Can I take credit for this strategy? WFA

[Jawa Jocky]

I call it "Wartime Flip Allowance" or IDGAFIYF (I don't give a FiretrUCK if you flip).

This strategy has a very limited use. It's a wartime only strategy that works best for large campaigns. I used it a lot in MTIII.


I operate under the assumption that every city I take will flip back on the next turn. To minimize unit losses from flipping I only put one injured unit in a city to hold it. I leave 2 units adjacent to the city, so when the city flips I just take it back next turn. Because these cities are so easy to take you have to pay very close attention it any possible attack routes (I often pillage some RR routes). Since only one city can flip a turn you will never get behind.

This frees up a lot of units to continue pushing your attack. I've heard it takes 20 units per city to prevent flipping and this method only uses 3 unit per city (plus border guarding units).




I should note that cities can flip to your allies. This is NOT considered breaking a treaty (I wanted out of mine).

[Catt]

I suppose you can take credit for it if you like . I think a lot of folks employ this tactic, although I have never seen as creative a name for it as IDGAFIYF.

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
Since only one city can flip a turn you will never get behind.

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect -- in MT II (Germany), I had both Moscow and St. Petersburg flip on me on the same turn while at war with Catherine (IIRC, the flips occured 2 or 3 turns after the initial capture). Fortunately, I had emplyed the IDGAFIYF tactic, and no real harm was done.

I've heard it takes 20 units per city to prevent flipping and this method only uses 3 unit per city (plus border guarding units).

I think in certain circumstances it can take even more than 20 to be absolutely certain of preventing a flip (under 1.21f). Somewhere (here or at CF) one of the Firaxians indicated that the design team was largely happy with the implementation of culture flipping, but that in the upcoming patch they were going to create / lower a hard-coded "absolutely prevent flip" garrison size to somewhere under 20 units (and then they followed that statement up with a vague ". . . unless you're insanely behind in culture . . ." or something to that effect).

BTW, good to see that you've hit on this strategy. I've often wondered why those players whose blood boils at losing armies and units during wartime to flips haven't simply thought of a much more appropriate and efficient flip-countering strategy (such as IDGAFIYF).

Catt

[Jawa Jocky]

Thank you Catt for the correction and update. I didn't think it was an original idea, but I hadn't heard a title for it so I thought I'd try and take credit.

[nbarclay]

My strategy tends to be a bit less formal: I park injured units wherever is convenient until they heal and then move them out to the next target. If a city flips, I go back to retake it however is most convenient, but I don't normally even bother leaving troops specifically on standby. (That's especially true after railroads.)

Another variant for times when I don't especially care about my reputation is the "you flip, it's war" approach. With that approach, I'll make peace with a civ without taking it out completely, but if any of MY cities flips and the former owners are crazy enough to provide aid and comfort to the rebels, the peace treaty ends there and then. If the rest of the world doesn't understand that my actions are fully justified in the face of such treachery, that's too bad for them.

Note: in the swordsman era, I'm a lot more willing to leave troops on standby to retake a city. But most of my fighting is later in the game with faster-moving forces.

Nathan

[dawidge]

Maybe I've just been very lucky, but I've found that during the war, all I have to do is park numdefenders=numresistors in a city to keep it from flipping. By the time the resistance is over, it's usually starved down to something manageable. I usually have quite a few injured troops to leave on garrison duty due to pressing the attack farther than I probably should have I've *never* had a city flip on me during the war. If it flips after, that's my fault for not crushing my opponent in the first place.

Take mtIII as a case in point. The first four cities I took from Joan were *never* going to flip. I rushed airports in them and was pumping anywhere from 12-30 fresh units into each of them every turn. That allowed me to dump the huge number of injured troops into the "recently taken" cities, while the "just taken" cities were filled with fresh troops with too little mobility to press on and the slightly injured. Once the enemies cultural boundaries are pushed back AND the resistance is over, just leave your standard number of defenders in it, it'll be fine.

