Zachriel
Kaiser
I did meet Alleghany. I increased the garrison in the resisting city to 10 units. It did not flip. That was too easy.
City flips - some tests and a look at the rules
- Thread starter Polonius
- Start date
I did meet Alleghany. I increased the garrison in the resisting city to 10 units. It did not flip. That was too easy.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
My vote is for culture and difficulty level being the primary causes of city flipping. I play Chieftain and am a very strong culture player (build all wonders, and all culture improvements in all of my cities), and have never had a city flip.
No doubt there is a system for the so called 'random' generators, and this is easy to prove. I will start a game, where a goody hut is immediatlely in my vicinity (before I built my capital). I save the game before moving anything. If my settler grabs it I will always get, for example, 50 gold. If the worker grabs it, I get a technology. If the scout grabs it the barbarian village is deserted. If I move my settler to a particular tile, THEN have my scout grab it, then it's something else. Works everytime.
No doubt there is a system for the so called 'random' generators, and this is easy to prove. I will start a game, where a goody hut is immediatlely in my vicinity (before I built my capital). I save the game before moving anything. If my settler grabs it I will always get, for example, 50 gold. If the worker grabs it, I get a technology. If the scout grabs it the barbarian village is deserted. If I move my settler to a particular tile, THEN have my scout grab it, then it's something else. Works everytime.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
In terms of "Playing Style" affecting flipping, I think that this is related to the accumulation of culture vsv warmongering as the two main extremes. Maybe (to throw another factor in the pot), your total relations with all civilizations counts - people want to flip away from leaders who are perpetual warmongers.
I didn't used to get any adverse flipping when I started and was always 4:1 or more ahead in culture. I got lots of positive flipping, although not from conquest (my cities never got captured) so it is not really a fair comparison.
One massively important point is that I now get more flipping, but of course I'm now playing on harder levels!
I didn't used to get any adverse flipping when I started and was always 4:1 or more ahead in culture. I got lots of positive flipping, although not from conquest (my cities never got captured) so it is not really a fair comparison.
One massively important point is that I now get more flipping, but of course I'm now playing on harder levels!
Zachriel
Kaiser
Whenever a city is resisting it is very important to station a large garrison to put down the resistance as soon as possible. Once the resistance is over, you can reduce your garrison.
If you want to post another game, try to post it one turn sooner. Usually, the problem is going to be the lack of a significant improvement leading to the flip, and it takes one turn to erect that improvement. For instance, in a size 16 city, you need at least a bank.
I did notice that you keep very few extra soaks (infantry used to hold ground). Most of your cities were empty. I had to look hard to find the few required to garrison the city, and still keep the empire safe from attack.
You run a lean, mean fighting machine.
Peteus
All good things...
Very true! Of course, I can only do that because of the silliness of infinite railroad movement, combined with the nice Civ III enhancement of restricted movement in enemy territory. (And the fact that the enemy doesn't have Marines.) Soaks are a complete waste of production in this game, which could be going to bombers, artillery, and Tanks! (And Wonders.)
I wasn't for a second suggesting that I couldn't "time warp" and save Alleghany. My first try would be going back to the previous turn and setting it up to go into WLTKD. (I think that can work while there are still resistors around, as long as nobody is unhappy? I hadn't done that yet because half of those 6 happy people had just come out of resistance that turn.) But I have 6 or so captured cities, and many more to capture soon, as I capture about 2-3 per turn - I hope you aren't suggesting that you routinely post a garrison of 10 in every city you capture? I'm not looking for a "cheat" solution.
It is educational to note that increasing the garrison definitely did help with the flip probability, in this case!
As I mentioned earlier, look in the Civilopedia under Game Concepts - it lists the factors that affect city flipping ("Revolt", I think?). Resisting citizens (and happy citizens) are not listed as factors. I don't doubt that they matter - I just want Firaxis to say so!
I have had captured cities, still resisting, do the WLTK day.
I have a setup at this point in my current game that will bear watchng.
