I Don't Like to Complain, But This Is s@#$!

[romelus]

here's the story. i take a zulu city, i knew it had been whipped to death so i knew the best option was to raze it. but there was resource nearby and i needed a place to rest my army. so i kept it, thinking i would build my own next to it later, then disband the zulu city. good plan right?

silly me, i built my own city, disbanded the zulu city (1 pop entertainer, zulus had nationalism), and presto, next turn my own city got infected! now i can't disband that city either cause the "disease" would get transferred, and i was stuck with the "diseased" city forever!

i understand that if i whipped my own cities to death i had to suffer the consequences, but what happened was simply too much!! i never complained about civ3, and i understand maybe a captured city being unhappy toward everybody is acceptable. but why should the unhappiness disease affect my own, natively built cities!?!?

guess genocide is the only option

 

[jimmytrick]

We are beta testing the product. We complain and next patch they throw in a change...they do not have the resources or will to test them first.

Then we complain and next patch they throw in another change.

The question is which comes first, end of patching or game balance.

Right now we have this ridiculos situation wherein you are penalized for spending money on research.

 

[Salvor]

If you had razed it instead of disbanding it, you'd be OK.

The game won't allow you to cheaply get rid of the unhappiness caused by whipping and drafting by simply disbanding the city where it all took place. So the unhappiness shifts to another nearby city. Since the city was already yours by the time you disbanded it, you had already inherited the unhappiness, and it's yours forever.

Many will argue (with justification) that the game is too lenient on people razing cities and it makes it too hard to rebuild captured ones. But when it comes to exploiting whip penalties by simply disbanding, the game handles this very well.

So IMHO you do have a legitimate gripe about inheriting the unhappiness. But once it becomes yours, the game is right to make it hard to get rid of. (I could further split hairs about whether the old 20 turns was more reasonable than the current 40, but we can save that for another thread, or better yet just re-read the 50 or so that are already out there).

 

[loki]

Another poorly playtested 1.17 AI "improvment". I surely miss the stacked movement...

loki

 

[Dirk Aurel]

Yeah that´s silly,somone said something about the citizens maybe "not feeling" liberated by your troops,am sure they all wanted to go back to Zululand for some more whipping.

A button "Disband City" would also be handy,the ppl would pack their things and move out,no genocide,no starvation and no whipping, suppose it would have been too much to ask.

You forgot the bar where it says how many more turns till the borders expand,loki.

 

[Zachriel]

Only time will heal the wounds of war. It is not necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

 

[Talar]

I think it's good that your whipping unhappiness transfer to another city, but what is the point of inheriting your opponents unhappiness?

I think it should be the opposite - the more unhappy the people were under their former ruler, the happier the would be to get a new one.


Suppose they just like getting whipped

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Only time will heal the wounds of war. It is not necessary to destroy the village in order to save it.

Just imagine the Germans had killed everyone in Paris, then brought 50,000 Germans there to resettle - but had killed the last French after the first Germans arrived - would all 50,000 German settlers be unhappy for generations?????

harsh example, but have you read what kittenOFchaos wrote in the other corruption thread???? I had something similar: 2 from military, 8 from lux, 3 from Hanging Gardens, 2 (content) from Bachs, 2 from Temple. That`s 15 Happy and 2 content, plus the one born content......
The cities only citizen, one of my(!) Nationality, was unhappy. 100% oppression.....

THIS ABSOLUTELY SUCKS!!!!!!!!!

 

[romelus]

exactly, i don't have that much of a problem about unhappiness due to whipping, and i understand the decision on unhappiness transferring to another city and the loophole it closes. BUT it doesn't make sense (realworld and game) for my own citizens to inherit another civilization's unhappiness. My cities don't have any foreign population and have never been whipped! It's like New York going up in thousands of years of disorder because the Americans disbanded a village in Vietnam!

 

[Chieftess]

Originally posted by loki
Another poorly playtested 1.17 AI "improvment". I surely miss the stacked movement...

loki

What was the stacked movement? Isn't it the same as multiple units moving using Shift-j (or 'j')?

 

[ajohn505]

We are beta testing the product. We complain and next patch they throw in a change...they do not have the resources or will to test them first.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, jimmytrick. I wonder what will happen if Microsoft (or any dev that likes to release polished games) gets a hold of the Civ license, or makes their own Civ-style game... Ahh, the possibilities.

 

[simwiz2]

"I wonder what will happen if Microsoft (or any dev that likes to release polished games"


You mean like AoK, with the Farm Bug that got by 3 patches, wasnt fixed in an expansion, and FINALLY got fixed in the expansion's 3rd patch?

Still, its release was MUCH better than civ3's was.

 

[Salvor]

Originally posted by ajohn505

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are beta testing the product. We complain and next patch they throw in a change...they do not have the resources or will to test them first.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you've hit the nail on the head, jimmytrick. I wonder what will happen if Microsoft (or any dev that likes to release polished games) gets a hold of the Civ license, or makes their own Civ-style game... Ahh, the possibilities.

Yep. I've been beta testing Windows for 7 years now, installing patches once a month and upgrading to a new expansion about once a year. I wonder how long it'll be before they get it right?

 

[Mike B]

Hi. I'm new here, so be gentle with me.

I just spent one of the most frustrating evenings I have had in all my years of gaming, and that is up against some stiff competition.

