Conquered cities turn against you, this is unrealistic!

[Zouave]

After reading Polonius' posts here and elsewhere. . .

I have begun to wonder if Firaxis hires people to come here to defend the game in spite of all evidence and so many objecting posts.

Just wondering.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

I had a city flip on me once. Once. And I was at peace with the nation (India) that was responsible. I've NEVER had a city flip back as a result of conquest. When you go to war, be prepared to handle those you seek to rule over, and if you aren't, then there's no sympathy here I'm afraid. It's not a hard thing to avoid.

 

[RogueNine]

Originally posted by Zouave
After reading Polonius' posts here and elsewhere. . .

I have begun to wonder if Firaxis hires people to come here to defend the game in spite of all evidence and so many objecting posts.

Just wondering.

You know, I was starting to wonder if a couple of civ-3 haters have gotten together and posted dissenting posts from multiple accounts.

Just wondering.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Cunobelin Of Hippo
I had a city flip on me once. Once. And I was at peace with the nation (India) that was responsible. I've NEVER had a city flip back as a result of conquest. When you go to war, be prepared to handle those you seek to rule over, and if you aren't, then there's no sympathy here I'm afraid. It's not a hard thing to avoid.

I've had a lot more flips than that, mostly in the early days -- way back in the blustery days of November. Analysis of abandoned games showed that nearly all flips were avoidable.

Now that I understand how flipping works, I actually gain a lot of territory by flipping neighboring cities, even if they are friendly. One more thing. Once you understand how flipping works, it seems quite natural and historically sound.

The people are what count in the long run, so you must convert them to your way of life. What the U.S. military could never do to Russia, Pepsi will.

 

[Peteus]

Count me with those who disagree with Zachriel (big surprise to you Z., I know!)

As someone stated, it clearly depends on playing styles. I tend to go to war in the late industrial/modern age. In the meantime I'm perfecting my empire, building lots of wonders, and trading for luxuries to keep my populace ecstaticly happy (and increase my score!) I'm upgrading units, if I got Leo's Workshop which is a priority for me. And when the enemy attacks me, I strike back hard. I assess whether I can annihilate him without overextending myself. Often the answer to that is no until the Tanks/Artillery/Bomber arms combination is available. Not that medievel units can't do it - I just don't typically keep enough of them around for a major offensive.
It seems like the AI starts getting bored with peace by the modern age, especially if we're sharing a big continent. So he attacks, and by that time I'm quite ready to sweep him into the sea. But by the modern age, the cities I'm capturing are big, and have a lot of culture. And I think that those two factors are probably the biggest determinants of flipping. In a parallel city-flip post I attached a perfect example. Alleghany was captured from the Aztecs, and flipped back to them after 3-4 turns, despite:
- A garrison of 3 mech inf and 1 cav which probably could have fended off the entire remaining armed forces of the Aztec nation;
- A democracy, which prevents him from using propaganda;
- No disorder - 7 happy, 6 still resisting, 3 entertainers (everyone assumes that resistors affect Revolts, but it isn't on the list in the Civilopedia!
- No bordering Aztec territory, as the blitz had already moved on by;
- No particular proximity to the Aztec capital - his was 10 tiles away and mine was 11;
- No corruption - my FP was three tiles away!
- Lots of improvements, including temple, marketplace, courthouse, and police station!
- 12 smiley faces from luxury resources.

The only things that were "danger signs" in Alleghany were the 16 Aztec citizens, and the 3350 culture that it had accumulated before I captured it! That latter point isn't mentioned in the Civilopedia either, but from all the cities I've seen flip, I think it's key - maybe the most important factor of all.

And yes, Zachariel believes that "all" I had to do was put 10 garrisoning troops in Alleghany to prevent them from flipping. In fact he even proved it with my saved game! One problem...that would be about 1/5 of my continental army...and I had already captured 6 or 7 cities, with ~20 more to go! So I guess I should have saved up 200 extra mech inf or so to use as flip surpressors before starting the war! (Besides the obvious problem with that logic...the Aztecs started it! I'm just finishing it...)

 

[Peteus]

Further to the previous post, can anyone provide evidence (from Firaxis) to prove that Resistors have any effect on flipping? I've seen a lot more cities flipping after the (short) resistance than during - So empirically I haven't seen anything to support the argument.

The Civilopedia states that the five factors which increase the probability of flipping are:

• Presence of foreign nationals in the city
• Propaganda used against the city
• Civil disorder (i.e. more unhappy than happy)
• Nearby foreign territory
• Proximity of the foreign capital

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Peteus
Civil disorder (i.e. more unhappy than happy)

I think a city is resistance could be considered in civil disorder.

 

[Peteus]

Nope, they are completely different game (and reality) concepts. Civil disorder means mobs in the streets. A resistance is underground.
In the game, cities in disorder produce nothing (and eventually start destroying improvements), while cities in resistance produce nicely - you just can't rush anything. Disorder is much more serious than resistance.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Peteus
As someone stated, it clearly depends on playing styles.

Yes, and blitz-style is certainly a valid option. I play it myself when the opportunity arises. But if you don't put down resistance, then the citizens may take a chance and try to overthrow the outnumbered garrison. There is no mystery here. There is no secret to the game in regards to flipping.

Looking at your cities, most can produce infantry in 2-3 turns, so in a few turns you'll have all the garrison you'll need for the rest of the game. Or you can even use obsolete or damaged units as garrisons. Or you can disband obsolete units to force-build improvements. Or you can let captured cities flip back occassionally, and just deal with the consequences when it occurs.