I prefer to run a peaceful campaign, but remain ready for war if necessary. WHen the Babs decided to attack, and got the Brits and Aztecs and China to join (all the known kingdoms--havent found the other three yet) I was not ready for war. I had expanded really fast, with only minimal troops--basic defense, but not enough for war. I made peace with CHina and England, let the Aztecs throw a few horsemen and archers at my spearmen and Immortals, and they were ready to give up. the BABS had made me mad, and I decided to remove them, (or die trying)
I really do not know how they can make so many bowmen.
When I had pushed them into a smal corner, moved their capitol a few times, I decided to go on into Republic while I mopped up the resistance. Mistake. I immmediately found myself in a severe war weariness situation... nobody would work. Like my pop6 cities with 6 unhappy faces...
So I made peace, demanding and getting 2 more cities.
Here is the situation: I have his core, including the two wonders he had built. I got two great leaders, and built SuzTzu and the FP. I wanted an army of immortals, but those came first.
Question is, will I keep those cities? I know all that we have discussed. I am building culture as fast as I can. Maintaining only a small garrison in the cities--mostly to keep Bab from reclaiming them if he should find them undefended. He is carefully staying out of my territory for the moment. Been about 30 turns since peace.
This is a real game, but seems like a good test board for this problem.
I have a setup at this point in my current game that will bear watchng.
I prefer to run a peaceful campaign, but remain ready for war if necessary. WHen the Babs decided to attack, and got the Brits and Aztecs and China to join (all the known kingdoms--havent found the other three yet) I was not ready for war. I had expanded really fast, with only minimal troops--basic defense, but not enough for war. I made peace with CHina and England, let the Aztecs throw a few horsemen and archers at my spearmen and Immortals, and they were ready to give up. the BABS had made me mad, and I decided to remove them, (or die trying)
I really do not know how they can make so many bowmen.
When I had pushed them into a smal corner, moved their capitol a few times, I decided to go on into Republic while I mopped up the resistance. Mistake. I immmediately found myself in a severe war weariness situation... nobody would work. Like my pop6 cities with 6 unhappy faces...
So I made peace, demanding and getting 2 more cities.
Here is the situation: I have his core, including the two wonders he had built. I got two great leaders, and built SuzTzu and the FP. I wanted an army of immortals, but those came first.
Question is, will I keep those cities? I know all that we have discussed. I am building culture as fast as I can. Maintaining only a small garrison in the cities--mostly to keep Bab from reclaiming them if he should find them undefended. He is carefully staying out of my territory for the moment. Been about 30 turns since peace.
This is a real game, but seems like a good test board for this problem.
Well, I've never run up hard against the Babs before, but I do know they are supposed to be high culture. Funny, the cities that were ceded to me had no culture in them. None. Not a single city improvement. Yet, his culture on the histograph was nearly as high as mine---until I took it all away from him.
I plan to try several approaches. Saved tha game under a rememberable name, so I can actually complete a 'normal' game.
One, just build them up and leave him to his own devices, trying to hold on to what I have.
Two, recapture them.
three, take his new capitol, and see what future effect that has.
BTW, the Aztecs are the only people who have ever taken back cities that I could not see an immedially understandable reason. (for me). If he messes with me more, I may get to run some tests on him, too.
Meanwhile, CHina took the war opportunity to expand like mad. They have about 40 cities already, all small. And Mao is being
VERY polite, since his earlier defeat.
And war weariness: the pop 6 cities with 6 unhappy people had 4 luxuries, market place, temple and library. and still all unhappy. Every city, his and mine, would have been totally unproductive and starving, or in chaos and starving. I saw no point in continuing the was at that point. If (when ) I go back to war, it will have to be a surgical strike.
I plan to try several approaches. Saved tha game under a rememberable name, so I can actually complete a 'normal' game.
One, just build them up and leave him to his own devices, trying to hold on to what I have.
Two, recapture them.
three, take his new capitol, and see what future effect that has.
BTW, the Aztecs are the only people who have ever taken back cities that I could not see an immedially understandable reason. (for me). If he messes with me more, I may get to run some tests on him, too.
Meanwhile, CHina took the war opportunity to expand like mad. They have about 40 cities already, all small. And Mao is being
VERY polite, since his earlier defeat.