I was fighting on several fronts, taking cities fairly well, as I had cannons and cav, and they didn't. But it became impossible for me to complete a turn without some city rebelling and eliminating all the troops in it. In one case that was almost a thousand shields worth of troops, including an army and about a half dozen full strength cav. I am mightily annoyed, to the point of giving up the game and playing something else.

There seems to be nothing that can stop a city form rebelling. In one case I probably had almost as much firepower in that one city as there was in the entire civilization I was fighting. And with no recourse, nothing that I could do, the unarmed people of city wiped out my troops, and garrisoned with a pikeman, which the lacked the iron for.

Does anyone have any words of wisdom?

Mike B

 

[Parmenion]

My only tip is not to garrison cities you have taken with lots of troops. One or two of the best defensive units would be ideal, with any others being camped just outside the city. Either that or make sure your culture is lots better than the enemy civ.

I'm sure that several people will reply to this post rather swiftly with negative comments - this has been discussed and argued about so much it's unreal. I suggest you have a look through some of the previous posts regarding this topic.

In my own opinion whilst culture flipping is a stinker, and most people complain that their troops garrisoned in a city are simply lost to the ether without putting up a struggle, I believe that the system is fine. The troops garrisoned there probably wanted to become part of the enemy civ as much as the citizens of that city. They all went and beat their swords into ploughshares and settled down with comely young lasses from the city or something. Besides, what would make the citizens of an occupied city more likely to flip to their neighbouring culture, a few well placed peace-keeping troops or hordes of foreign, drunken sots marauding through the streets every weekend and treating the populace like dirt?

 

[brody]

Originally posted by ajohn505


I think you've hit the nail on the head, jimmytrick. I wonder what will happen if Microsoft (or any dev that likes to release polished games) gets a hold of the Civ license, or makes their own Civ-style game... Ahh, the possibilities.

You're joking right? Microsoft is probably the king of releasing untested CRAP to the public. I remember quite fondly the nightmare when people first got a hold of windows 95... oh boy. And 98 was barely even an update and it still caused problems for old 95 users. And then ME - now there's a nightmare still going on.

Firaxis did not test the program well, but I haven't seen many gaming companies that do anymore just because it's not cost effective. I hope for a patch one day that fixes most of these rather stupid bugs (though I doubt we'll get that lucky), but until then I do what I can to enjoy the game.

 

[Selous]

well .... i would have to say most games that microsoft have put out are bloody good ... anyone play the close combat series?? they are up to number 5 now and 4 and 5 have been the worst games of the series ... and number 3 was the last one that microsoft did (and in my opinion was THE best ... but many people think number 2 was the best) ... i thought age of empires was DAMN good .. was inovative and had NEW ideas ... more than i can say for civ3 ... AoE2 was more of the same but then wasnt 5years in development .... and was also a damn good game without any show stoper bugs like civ3 was riddled with

before civilization 3 came out i would buy any sid game regardless .... but after civ3 i will treat any of his games like any other .... do plenty of research and WAIT till every other fool has wasted there money before commiting myself .... sids name USED to be gold ... but now it is just another name in the industry

i think that most microsoft games have SOME inovation in them ... civ3 has no inovation in it .... just a money spinner .... and WHEN they releace multiplay as a expantion that will prove that sid has turned to the dark side and abandoned us gamers and turned to the corperations/dark side .... microsoft realise that inovation and change is requied to keep people happily forking over there cash so they impliment just enought to keep people happy .... firaxis still have to learn this and perhaps after civ3 they have ..... civ4 will be the litness test

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Mike B
I was fighting on several fronts, taking cities fairly well, as I had cannons and cav, and they didn't. But it became impossible for me to complete a turn without some city rebelling and eliminating all the troops in it. In one case that was almost a thousand shields worth of troops, including an army and about a half dozen full strength cav. I am mightily annoyed, to the point of giving up the game and playing something else.
. . . Does anyone have any words of wisdom?

Mike B

Just like in real life, if you are deep in enemy territory, you must be very, very careful. It takes more than armies to subdue a population of millions of people. Try rush-building temples and cathedrals. And be wary.

 

[marshalljames]

It seems to me that what many of you aggressive players don't realize,is while you've been building military units your opponent has been building culture.
To put it simply while you and your men have been ****ting in the woods your opponent has flush toilets,and when you take your opponents city its inhabitants have no desire to give up their flush toilets to join you and your men ****ting in the woods.
If you were paying attention during any economics lecture,the simple economy begins with guns and butter and it's finding the right mix of this that will enable you to take cities without inheriting un-happiness.I willing to bet that those that loose cities by flipping have luxury goods set to 0..a definite no no.IMO
My personal pref is 4,4,2 or if I can 3,4,3 or better 2,5,3.Allthough I have never been able to maintain a 2,5,3
It seems to me that those that complain the loudest know the least about simple economic principles.
A prime example is the placement of aluminum on some world maps that ppl have created.Some falsley assume that bauxite = aluminum.WRONG,bauxite is worthless(ask the jamaicans) without electricity,As far as I know Quebec is the largest producer of aluminium in the western world and not one grain of bauxite is to be found here naturally,what we do have is cheap electricity.
This is not simply a war game for you to wipe everything out.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by marshalljames
If you were paying attention during any economics lecture,the simple economy begins with guns and butter and it's finding the right mix of this that will enable you to take cities without inheriting un-happiness. . . .
This is not simply a war game for you to wipe everything out.

Well put.