100% effective city-flip counter and HUGE AI CHEAT

[Corvenus]

I am steaming right now cause the same thing just happened to me..

I had just taken Paris from the Japanese (who had razed the french a couple turns ago), and as anyone would do to quell the resistance, i put all my units in the city (around 6-7 units), for 7/10 citizen are in resistance. First turn, 2 resistants are quelled, all is good. Next turn, i send 2 cavalry to attack nearby enemy units, then proceed to come back, thinking, ok all is doing fine. Next thing i know, the city flips. Of course, i can't let that happen, so i reload to just after my 2 cavalry had attacked. I move them one square, rigth by the city, still the city turns.

Reload. I try every possible way of placing my units. Leaving only the wounded in the city, only 1 unit, no units at all (this had worked before), anything and everything. Still, the only thing that appears to prevent the city from turning is if the enemy attacks one of my units 2 squares from the city. Now i'm really puzzled (and mighty pissed off of losing so much time). It worked with either cavalry or a catapult being attacked. So after some 40 reloads (hehe..a guy has his pride..), i finally settle to lose the catapult instead of a cav.

Since the cities flipping are supposedly amazed by the enemy culture, wouldn't it make sense if the city had more chances of flipping if the said enemy can kill some of my units (cause this is clearly a point of superiority, not culturally but military-speaking). Instead, it turns only if the enemy cannot kill one of my units. Just doesn't make sense to me. And it leaves me amazed at the non-randomness of the calculations going in there.. anyone would care to advance an explanation??

-corv-

 

[Zouave]

Just doesn't make sense to me.

Corvenus, it doesn't make sense to anyone.

Culture flipping; corruption; navies; the AI cheats; land-grabbing settlers; et al, all need to be patched.

 

[ainwood]

People argue that losing seven or so of their units in a culture flip is "unrealistic".

What are these peoples' views on the realism of a conscript warrior with 1 HP taking over a size 23 city in the modern age?

This too is 'unrealistic', but strangely doesn't get quite the same vehement response.

 

[Zachriel]

Post the game, so we can see.

 

[simwiz2]

"What are these peoples' views on the realism of a conscript warrior with 1 HP taking over a size 23 city in the modern age?

This too is 'unrealistic', but strangely doesn't get quite the same vehement response."

Most people dont hate culture-flipping because of realism, they hate it because it breaks gameplay. If a 1-hp conscript warrior takes your city, then move up a tank along your RR's and take it back the next turn. And its not like the 1HP conscript can take it over by itself, unless you are not too bright and leave it undefended , in which case you deserve to lose it But city-flipping, there is NO counter whatsoever, and it is so random that it can even wreck havoc on a SP game vs a pitiful AI. I cant imagine what it will do to this MP that is in the works, entire games will be decided by random (or broken pseudo-random??) dice rolls. Imagine an evenly matched MP war, both sides have about 40 tanks or so, and its an even war until one loses 25 tanks to a city-flip. He has just lost the game, because of an uncontrollable event.

And also note how no one is saying that city-flips as they are right now are GOOD. Sure, there are a few fanboys that say, "well stop complaining if u dont like it dont play it" or my favorite "its just a GAME, its not real, it doesnt matter!" BUt no one says it is good as is, because its NOT. This alone should hopefully convice firaxis to patch it.

 

[Corvenus]

Here's my savegame. Notice how you can only prevent Paris from flipping by letting the Japanese kill either a cavalry or a catapult. I'm curious to see if it'll work the same once loaded to a different computer..

-corv-

 

[Dillo]

LOL, Yeah , but then remember, when you send you tank in the conscrpt warrior will beat it. just another one of those "anomolies" LOL

 

[Corvenus]

oh, and i'm glad to know i'm not the only one thinking there are many things totally screwed about the game..