And war weariness: the pop 6 cities with 6 unhappy people had 4 luxuries, market place, temple and library. and still all unhappy. Every city, his and mine, would have been totally unproductive and starving, or in chaos and starving. I saw no point in continuing the was at that point. If (when
) I go back to war, it will have to be a surgical strike.Sodak
Paha Sapa Papa
Good topic! I am one of those lucky leaders who have never lost a city to culture flipping. Anyway, I think it is a good feature because:
I think Moulton is on to something that should be looked at more closely. If a city has collected thousands of culture points for the AI, why should they not revert to that civ after 5 turns of rule by the player, regardless of current culture score differences? Happy faces are simply the result of luxuries, but that's on a turn-by-turn basis. It doesn't reflect the city's historical allegiance. If this proves key, then I say they did a fantastic job of creating cultural/historical allegiance, despite how good the citizens might have it this turn.
However, instead of having a garrison completely wiped out, they should maybe lose units and have the rest expelled. Say 1 unit from a town, 2 from a city, 3 from a metropolis. After all, your bad guys would be happy to bolt if the situation got dire.
Does nationality play a role? That is, if you pour in a pile of workers/settlers to give the city a majority of your citizens, does that make a difference?
As for all of you who reload to get better results, tsk tsk!
If a bad result comes up, you need to adjust to the new circumstance - not pout until you get the happy outcome... The unexpected makes games like this great. Once you know everything and can beat it without a thought, what is the point of playing?
- It adds uncertainty to conquest plans
- It forces the player to focus on culture, as that seems to be the primary factor
I think Moulton is on to something that should be looked at more closely. If a city has collected thousands of culture points for the AI, why should they not revert to that civ after 5 turns of rule by the player, regardless of current culture score differences? Happy faces are simply the result of luxuries, but that's on a turn-by-turn basis. It doesn't reflect the city's historical allegiance. If this proves key, then I say they did a fantastic job of creating cultural/historical allegiance, despite how good the citizens might have it this turn.
However, instead of having a garrison completely wiped out, they should maybe lose units and have the rest expelled. Say 1 unit from a town, 2 from a city, 3 from a metropolis. After all, your bad guys would be happy to bolt if the situation got dire.
Does nationality play a role? That is, if you pour in a pile of workers/settlers to give the city a majority of your citizens, does that make a difference?
As for all of you who reload to get better results, tsk tsk!
If a bad result comes up, you need to adjust to the new circumstance - not pout until you get the happy outcome... The unexpected makes games like this great. Once you know everything and can beat it without a thought, what is the point of playing?
Zachriel
Kaiser
Originally posted by Sodak
As for all of you who reload to get better results, tsk tsk!
Thank you for saying that.
Peteus
All good things...
Hmm...Zachariel, weren't you the one suggesting that I could fix my city flip problem by reloading the saved game and moving all available troops into the affected city?
I have to admit, I do reload sometimes when something stupid happens. (i.e. one of those crazy stacks of 20 barb horsemen appears at precisely the wrong moment.) I don't derive any enjoyment from a random happenstance which takes a crippling toll on an empire I've been meticulously building for 20 hours! If you do, more power to you. To each their own! We each bought a copy of the game, and with that game comes the right to play it "iron man style" or not. (And I promise not to cheat on any GOTMs - If I can ever actually win one first try! Those Romans were nasty in GOTM#2!)
I have to admit, I do reload sometimes when something stupid happens. (i.e. one of those crazy stacks of 20 barb horsemen appears at precisely the wrong moment.) I don't derive any enjoyment from a random happenstance which takes a crippling toll on an empire I've been meticulously building for 20 hours! If you do, more power to you. To each their own! We each bought a copy of the game, and with that game comes the right to play it "iron man style" or not. (And I promise not to cheat on any GOTMs - If I can ever actually win one first try! Those Romans were nasty in GOTM#2!)
Zachriel
Kaiser
Originally posted by Peteus
Hmm...Zachariel, weren't you the one suggesting that I could fix my city flip problem by reloading the saved game and moving all available troops into the affected city?
No, don't reload!
