Improving City Flipping

[etj4Eagle]

With all the posts on how unrealistic city flipping is, I wonder what should be done to improve the situation (while still letting cities flip).

As one of the biggest complaints appears to be the loss of your garison, and yes I do agree loosing ten highly trained infantry to be very annoying. So at minimum, one change should be that the garison is just expelled from the city (damaged though). However artillery should be left in the city (with a chance to be destroyed) and planes should have a chance of being destroyed instead of escaping (being caught on the grounds).

The other issue is how to do the actual resistance and I think cultural flips should have a resistance. Below is my thoughts for an improved system:

* Just as there are three happy citizen levels, there should be three loyalty levels: loyal, passive resistance, and actively resisting. And you will of course be able to find out why the people feel as they do. (Maybe there should be a toggle between the happiness and loyaltly display). This way you can find out that that French city over the border is causing trouble, or maybe they just long to be home.

* When ever there are more resistors (active or passive) then loyal citizens the city should be in resistance. And there is the potenital for expelling the military. Also a resisting city would not get any defensive bonus.

* Though expellation of the military should be based on some ratio of resisting citizens to land military forces. Possibly that they engage in a kind of combat with one of the following outcomes: injured military unit, loss of pop point, nothing. And that only if all military units are injured is there a possibility that they will be expelled (might also require military units not healing as quickly in cities that are resisting). And that maybe every three passive resitors act like an active one this respect.

* With this there should also be the possible of having your troops crush the resistance. During which they would fully take care of the passive ones, and increase the chance that pop would be decreased. But everytime they do this another active resistor should be created.

* If ever all your population are resistors the garison should be imeadiatly withdrawn (basically they get ditraught and pull out).


These changes probably are too complex to implement. But I think we need a full overhaul to the system. I like the concept, but it needs to be deepened, as right now there is just no ryhme or reason to why things happen. And there is no reason to loose your whole garison, at minimum the game should just expell your troops to the tiles around the city (and maybe make the city nationalityless for a turn so that you have the chance to retake it without starting a war.

Hopefully those who have played the game more can give their thoughts and suggestion on how to reform the current system.

 

[Polonius]

Originally posted by etj4Eagle

I like the concept, but it needs to be deepened, as right now there is just no ryhme or reason to why things happen. And there is no reason to loose your whole garison, at minimum the game should just expell your troops to the tiles around the city (and maybe make the city nationalityless for a turn so that you have the chance to retake it without starting a war.

Hopefully those who have played the game more can give their thoughts and suggestion on how to reform the current system.

Sorry, but I can't agree with your assertion that there's no rhyme or reason to why cities flip. If you read the Civilopedia entry on City Defection, and the associated links on Civil Disorder, Moods, etc it seems pretty clear why they flip back. Briefly it's because players dash in and capture cities without having the proper backup infra-structure to ensure the loyalty of the new citizens.

A lot of players seem to just notice that garrisoning can help and then apparently overlook all the other issues that profoundly affect stability. I imagine that in a lot of cases it's a by-product of some players putting all their effort into military aims at the expense of low or modest culture and borderline happiness - both of which will greatly compromise your chances of losing a city to a flip (if I've read the Civilopedia correctly). If you want to play like that, fine, but be prepared for the consequences. Just garrison with cheap or wounded troops (and hope), raze and rebuild or whatever.

It also seems perfectly reasonable that you lose your garrison if you get it wrong - after all in real life there is plenty of precedent for attackers capturing cities, failing to win the hearts and minds of the population, and having their garrison slaughtered.

I think that the current system is fine, I just think it's poorly understood. (But of course I'm biased - I play high culture, happy civs and make cheering up captives a priority - and in over 100 captures I've never lost a city).

 

[Moulton]

It would be helpful if we could somehow discover a potential flip before it happens.
Some things you know rationally... If you capture a city, it is going to feel loyal, probably, to its former government. But after the dust settles, and things seem normal...
Perhaps a check on a citizen would get a response like " well, over in Pisae they give free barbeques every Friday night."

Sometimes I think it is the national origin of captured cities, too. I have not lost any this time (except one that was my fault) but I noticed that the Roman cities are coming on line, slowly, but developing more than one shield. The Zulus, however, who have been captured for over 1000 years, are still only one shield, and they are actually closer than the Roman cities to my capitol. No possibliity of flipping, any more, but they might flip to American or English.

 

[Freiherr]

Polonius, you're way off base on this issue. Read the posts on other threads discussing this problem and you'll see that logic has little to do with city flipping. One player even had a city containing his Forbidden Palace defect to its former culture. In my own games, I have had cities celebrating "We Love the King Day" defect, to my utter astonishment.
I agree completely with etj4Eagle on this issue. Plain common sense would indicate that the civilian population shouldn't be able to wipe out the occupying garrison without taking any casualties.
One suggestion for handling this problem was posted in another thread a few days ago. Have your military advisor warn you that the city is rebelling and offer the option of withdrawing your units or fighting it out with the rebels.
As it stands now it is much too easy to raze a captured city and significantly more difficult than it should be to keep it securely after capture.