 

[Ralf]

Originally posted by alja
After 2-3 conquered (not razed) cities I lose my battle group to the revolting city!!! *curse*. All units gone, of course. After losing all 3 groups that way I switched off the computer in a very furious mood

The unofficial rule of thumb is that you need 1 combat-unit in that conquered city-square, for each pop-point, to be on the safe side. That is; if you conquer a 10 pop city, you should have 10+ occupation-units in that city-square as long as you still are at war against that Civ.

There are however a number of tricks & tactics that one can apply if one want to conquer a large number of cities succesfully. Its all about learning to play the game, and accepting the fact that one cannot use the same sleepwalk Civ-2 war-tactics in Civ-3, all over again. Stop whining and use your imagination instead.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ralf
The unofficial rule of thumb is that you need 1 combat-unit in that conquered city-square, for each pop-point, to be on the safe side.

I think you only need one unit per resistor. Once the resistance is quelled then you can use, and probably should use, a smaller garrison.

 

[zebi]

It seems that razing a city and afterwards building a new one by settler etc is the best way to prevent cities from flipping over to your enemy.
But HEY! Are you playing in Despotism or Anarchy? Razing cities is NOT the solution if your people and culture are democratic! I think this problem is a real pain in the a.., but conserving just a tiny amount of realism and ethics, you oughta do something else! Firaxis should have refined all this stuff much more.

 

[Peteus]

Originally posted by Ralf

There are however a number of tricks & tactics that one can apply if one want to conquer a large number of cities succesfully. Its all about learning to play the game, and accepting the fact that one cannot use the same sleepwalk Civ-2 war-tactics in Civ-3, all over again. Stop whining and use your imagination instead.

I would like someone to build on the list of five factors I posted earlier in this thread with all of the other factors, tricks and tactics (ex. Resistors, happy people, culture from neighboring cities, negative effect of overlarge garrisons) that Firaxis has confirmed to have an effect, with supporting references/evidence
If Firaxis won't give us a good list, maybe we can piece it together ourselves!

Please don't waste our time with "cities don't flip on me, so I must have all of the answers" arguments. I expect that you just play a different style of game, at a lower difficulty level, etc., than those of us who are having problems with seemingly-unlikely flips. Also remember that reloading, playing your turn differently, and experiencing a different result may be because the dice fell differently - not evidence that your new approach worked! (If you aren't careful.)

 

[Roberto Tomba]

The garrison limits are based on the type of government. In other words, in Communism, I can garrison with up to 4 units per city, and get the Happy benefit for each. Anything over that doesn't make any difference in terms of making the populace happy. Since the game seems to calculate military strength based on the QUANTITY rather than QUALITY of units, I've started garrisoning captured cities with the cheapest units I can make: warriors.
As far as combatting resistors, it doesn't seem to matter if there are 10 resistors or 1 resistor. Putting 10 or 20 units in the city may bring down the resistance faster (which I haven't personally observed), but ultimately garrisoning the city of 3 million with stone-axe-wielding soldiers seems to have the same effect. If the city does filp, then you haven't lost expensive units. It's good to keep your GOOD troops just outside the city to reclaim it quickly, though.

The one foolproof way to prevent a flip is pretty obvious: if you destroy the rival civ, that seems to eliminate any chance of it. I remember in Civ I where sections of an empire would rebel if you didn't maintain them properly. In that case, the section of 3-4 cities would take on the identity of a conquered civ. Does anyone know if that happens in Civ III?

 

[Ironikinit]

Originally posted by Peteus

I would like someone to build on the list of five factors I posted earlier in this thread with all of the other factors, tricks and tactics (ex. Resistors, happy people, culture from neighboring cities, negative effect of overlarge garrisons)

Have you seen the "Culture Flipping Exposed" post? If not, search for it. It's from Firaxis.

 

[Roberto Tomba]

Thanks a bunch, my fellow Michigander!

 

[Reichsmarshal]

I find that you should raze about half of the cities that you capture and keep the other 50%. It seems that if you leave no units in the city is actually LESS likely to defect.

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

Also I have way way better culture than most enemies I fight, and they still flip. It is based mostly on resistance, if you can't get rid of that DESTROY THE CITY OR YOU WILL NOT LIKE THE RESULTS!

 

[PCHighway]

I'm Just curious, have any of you used the editor?
Not to change anything, but... You know to see what makes the game tick. If you did you would notice sothing called "military police" which means that for each unit you have in the city it makes one content. (does this just work on unhappy citizens? And not resistors? I don't think so... well thats not what the manual says.)

But anyway, In the editor under the "goverments" file there's this thing called the "Military police limit" for despotism *its 2, for monarchy its 3, for communism its 4,for republic its 0, and for democracy its also 0.
You can change this in the editor. There by you could make it a maximum of 100, if you wanted to. I think that would solve citys from flipping with large amounts of soldiers in them.

*Military police limit per city

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
I find that you should raze about half of the cities that you capture and keep the other 50%. It seems that if you leave no units in the city is actually LESS likely to defect.

I consider culture flipping in need of fixing, denying the problem is helping.

Also I have way way better culture than most enemies I fight, and they still flip. It is based mostly on resistance, if you can't get rid of that DESTROY THE CITY OR YOU WILL NOT LIKE THE RESULTS!

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!!!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
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.

Do you rush temples in the conquered towns?