But don't leave resistors running amok setting fires and looting the city either. Put down those rebellious elements. In other words, it wasn't "random happenstance." It was completely preventable and predictable.
Peteus
All good things...
Ah, so you're saying "Don't attack until you have such overwhelming force that you can afford to leave 10 units picking their collective noses in each large captured city"? I was kidding before, but now you're being rediculous! "Completely preventable" indeed!
That suggested strategy is beyond being unrealistic - It's just silly. I'm sure that the developers didn't intend for monster garrisons to be the solution. Besides, you know as I do that putting 10 strong units in that city would be no guarantee - I'd be inviting them to be thrown away when it flips anyway! A garrison of 4 units should be lots.
And let me reiterate - I never suggested that I think cities should never flip out of plain bad luck! I just want Firaxis to correct the list of factors in the Civilopedia, so that we can put these arguments to rest! And I posted this example for those who swear up and down that a city with a temple and courthouse never flip, that they prevent flips by building marketplaces, that a city with a garrison never flips, that cities close to your capital never flip, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
All of those assertions are plain wrong, and the saved game proves it. Period.
That suggested strategy is beyond being unrealistic - It's just silly. I'm sure that the developers didn't intend for monster garrisons to be the solution. Besides, you know as I do that putting 10 strong units in that city would be no guarantee - I'd be inviting them to be thrown away when it flips anyway! A garrison of 4 units should be lots.
And let me reiterate - I never suggested that I think cities should never flip out of plain bad luck! I just want Firaxis to correct the list of factors in the Civilopedia, so that we can put these arguments to rest! And I posted this example for those who swear up and down that a city with a temple and courthouse never flip, that they prevent flips by building marketplaces, that a city with a garrison never flips, that cities close to your capital never flip, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
All of those assertions are plain wrong, and the saved game proves it. Period.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Let me see, I shifted a few back units and quelled the rebellion. It did require any of your attacking units, so it did not slow your attack. It only takes a few turns to quell a rebellion, and you should defend your forward cities anyway, in case of a counterattack. Now, we all know why Alleghany flipped. It wasn't random. It wasn't willy-nilly. The game even gives you a little pop-up that says to garrison the city because it is in rebellion.
But, it's just a game. If you prefer the chaos of cities in rebellion, hey, it's your empire!
Slax
Prince
My 2 cents.
At Warlord level, I have been at war for the entire game, and have taken over more than 20 foreign cities. City sizes were up to 12. Not one has reverted.
My rule going in was to always leave a garrison greater than or equal to the number of foreign citizens in each city.
I would very much like to know the formula for reversion probability, since after reading numerous posts on the subject, I expect this plan to eventually fail, as some have said it has.
At Warlord level, I have been at war for the entire game, and have taken over more than 20 foreign cities. City sizes were up to 12. Not one has reverted.
My rule going in was to always leave a garrison greater than or equal to the number of foreign citizens in each city.
I would very much like to know the formula for reversion probability, since after reading numerous posts on the subject, I expect this plan to eventually fail, as some have said it has.
Peteus
All good things...
Sigh...again to repeat myself...
You shifted all of my "back units" into one of my captured cities. I was capturing a couple more cities per turn (had 6 or 7 so far.) You conveniently ignored all of the other captured cities, because you knew in retrospect that they had not rolled a random flip that turn. If you had put the 10 units in one of the cities closer to the Aztec capital (which would have made more sense), you would still have lost Alleghany.
What you are suggesting would only really work if you had put your economy on hold for a few hundred years to build up an army many times more numerous than your potential opponent. Not good strategy - the AI would never let you get away with it even at Intermediate difficulty levels. The other option might be to creep slowly into the enemy's territory, waiting until you have completely put the resistance down (4-5 turns in a large city, no matter what you do) before advancing again. Is that what you are suggesting? Holy war weariness!
You shifted all of my "back units" into one of my captured cities. I was capturing a couple more cities per turn (had 6 or 7 so far.) You conveniently ignored all of the other captured cities, because you knew in retrospect that they had not rolled a random flip that turn. If you had put the 10 units in one of the cities closer to the Aztec capital (which would have made more sense), you would still have lost Alleghany.