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Dillo
LOL, Yeah , but then remember, when you send you tank in the conscrpt warrior will beat it. just another one of those "anomolies" LOL

But what I mean is that if you are pounding away at a large city, and 99% of your attacking force is destroyed, and you want it THAT turn and then to sue for peace, you may throw any last unit you can get your hands on to destroy the last defender - I was meaning that the conscript warrior is your own. Unrealistic, but works for you, not against you.

People would probably be happier with the culture flip if the AI also lost vast amounts of units - but the AI manages its forces in a different way - it doesn't tend to stack 30 units in a newly captured city.

Originally posted by simwiz2: Most people dont hate culture-flipping because of realism, they hate it because it breaks gameplay.

Right. But they (very) often try to justify their point by saying that it should be changed because it is unrealistic.

I just think that the "playability" argument is a better one than the "realism" argument.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by ainwood
I just think that the "playability" argument is a better one than the "realism" argument.

Yes. And culture is quite playable. Most everyone who has had trouble with culture is trying to blitz a large, culturally mature civilization, whose citizens do not want to be dominated by a foreign tyrant. Can you blame the people for rebelling? Every game I've seen posted that supposed showed unfair flips, were in the modern era, had virtually no cultural improvements in the captured cities, almost no infantry support, and a large captured city near the enemy capital.

Blitzing is possible, but you have to account for the resistance. It is very difficult to control millions of people with just a few tanks. Do not let them think they have a chance, and they will eventually enjoy the benefits of joining your empire. And as long as the enemy capital exists, there are always a going to be civilians who yearn for the old days of their own cultural glory.

Post a game showing some "unfair" flip. Let's all have a look.

 

[The Danster]

Just wondering how much Culture your guys Civs have in total? I thought I read somewhere that this is also taken into account when deciding whether to flip cities...

I haven't actually looked at your games (cos I'm at work shhhh! ) but I always have loads of Cultural buildings in all cities, cos i like em right!

Anyway was just wondering if anyone thought that may have an affect?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by The Danster
Just wondering how much Culture your guys Civs have in total? I thought I read somewhere that this is also taken into account when deciding whether to flip cities...

I haven't actually looked at your games (cos I'm at work shhhh! ) but I always have loads of Cultural buildings in all cities, cos i like em right!

Anyway was just wondering if anyone thought that may have an affect?

In my experience, proximity to the capital and local culture in the surrounding towns is most important to flipping. I flip the enemy on a regular basis.

I like your tag line.

 

[Moulton]

My culture in the current game does not seem high to me, at about 12000 in 1500ad. Yet it is far higher than nearest competitor.. but not double, I don't think. Havent found a way to get a real fix on their culture, except the Histogram.
This world has been in almost constant warfare, but I stayed out of most of it. Was at war with Zulu for years, because they declared war when I would not give them something. Never saw but one unit.... they just would not sign peace. Whipped up on the Iroquois when they declared war on me.
Yet, in this game three cities have flipped to me, from cultures I am not at war with. The conquered Iroq, originially Roman, cities remain loyal to me. Funny, a couple of these Roman cities, conquered by Iroquois, and then by me had only Iroquioscitizens. And the time frame was short... Iroq declared war on me, Rome agreed happily to an alliance, Iroq conquered half a dozen cities almost at once... ( I did not lose any), and I conquered therm frome the Iroquois a few turns later...
Ironically, one of the Aztec cities that flipped to me also had saltpeter--and now Aztec has no saltpeter... Saltpeter had not been discovered when it flipped, BTW.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Yes. And culture is quite playable. Most everyone who has had trouble with culture is trying to blitz a large, culturally mature civilization, whose citizens do not want to be dominated by a foreign tyrant. Can you blame the people for rebelling? Every game I've seen posted that supposed showed unfair flips, were in the modern era, had virtually no cultural improvements in the captured cities, almost no infantry support, and a large captured city near the enemy capital.

Post a game showing some "unfair" flip. Let's all have a look.

You've misinterpreted me, but my fault for not making my position clear. Let me explain.

