" If you want peace get ready for war "

Well I always play as the French, too! My people get to have good food, great wine, good culture, and have a great language. Besides, I have a soft spot for Joan. (that must have been hard: Charlemagne or Joan)

Yeah, your suggestion about ethnicity is technically correct. But I took Greece some 300 years ago and still have Greek citizens, although the bulk are French. But this is tricky. If you've encouraged rapid growth in those cities, you would have immigration in addition to the native population reproducing. If your own citizens are immigrating, you would eventually dominate.

Example, when the English took over all of the colonies, there eventually became an English majority. Yes, citizens still had Dutch, and French ethnicity, but were English in attitude. Quebec Province is an exception. Also one would have expected the Iroquois nations to be the dominant race, but that didn't happen due to their relatively small population.

Assimilating China or India due to their large populations and having their large cities become predominantly French would be preposterous. I would expect large Chinese or Indian populations to be retained.

I've taken size 12 and larger cities in this game and have still had 50% native populations 500 years later. But the game still treats them as their original nationality, and 500 years later they would be French culturally. Plus they would have intermarried by this time. Perhaps making their blended racial appearance, and their attire French would be a better cosmetic improvement to the game.

 

I think in the same way that you said man
No more things to be add on this

 

I don't care about seeing the citizens of my conquered for in my newly aquired cities. Forigners cause too many problems in this game. Either bombard the city into the stone age before you capture it or raze it!

 

Personally I more often than not engage in cleansing captured cities. In the heat of war I don't have the time to deal with those bozo's who are complaining that I conquered them. Let them die and have my own people be born into that city. It's just a game.

However a benefit from converting those people to workers and selling them back to the owners is that it may begin to improve trade relations with said civ.


Civ3 is about speed and efficiency. There's no time in battle to send troops to a captured city to keep the populace in line. Starve them to death without pity. Then you can continue with your brutal war without any interupptions.

 

This is funny. I mean, you're at war with these people, killing their soldiers (and if you bombard, civillians) mercilessly. Do you really think Firaxis should have made them NOT be mad when you finally take control of your city? Of COURSE it's easier to raze the city or starve the population... it is easier in real life, too. If my country is infiltrated with some other country's people, and those people have been killing my country's soldiers left and right, you can bet you'll have an easier time killing me than trying to convince me that this new leadership is a good idea...

Honestly, just accept it. This is how history is. It isn't pretty, but it's the truth.

The only thing I'd say is that perhaps they should have made it so that eventually having happy foreigners in your cities gives you a bonus of some sort. Maybe better diplomacy with the original country, better espionage chances, etc.

 

I only really have trouble with citizens of religious civilizations. They tend to have much higher numbers of resisters than non-religious societies. Being in a democracy doesn't help matters of establishing order in a conquored city. At least with communism you can pop rush a conquored city to eliminate resisters.

I mercilessly starve them down. Hell, if I've got war weariness, I'll starve my own cities.