What you are suggesting would only really work if you had put your economy on hold for a few hundred years to build up an army many times more numerous than your potential opponent. Not good strategy - the AI would never let you get away with it even at Intermediate difficulty levels. The other option might be to creep slowly into the enemy's territory, waiting until you have completely put the resistance down (4-5 turns in a large city, no matter what you do) before advancing again. Is that what you are suggesting? Holy war weariness!
Zachriel
Kaiser
I think, but am not sure, that you need one unit per resistor. I haven't tested it in that much detail, as I usually have tons of units, and usually accumulate them in the newly captured city on the way to the front.
Zachriel
Kaiser
I always garrison my cities. I never tolerate anarchists. I regularly beat Monarch. Surely, you should be able to field a few more infantry to stand guard over a restless populace.
Peteus
All good things...
So you don't blitz. (Leaving 10 perfectly good Mech Inf in every captured city for 4-5 turns to crush resistance rabble is the ultimate anti-blitz.) Good for you. I do - and the quirky way that flips happen punishes a blitzing style, sometimes very severely.
Blitzing is good military strategy in the real world, but it's hard to pull off. So ideas that make it harder could be very additive, but if that was Firaxis' intent it's been treated clumsily so far.
Clearing up what the rules are would make me happy. Uneducated cries that I must not know what I'm doing do not make me happy. None of us know what we're doing - that's the problem!
Blitzing is good military strategy in the real world, but it's hard to pull off. So ideas that make it harder could be very additive, but if that was Firaxis' intent it's been treated clumsily so far.
Clearing up what the rules are would make me happy. Uneducated cries that I must not know what I'm doing do not make me happy. None of us know what we're doing - that's the problem!
SlightlyMadman
Chieftain
Here's the strategy I use, which has been very successful for me on regent:
I focus on culture, but I usually end up with maybe 30% more than most other players, so it's nothing dramatic. I might have something more like twice the culture of someone I attempt to conquer.
I like to attack with a massive force of mobile units (usually 10-20 or so, which I may split up against 2 or 3 citys at a time, if I have superior enough units), 1 army of mobile units, and a constant stream of defensive units.
I also pick my citys with care, trying to find a city with high culture, but without many large culture citys too close. The goal is not to share borders with a high culture city, which could encourage a flip. If no such cities are available, I pick a city that I can raize to create such a setup for the next one.
Once I have captured my city, I move all of the attackers into it. I usually try to have as many units as the pop of the city, but I've found that you're usually okay with at least one per resister. These units will fortify, and heal up from the attack.
In 2-3 turns, my defensive units should have reached the city. By this time, the resisters are quelled, and my attackers are healed. I move in 2-3 defenders, and ship my attackers off to the next target.
I haven't had this strategy fail for me yet, and I'm on my 3rd game so far in which I've used it.
This is more of an early and middle game strategy, I should note. Once you reach the industrial era, all the rules change, but I rarely wage war beyond that point, except for "surgical strikes."
I focus on culture, but I usually end up with maybe 30% more than most other players, so it's nothing dramatic. I might have something more like twice the culture of someone I attempt to conquer.
I like to attack with a massive force of mobile units (usually 10-20 or so, which I may split up against 2 or 3 citys at a time, if I have superior enough units), 1 army of mobile units, and a constant stream of defensive units.
I also pick my citys with care, trying to find a city with high culture, but without many large culture citys too close. The goal is not to share borders with a high culture city, which could encourage a flip. If no such cities are available, I pick a city that I can raize to create such a setup for the next one.
Once I have captured my city, I move all of the attackers into it. I usually try to have as many units as the pop of the city, but I've found that you're usually okay with at least one per resister. These units will fortify, and heal up from the attack.
In 2-3 turns, my defensive units should have reached the city. By this time, the resisters are quelled, and my attackers are healed. I move in 2-3 defenders, and ship my attackers off to the next target.
I haven't had this strategy fail for me yet, and I'm on my 3rd game so far in which I've used it.
This is more of an early and middle game strategy, I should note. Once you reach the industrial era, all the rules change, but I rarely wage war beyond that point, except for "surgical strikes."
