Dilemna going for conquest victory

[Rundown]

Ok, so I have another question now.

I recently moved up to the monarch level and I am playing as the Iroquois. I took out the English with my mounted warriors and now have many in reserve. So I attacked Egypt who is stronger than me land and culture wise but their army isn't anything special. I conquered a couple of their cities very quickly in the beginning but then like two turns after they revolted and became part of Egypt again. I thought having military police would solve that problem but they took along half of my army when they turned back to Egypt.

So as you can see I am in a dilemna. Does anyone have tips or strategy that could help me in this situation?

Maybe raze the city and settle new ones but that would take resources away from my army because then I would have to build settlers?

Or is there a max number of units you can put in a city to enforce your authority and get rid of those pesky resistors?

 

[Buttercup]

That situation is called a Culture Flip. Until a civ is completely removed from the game there will always be a possibility that a conquered city will revert back to it's original owners. This might even occur centuries down the line.

Two great methods for preventing this from being a problem are:

1. Take out the whole civ as quick as possible.

2. Take the city, fill it full to the brim on the turn you take it, then evacuate it the next turn except for just enough defenders to deter an AI counter attack, then continue to the next city but leave a couple of attacking units outside the city on the off-chance it Flips. Roads and Rails make this easier as a couple of attacking units can cover many captured cities. Basically, never leave units you can't afford to lose in captured cities for more than the initial turn. Once the enemy are out of range but still active, remove the defenders as well until the civ is gone.

I've no doubt there are other methods, but these work for me.

 

[Spoonwood]

To make things perhaps a bit clearer, before you have a good railroad network up, leave 1, 2, or 3 strong attack units 1 square outside of the city that you have captured. Note I've never seen a city flip on the inter-turn immediately after you capture it. So, I feel very confident in saying that you have a 1 turn grace period on this. Much of the time, you don't even need to fortify a unit near the city consciously. You just move your new units from your core out towards the war front and their movement ends up close enough to the city (just don't place them in the city) to capture it next turn... at least with knights, cavalry, and horsemen. Once you have rails up, it probably won't come as too hard to re-capture the city in one or two turns.

To help prevent flips in the first place in captured cities you can reduce their population to size 1, and then let it grow. The new citizens have your nationality. Of course, in a cash-rushing government you can reduce population by buying workers and/or settlers from the city, and there can't exist any resistors in the captured city. You can also produce settlers/workers from the city by chopping nearby forests, or planting and then chopping nearby forests. To direct a chop towards a city, and away from another city which can use that forest square, set the other city to the Palace or a Great or Small Wonder (provided that you can do so, of course). Then change the other cities build back to whatever you wanted it as after you've chopped the forest. You can also theoretically disband units for shields towards workers/settlers, though this comes as far less useful. Additionally, you could in native workers of yours to the city to help decrease flip probability, though I wouldn't recommend it by any means.

 

[vmxa]

You always need to be aware of those civs that have a special infinity for culture such as Cleo and Hammi. They are normally going to pose a bigger threat to flip. The concept of placing a guard to retake a town works, when you have little or no concern that that civ can counter attack that town.

If in doubt raze and replace. Note that tools like Mapstat can tell you how many units you would need in a given town to prevent a flip. In some cases you could just go that route, especially, if you are about to end the war and retaken is not going to be an option.

 

[tR1cKy]

Razing and resettling is by far the best method. You do spend 30 shields for the extra settler but you avoid wasting valuable units for MP and guard duty.

If you want to keep the city you can starve it to pop 1 as quickly as possible. This will reduce the risk of defection, but won't eliminate it. Therefore you still have to keep at least one unit in the city (to quell resistors) and have nearby units to retake it in case it defects.

Another option, if war weariness is not a concern, is to leave it open for recapture and keep enough units nearby to take it over again. Popolation will go down and the enemies will waste one of their units instead of being awarded one free unit from the defection. Moreover, they will bear additional war weariness.

 

[Rundown]

All sounds like good ideas. I will try them out. Thanks.

 

[Spoonwood]

War weariness, AFAIK, isn't increased by flips. I agree that razing and replacing helps prevent flips best, however, I disagree that it comes as best in a conquest victory... at least in the hands of the best players.

 

[tR1cKy]

War weariness, AFAIK, isn't increased by flips. I agree that razing and replacing helps prevent flips best, however, I disagree that it comes as best in a conquest victory... at least in the hands of the best players.

To be honest, i'm one of those who rarely razes and replaces That's because i often aim for the fastest conquest and keeping a captured city has the advantage of using said city as a trampoline into the enemy territory, making the next capture faster and lowering the amount of war weariness you build up during the campaign.

Of course it needs more units, but i usually have enough of them to both guard the captured cities and at the same time go on with the campaign at full efficiency. If this doesn't happen, or the city is simply too troublesome to keep, i raze as well.

Anyway it's something i wouldn't recommend to players who are still in the learning phase. The downsides are many and one must really know what he's doing. A mistake or a defection in the wrong moment may hurt a lot.

 

[vmxa]

Use the combat settler and you have the same access to the next town. That is you capture a town, run in a settler and abandon the town and found your new town. Settlers are cheaper than a handful of cav/rifles or whatever you are using at the time as long as you have places that can keep them coming.

If you are moving very fast, then captures have a greatly reduce chance to flip as they are soon far from the culture borders of the enemy.

 

[Spoonwood]

To be honest, i'm one of those who rarely razes and replaces That's because i often aim for the fastest conquest and keeping a captured city has the advantage of using said city as a trampoline into the enemy territory, making the next capture faster and lowering the amount of war weariness you build up during the campaign.

Of course it needs more units, but i usually have enough of them to both guard the captured cities and at the same time go on with the campaign at full efficiency. If this doesn't happen, or the city is simply too troublesome to keep, i raze as well.

Anyway it's something i wouldn't recommend to players who are still in the learning phase. The downsides are many and one must really know what he's doing. A mistake or a defection in the wrong moment may hurt a lot.

Well put!