[Catt]

I've lost many a flip when at war. Ancient, middle, industrial and modern. Once rails and mobile units are in place, a flip is really no cause for concern (thank you, Nathan ). But in the ancient / early middle ages, where one's fastest unit is 2 moves (Chinese riders excepted), and the minimum city border is one tile (sometimes 3 tiles! if it is an ancient city with much previous culture accumulated), then I feel I have to leave units behind, especially if the city provides a waypoint in my logistics line to the front.

Dawdidge, I don't know your play style inside-out, but I would venture a guess that you've been lucky . Even with a superior culture, I've lost cities to flips during war (I lost a 2 citizen city to a flip with 4 defenders when the enemy was "in awe of" my culture and the cultural borders were roughly half and half mine / enemy's). Flips come down to a roll of the die, and unless one is confident of neutralizing the die roll (through an un-flippable garrison), my attitude and play-style is to not garrison more than a token injured (or two) troop in the enemy city.

And Nathan, I agree, if the former owners actually give aid and comfort to the rebels, despite the rather lopsided peace treaty recently signed . . . . well then, I count on the rest of the world understanding my consternation and subsequent suppresson of the rebels, and, if not, then

Catt

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Catt
And Nathan, I agree, if the former owners actually give aid and comfort to the rebels, despite the rather lopsided peace treaty recently signed . . . .

What gets me is why the AIs are willing to accept rebel cities under such circumstances, especially when distance from the new capital would render the city almost completely useless. Once reduced past a certain size, a civ's best chance at survival is to lay low and not get anyone mad. Harboring rebels is one of the most effective means possible of getting wiped out the rest of the way.

I'm less than impressed at how the Firaxians got so caught up in making culture flipping a nuisance for conquistadores that they in essence made the AIs a bit suicidal. In general, I think the culture system adds to the game's challenge, but I think that aspect of it goes a bit far.

I think I just finally pinned down something else that bugs me about the culture system. Once the peace treaty at the end of a war defines the new border between nations, accepting a city that wants to flip is in essence a violation of that treaty. Either flipping should be disabled for the duration of the initial post-war treaty, or accepting a city that wants to flip should be viewed as a violation of the treaty so that going to war over the violation does not harm a civ's reputation. That would still leave flipping as a long-term problem, but would make it much more realistic and reasonable - especially in cases where one civ was essentially crushed by the other.

Nathan

[Catt]

Originally posted by nbarclay

I think I just finally pinned down something else that bugs me about the culture system. Once the peace treaty at the end of a war defines the new border between nations, accepting a city that wants to flip is in essence a violation of that treaty. Either flipping should be disabled for the duration of the initial post-war treaty, or accepting a city that wants to flip should be viewed as a violation of the treaty so that going to war over the violation does not harm a civ's reputation. That would still leave flipping as a long-term problem, but would make it much more realistic and reasonable - especially in cases where one civ was essentially crushed by the other.

Nathan

An excellent suggestion that I had not seen before! Overall, I very much like the implementation of flipping, and would not want the acceptance of a flip to be an act of war, but a flip during the initial 20-turn peace, with the opportunity to take the city back w/o reputational hit, would be great.

And though I've never seen it myself, somewhere (here or at CF), at some time, someone posted a screenshot of an AI civ rebuffing a culture flip! I have refused flips several times - either because I felt the city had nothing to offer, or because I didn't want to further antagonize a militarily superior neighbor.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Catt
And though I've never seen it myself, somewhere (here or at CF), at some time, someone posted a screenshot of an AI civ rebuffing a culture flip! I have refused flips several times - either because I felt the city had nothing to offer, or because I didn't want to further antagonize a militarily superior neighbor.

I've seen the AI refuse to accept a would-be culture flip at least a time or two, but I don't think I've ever seen it in the times when the AI should have had the greatest reason to refuse. I think the algorithm for that decision could use a little work.

Nathan

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Jawa Jocky . . . I operate under the assumption that every city I take will flip back on the next turn. To minimize unit losses from flipping I only put one injured unit in a city to hold it. I leave 2 units adjacent to the city, so when the city flips I just take it back next turn. . .

All you've proven is how idiotic and unrealistic city flipping is - both historically and in game mechanics.

Culture Flipping cities and borders is a joke.