 

[SGX]

I'd strongly agree that a city flip does not make you lose your entire garrison... think about it.... if you have 10 infantry, a few tanks etc, that's a few battalions or whatever... an army in this game is 3/4 units.

So that amount of units would be a few armies in size... no city is going to be so organised to be able to kill all of them without sustaining very heavy losses to the civilian population.

Losses that, when the resistors think about it, would not bother risking it.

The garrisoned units should be allowed a retreat... surely, they are in the city, they can tell what mood is like, and they can abandon the city when they can do no more.

Air units and naval units should not count as a garrison really, since they don't actually do much in controlling a citys population, and should perhaps be captured.

 

[Polonius]

Originally posted by Freiherr
Polonius, you're way off base on this issue.

If I’m “way off base” why am I the happy one who has never lost a city to a flip?

Maybe it’s a case of “ignorance is bliss”, but I don’t think so.

Why do you think that it’s so strange that a Forbidden Palace city could flip? The Civilopedia says that it helps to prevent flips if your capital is nearby – not “a palace”, but THE capital. A Forbidden Palace gives some crucially useful benefits but, as far as I know, instant happiness or flip proofing are not among them.

On the point of “We love the King” days you look to be on surer ground – but it’s still not the full story. Comparative culture (your civ versus theirs – overall accumulated points) is a key issue in both culture capture and flipping chances. Check out the rules with the Editor – your percentage chance of resistance in a captured city (not the same as flipping but a contributing factor to reversion) on an ongoing turn by turn basis remains extremely high if you have a poor comparative culture (it can be as high as 80% in fact). They can be so happy that they’re bursting, but still secretly longing to get back home to their origins.

One further thing that nobody ever mentions is propaganda. If you have the Intelligence Agency you can use a spy to get a city miles from your territory to flip to you (I just did one at a huge distance to check). So why couldn’t the AI do this back? In these “absolutely inexplicable” flip cases did everybody check to see if there was an enemy spy in their capital (they can target any city)? I bet they didn’t.

Why is everybody so keen to believe that Firaxis got it all wrong, and so reluctant to accept what seems to be a rational reading of the rules?

Sure we’d all like more warnings etc. but, hey, I’d like a little guy to pop up and say “Don’t attack that Spearman he’s about to cream your Musketman” – but I just have to live without him!

 

[jju_57]

That is an excellant point about the spy. And since those that experience flips the most are more apt to wage war, I bet they weren't democratic, but monarch or communist. This means that a spy can flip a city. I never did it cause the cost was too much but that doesn't mean the AI wouldn't spend the gold to do it.

 

[Mack A. Vellian]

Cities still flip even when your government...Democracy...is immune to propaganda. Secondly, I've had many flip when the computer opponent had no money to finance propaganda anyway.

Also, when the opponent is down to a few cities, shouldn't their cultural influence weaken? My experience is that the fewer cities left the more likely a recently captured city (more likeley several of them) will flip. I recently had the Russians down to 2 cities, my culture was far ahead (the Russians were impressed), and on the next turn 3 cities flipped. And I was a Democracy, and they had no money. It appears the AI is determined to keep the civ in the game.

Bottom line is, the way it is set up now, it is best to raze and rebuild, or as I usually do, eliminate the civ entirely if you can, then you can take your time quelling resistence without the risk of losing your garrison. Untill I can do that I rarely leave more than a tank or two in a newly captured city, preferring instead to build a defensive ring....then if it flips I quickly recapture.

 

[Polonius]

Hi Mack,

"Impressed" doesn't mean that your culture is well ahead it means an approximate 1:1 ratio. "Admirers" means 2:1 and to get "In awe of" you need a 3:1 ratio against their culture. While a civ remains alive their accumulated culture points remain, even though their cities have largely vanished. Accumulated points are a key figure used by the game. Is this realistic? Who knows - but it's what the game does. You might say that cultures like the ancient Egyptian one remain interesting and influentual to some degree even today - long after its exponents died out.

You well well be right about the AIs determination to keep alive, and that it may provide a bit of weighting to achieve this. Many of us have wiped out the last city only to have another pop up across the map - without the need for a settler to make the trudge - particularly early in the game. So who knows?

I think that it's best to develop a solution that best suits your own style of play once you get a feel for how and how often the game pulls its tricks against the way an individual player plays. Razing and parking re-capture troops outside the city all work well for some people - and why not - but playing my way works beautifully for me too.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Freiherr
Plain common sense would indicate that the civilian population shouldn't be able to wipe out the occupying garrison without taking any casualties.

The occupying garrison may simply prefer joining your enemies. I mean they have a choice of living under your despotic rule, or having free sodas every weekend with the President.

I have found that extended wars have lasting effects on happiness. I just finished a 500 year stint. Let's just say the people were getting a little upset with me.

Everyone knows to build a temple for culture, but don't forget to build a courthouse and marketplace in your captured towns, plus banks and police stations, if they are city size. Increase luxuries, and make sure they have luxury goods.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Moulton
It would be helpful if we could somehow discover a potential flip before it happens.
Some things you know rationally... If you capture a city, it is going to feel loyal, probably, to its former government. But after the dust settles, and things seem normal...
Perhaps a check on a citizen would get a response like " well, over in Pisae they give free barbeques every Friday night."