I have been reading a lot of threads where people complain about different aspects of gameplay. People are entitled to their opinions, and I don't try and disuade them - although I do think that the ones by people who take the attitude that Firaxis are idiots etc just because of some of the gameplay design decisions are rude and obnoxious.

However; one common factor put forward to support their arguments is often "its unrealistic". My view is that these design decisions have been made for gameplay and not for realism. Therefore, I don't think its a particularly well-reasoned argument.

I'm happy to work around and develop stategies to cope with any design aspects. After all - it is a strategy game, not a simulation!

 

[connor]

Maybe I have just been lucky, but have never had a native or conquered city flip on me. I don't play on diety or king, does the level affect flipping?

My general strategy is massive, rapid city expansion. Develop several low corruption, high production cities early on and begin building cultural buildings and wonders as soon as they are available in order to develop a high cultural base. I usually have several foreign cities flip to me during peaceful periods. In this current game I had cities only a few tiles from their capitols flip, including a city that had the Great Lighthouse.

I generally do not begin any wars until the modern period. This might be a carry over from my Civ2 days, but find medieval warfare useless as it is such a drain on necessary resources to develop culturally and scientifically. I let the AI fight and reach modern times more quickly and hence armour and the real fun begins. Modern times is when my warfare usually begins.

I believe in blitz, combined arms, highly mobile tactics. When landing on a foreign shore I begin with a massive sea bombard, air, and then land artillery usually a dozen units or more for the inital city attack and pound the city to rubble. Most cities I reduce to rubble, stack a large amount of units to quell resistance in one turn, then rush build temples, etc. When I go to war, I always have a large cash reserve for rush builds. I set up my beach head and then head straight to the capitol and attack in force. This has proven useful to me as well as in a newly conquered city, I set most people to entertainers, and starve some as well. If the city still has resistance or disorder, I starve.

Worked so far for me, "crosses finger". :soldier:

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by ainwood
You've misinterpreted me, but my fault for not making my position clear. Let me explain.

I'm happy to work around and develop stategies to cope with any design aspects. After all - it is a strategy game, not a simulation!

I think your post was clear and correct. (Sorry my post was misunderstood. Joan of Arc had the same problem when I asked her for a little saltpeter. Declared war on me, she did. )

 

[Reichsmarshal]

I have seen this happen even if the enemy is an "admirer" of the my civ's culture. I was playing as Greece and fighting Russia. I found the most effective tactic is to degarrison the city (like you did), because if you lost the city it will completely screw up your base of operations. Oddly enough if the enemy has a better culture it seems to happen less than one with almost none. This problem is so obvious if you ever go to war. It is the major reason people raze cities so much.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Also because of the ability of the computer to build insane amounts of units per turn, the most effective tactic is to go war, peace, war peace, rather than do it all at once.

 

[Moulton]

Corvenus, I picked up your game, and tried a few things.
How many turns do I have to keep Paris from Flippint? I played 3 turns, and did not lose it. I also took Lyons, and another city. Lost Lyons 2 turns later, and its defenders. Did not deliberately sacrifice a piece, but did lose a couple of musketmen because I failed to notice the depth of the stack waiting on a nearby mountain,
I still hold Paris. I made the uhhappy laborers into entertainers, quelled the resistance next turn, and made some more entertainers. Unfortunately some people starved. My feeling on that is, "If a man will not work, neither should he eat" Let them eat cake.

 

[Sonny_Crockett]

Originally posted by zebomba
It happened to me too.
If it's a rule, then in order to prevent flips leave no garrison.
Use their cheats against them .

I had this happen exactly. I had a large city that was flipping no matter how many units I placed in it (several reloads), and I'd just lose the units too. So I decided to cut my losses, pull the units out so they wouldn't be wasted, and retake the city later. But lo and behold, when I pulled the units out the city DIDN'T flip!

I just left it unprotected for a couple rounds while I smashed up their nearby cities and then made peace. I was able to easily regain control after that.