Conquered cities turn against you, this is unrealistic!

[Mavfin]

I have a suggestion for you...if you can't or won't modify your playstyle to stop the flips like the rest of us, and you really dislike Civ3 that much, go back to your Civ2 world and find something more enjoyable for yourself to do. That way you're not taking up forum bandwidth ranting about it. I have yet to see a positive post about Civ3 with your name on it. So why are you still here? If it's that bad, put it away, uninstall it, and get on with your life, for God's sake.

I have no flipping problems after capture when I choose to keep cities. The only problem I have with the process is when my own homegrown citizens in the captured city get unhappy because of the previous civ's whipping/drafting. Otherwise, it's part of the game.

 

[simwiz2]

why is it that on every thread that disagrees with a game principle, theres always some people who post things like "improve your tactics", "learn to play", or "you must be bad at civ3"? Ever thread in this forum that disagrees with spear-vs-tank, culture flips, getting AI's whip unhappiness, etc all have either posts with links to strategy pages, people beiong called newbies, or someone saying to "get an economics textbook". I highly doubt that to be good at civ3 or civ in general, you need to agree with everything that firaxis put in the game. Sure, some people like Zouave are a bit negative, pessimistic and demanding ("PATCH IT NOW FIRAXIS" ) with their arguments, but alot of people have constructive arguments and are making suggestions that might improve the game. People claiming that they dont experience flipping and therefore are somehow better at civ than people who dislike/are plagued by flips is completely false. It is a combination of playing style and just plain luck. Claiming that people who are content with culture flipping are better at civ3 is completely false.

 

[napoleon526]

Well said!

I experience lots of flipping, but I guess i'll learn to deal w/ it.

 

[napoleon526]

The theory that culture increases the chances that flipping will occur makes historical sense. Take Napoleon, for example (can you tell i'm a fan? )

After he defeated the Austrians in 1805, most of Germany came under his direct control. The region was made up of dozens of tiny countries, and had changed hands many times. So when Bonaparte took over, there was no real resistance to his rule, due to the fact that the German citizens had little or no cultural/national identity.

Three years later, when Napoleon invaded Spain, however, it triggered a guerilla war and widespread resistance among the common people. The Spainish people had a much greater sense of national pride than those in Bavaria, Saxony, Wurtemberg, and the other German states.

Just food for thought.

 

[narmox]

and I quote, from the 1.17f changes:

"It is now possible to completely suppress a city's cultural reversion with enough military units."

 

[marshalljames]

Well at the risk of being shouted at by some players who seem to look for faults in the game rather than strenght's I would suggest that you garrison your forces around the city rather than in it.It won't prevent the city from flipping ,but it's real easy to get it back.
In the ancient era I find a temple helps,in the modern era I think a library is more useful.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by napoleon526
After he defeated the Austrians in 1805, most of Germany came under his direct control. . . . Three years later, when Napoleon invaded Spain, however, it triggered a guerilla war and widespread resistance among the common people. . . .

Good observation. Spain had been unifed since 1492, with the marriage of Aragon and Castile. The Napoleonic battle in Spain also gave Wellington some idea of French vulnerabilities.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by Zouave


Culture Flipping remains the single biggest STUPIDITY in Civ III and the worst idea Sid/Firaxis ever had. It sucks big time.

It is non-historical, screws up the enjoyment of the game, makes no sense even in game terms, and makes me long for Civ 2.

We are forced to act like genocidal barbarians slaughtering huge populations - populations so all-powerful they can destroy huge garrisons if you don't raze the city. Populations so stupid they flip with a gigantic army two tiles away ready to kill them all.

I have seen a city flip to another civ only because it is close to the other civ's capital. . . even though that capital was the only city left in that civ and I had over twenty cities!!!

I have seen that too. I was just saying that sometimes the city is of such strategic importance that you have to hold onto it no matter what. I agree that culture flipping needs to be fixed.

It is very vile when multiple armies disappear because of a flip.

Mabey the wording made it look like I was in favor of how it works when really I am not.

Note: Edited the sentence so it says what I meant:

"I consider culture flipping in need of fixing, denying the problem of losing intense amounts of your military isn't helping."

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Isn't ironic that the better you treat the city the more likely it is to flip? Apparently the popluation is sadistic and likes to watch you execute most of the city and used forced labor.

Having better culture than your foe hardly helps to stop flips. They can happen at any moment without warning.

 

[Cavalry]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
It seems that if you leave no units in the city is actually LESS likely to defect.
[/B]

This seems to be *TOTALLY* the case. When I was playing fighting the barbarian Egpytians who, destory entire cities with drafting/hurring production in a matter of 1 turn, from size 30 to a city on the verge of death. I left one, yes one conscript mech infantry in a very large city(it somehow fell into disorder, which is very rare and thus they could not draft or hurry production too much before the attack). It still has not flipped when many other cities have flipped with 20+ units in them!! Oh, the cities that did flip were often runty, about size 9 or so.

Razing seems to be that only legitamate option of avoiding the plight.

 

[Ironikinit]

Yes, actually, having a too-large garrison causes flips to be more likely, at least under 1.16. I don't know if it changed with 1.17.

I don't know what the rationale was for that, but it sounds like the designers were just trying to make it more challenging.

 

[etj4Eagle]

According to Dan's post, there was no factor that took into account an overly large garrison. However, it is possible that this garrison for one reason or another was using up die rolls (especially true if they were quelling the population or acting as military police). In such a case removing the garrison could allow a good die roll to be applied to whether the city remains loyal or not.