mechanic for rebellion. It would add much to game play.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Zachriel

When Jerusalem rebelled against Rome, they killed the garrison. When the news arrived on the Emperor's desk, it just said that the city was lost. There was no chance for the Emperor to prevent it. Those decisions and battles were made by Roman authorities in Jerusalem. He could only reorder its recapture.

A sudden notification of a city flipping is both imaginable and historical. Of course, I'm not against some sort of game mechanic for rebellion. It would add much to game play.

This actually sounds like a good idea - the mechanics might be government-style dependent or era dependent, maybe even road/railroad connection dependent (as these help information spread faster - the telegraph poles, e.g., were usually built along RRs). In the ancient era, you lose the city with no possibility to prevent it, as news take very long to get to the capital (i.e. to you - see the good Jerusalem example). As you progress through eras, more sophisticated means of communication (i.e. of control) and also more "civilized" methods of negotiation appear and you get the chance to either prevent the bloodshed altogether by recalling your troops home or order your troops to quell the rebellion with brute force.

I admit that the flip as it works now is understandable and justifiable in the ancient and to some extent in the medieval eras... Even lightly armed citizens, especially when in large numbers, can overrun garrisons (even relatively strong ones) consisting of warriors, spearmen, archers... up to, say, swordsman, pikemen, knights... but when it comes to cavalry and riflemen... well, uh... and then infantry, tanks, mechanized infantry, modern armor etc. Imagine what a single machine gun operated by three soldiers can do to a crowd of rebelling citizens... How could people with small arms or light machine guns stop tanks? Cities successfully rebelling against strong garrisons of modern troops do not really look realistic or historical to me... Especially if the rebels are able to win with virtually no losses, beating the whole modern garrison to ashes.

I would like to stress that I do not ask that Civ3 mirrors the real world closely. I do realize it is a game and I just love it. But on the other hand I think that adding a bit more complexity to the flipping would actually add to the playability, while pushing Civ3 a small step towards some degree of reality resemblance. And this reality resemblance is what helps players feel immersed in the game world, it helps them imagine events that happen in the game world.

While allowing navies to cross vast oceans in a single turn/year might add to the reality resemblance, it would significantly spoil the gameplay, overpowering the naval forces. Twisting the city flip mechanics a bit would - IMHO - add to the reality resemblance, while having a little or no impact on the game balance issues.