small weak cities

[douche_bag]

I hate how when you go to war with someone you have to capture every single city to take thier country.Small,weaker cities could surrender because the don't want ypu attacking them.This could be just like when other cites depose their government and join your country,there could be a little popup saying the the city has surrenderd and joined you.The chance of this happening should increase when you capture the capital.

 

[Jake5555555]

I agree, in real life when 99% of a country is conquered the one remaining city with one defender in the middle of your territory usually won't hold out.

 

[jabancho]

This idea will certainly make war and conquer more interesting, therefore making the game faster. Taking on a whole civ with 10 large cities and 15 small ones with lesser value makes the game rather slow. I will add that either the cities surrender or you can ask them to surrender in order to avoid anihilation. Further more, you could offer them certain advantages when surrendering...

 

[sir_schwick]

Such as partial autonomy. In SMAC a faction did not try to get itself killed whenever the war was beyond over, they surrendered. A city that surrenders will more willingly assimilate and the soldiers will go home.

 

[shr00mz]

not a bad idea.. but its hard to program which cities will surrender and stuff... but on the other hand the point of big and also weak states is its defence.. like russia when napoleon had counqered moscow (ok they let him) but still all other parts didnt surrender but fought and holded longer than the mega army of french..

 

[gustavope]

Like, if you conquer 75% of the population of the country and the capital; consequently you dominate all Civi.

I extreme dislikes to search small cities in the map after destroy all big cities from a civ

 

[Sirian]

Nazi Germany had to be conquered to the last city. Hitler was a spiteful man, even declaring his people "unworthy" of his leadership and ordering his own army to turn on them and kill them in a sort of national suicide. Fortunately, few of them listened. Still, the Hitler Youth defended Berlin, boys fighting the way they had been taught.

What this shows is that sometimes a civ SHOULD fight to the bitter end, but I agree it was not the norm and should not be the norm in Civ4.


- Sirian

 

[Paradigne]

Base it on whether they are militaristic or not. If they are, they would never surrender, willing to fight to the last man. If not, they would have a chance of surrendering as the army approaches there gates...

 

[sir_schwick]

I don't think Militarism is at the heart of "Stand Till the Last Man Dies". That would fall more readily under fanatacism, which is not necessarily inherent to Religion either. Fanatacism should be handled independent of traits and rather be a progression over time, loyal but dumb vs. smart but dissentious(the primary arguments for and against Democracy). Not saying it should be based on government either, but open societies tend to not feul radical groups as powerfully as closed ones.

 

[Stid]

its a good suggestion but you've seen what has happend in iraq - religious extremists don't surrender and also facists would fight to the death but if in civ they only had a few units fortified, then they should just surrender.

 

[sir_schwick]

Often authoritarian or totalitarian(fascist refers to a specific government in the WWI to WWII era, Mussolini Maybe) leaderships are overthrown when the country is being conquered. That is why Italy surrendered, Mussolini was killed and the new leaders had no beef with the Allies.

 

[Nisus]

The problem with that comparison is that the collapse of those regimes was caused by their leader being killed; in Civ, the player is the leader, so if there's one city left you still negotiate and communicate with the same person. So; the leader can never die, which rules out that kind of situation entirely.

However, the citizens of a town could revolt like a civil disorder and if it's successful they switch to your side...if they fail, they're put to death and the city pop falls? If they're successful then there won't be any military units there of course because the citizens have just overthrown them, creating problems for the player if the town is a fair distance away.

 

[sir_schwick]

That's the kidn of assumption I was making, that the local or military leadership would depose the leaders. In Civ your mayor flees the city whenever civil disorder erupts, so central authority could be the same way, just without the revolt. Local soldiers go home and recognize you as the controlling nation, but the other military could still try to fight, just without support from the city.

 

[dh_epic]

I think this is a great idea. Although it IS kind of anti-competitive.

I once suggested, however, that 80% of the AIs should be there to play "realistically" -- honoring its deals, getting angry at betrayal, attacking the weak or the injust, and admiring the strong and the fair. The other few AIs would be there for pure competition -- attacking the weak, but turning a blind eye to the strong and injust for the sake of their own preservation.

Those 80% Civs, the realistic ones, would surrender and join you now and then, under the right circimstances. The others, they'd fight to the death.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think the real problem is what is defined as 'winning'. The current civ victory model really does not take into account the prosperity or survival of your people, but only counts you as the important party. While many leaders are selfish and rape their subjects, most try to think about their personal and their people's survival as a part of competition.

 

[dh_epic]

Good point, sir_schwick. I thiink the solution would be to make happiness its own kind of victory, or to tie happiness into the maintainance of a powerful empire (military, cultural, economic). I'd like to see a bit of both, personally. To sneak up on the dominators and win by creating an island Utopia. And to mess with the dominators by encouraging dissent from the inside.

 

[sir_schwick]

Well actually I meant more in the style of, "America is the current 'big dog', but their roots started in and still have many parts in British lineage. The British can claim they are successors of the Normans who can claim they are successors of the Old Roman Order. Rome can claim it was the successor of the Greece(culturally Rome took everyhting from the Greeks and made it a Roman flavored Greek culture. Greece was an honored place in terms of education in Roman days). Greece owes it success to the Myceneans(the Dorians pretty much picked up on the old antiquity). I'm not sure what culture the Dorians were successors of.
With this idea you would want to have been all of them, since under my model civs rise and fall, but you get to change boats if they came from the same port, so to speak. The idea is then to change the world and forever be part of history.

But the utopia idea is also an interesting variant that should have some merit. Try to be the guiding light in a world gone mad.

 

[dh_epic]

True, where you were talking about survival, I was talking about prosperity.

I think that if I were to hand out awards for Civs around today for different victory types, you could make a case for domination victories, cultural victories, even technological or economic victories. You might be able to hand out a utopian quality of life victory. But clearly the survival victory would go to China.

There is no reward for China-style gameplay in Civ. Partially because it's so EASY to be China in Civ, whereas in real life, it's actually very hard.

 

[sir_schwick]

The real problem is all the Civ models encourage rapid and aggressive expansion as the winning strategy. The Hare certainly expanded his distance in the race faster than the tortoise, but the tortoise had better developement. Some games are very good about forcing players to pace developement and expansion more carefully.

 

[jkp1187]

No, this is not such a good idea. There are plenty of cases where small countries fought on despite the odds. This feature actually EXISTED in Master of Orion II, and it was always frustrating to end up in first place then one turn later to be a distant second because two civilizations surrendered to the former #2.