That is a very good idea. Culture is playable. Anyone having troubles with culture and suffers a flip should abandon the game, back up a few turns and try and discover a way to prevent flipping. It is nearly always possible. If I am powerful, I will actually disband several obsolete units to build improvements even if the city is in resistance. When the city is no longer in resistance, I will disband a single unit and rush an improvement every turn.

A warning would be great, so you would know how much money you had to throw at the problem to fix it. Normally, it is not an issue of culture but of happiness. Rush the marketplace as well as the temple. Rush the courthouse, because the marketplace won't work without it.

 

[etj4Eagle]

What we need most of all with the city flipping is a way to judge how we stand with any of our given cities. Just that would allow us to better understand why we are loosing citites. I am sure that there are good reasons why we are loosing the cities, the problem is that it is very hard to discern that information yourself.

Just being able to check on the citizens and see them saying things like: "There are more impressive cultures out there," "This feels like a back water city", "I am French not German," "War is not the answer" would go along way to knowing how to make the people more happy and knowing how at risk the population is.

And some of the garrison should be able to escape when being deposed. Though depending on much of the population is against you could factor in to how many don't make it. Also I do like what another poster suggested in your military advisor giving you the option to run. This would allow you to save most of your forces in good shape (including artillery). Or give you the option to fight back, possibly holding on, but also killing civilians and probably inflaming more of the population in that city and nearby ones as well.

Like I said when I started the thread, the issue is not so much wether or not city flipping is broken (since that seems to be a combination of experience/number of games played and personal view points, but on how to improve this game feature.

For the one who built that Forbidden Palace only to loose the city a few turns later, I am sure if he saw that the city's population was hostile to his rule he would have looked elsewhere. Unfortuantly one cannot know that with the current game, only guess that they are being successful in keeping their people happy.

 

[Polonius]

More warnings sound like an OK idea, but what exactly would you want to be told that you aren’t already? You are already told a lot, if you know where to look. Wouldn’t there be a danger of rather spoiling the elements of chance and surprise in the game?

The heart and soul of Civ3 is that it is a game of possibilities and probabilities – not of certainties. For my money that’s why it shines over other more predictable games. The rules seem to be designed precisely to avoid outcomes always being a black and white affair – if you equip Goliath properly and learn how to control him he will usually win, but occasionally David will prevail against the obvious odds. That seems just fine to me - particularly when I’m David and I win when I thought I was about to lose!

Players already get plenty of warnings about the general possibility of flips. Look at the right screens and you can see how many foreign nationals you have, what your relative culture rating is, what cultural improvements and luxuries that city enjoys, the garrison strength, whether anyone is resisting, how likely civil disorder is, etc. All these give warnings about the relative chances of flips. None of them give a definitive percentage style answer but together they contribute to a picture that a player should be able to learn to read.

This leaves two other factors:

Firstly - spies. If you gave warnings about spies that would completely destroy the whole concept of espionage, which is that it is a covert business. You do get the option to search for spies if you care to pay the price.

That leaves whatever the random factor associated with flips is. Do you really want a warning that says “OK get out your hanky, you’re going to lose this baby next turn”? Or do you just want the random elements removed altogether (if so – this is probably the wrong game for you). It’s the use of random elements that give this game its zing, and stop it being just an exercise in learning the rules and patterns and then plodding through an inevitable unfolding – unit A always beating unit B, civs always getting X amount of resources, etc.

On the subject of testing flips I have just spent several hours doing exactly that, so when the forum is working properly again I’ll post what I found and didn’t find.

 

[shykovsky]

"It’s the use of random elements that give this game its zing, and stop it being just an exercise in learning the rules and patterns and then plodding through an inevitable unfolding – unit A always beating unit B, civs always getting X amount of resources, etc. "


Your point is well taken. Ultimately, I view city flipping more as a nuisance than anything else. It's usually only significant if you are in conquest mode, and the flip cuts your line of communication. Pause, and re-conquer.

I simply plan around it. But one thing that bothers me is it appears the AI factors in the number of troops you would loose if a certain city flipped.....my own experience supports this idea, and other posts have mentioned it as well. In other words, a large garrison acts as an invitation to the AI to have a certain city flip, which is, of course, counter to any realistic simulation. This supports the idea that the AI uses perfect knowledge of the human opponents disposition in its decision making...the "Crystal Ball" effect. I suppose that is nescessary to provide challenging play.

And that is how I view this game...as a simulation. The real joy I derive from this game is its ability to re-create the challenges and opportunities of history. And certainly history is repleat with examples of random events having major consequences. A Japanese scout plane located the American carriers prior to the battle of Midway, but was unable to relay the information due to a faulty transmitter. The rest, as they say, is history.

What I would be happy with is a little more documentation / information from Firaxis regarding the algorythms involved in the calculation. We know the factors, (or think we do) but not the weights. They did this with the combat resolution, why not flipping?

This would not totally destroy the randomness or the occaisional nasty surprise....just give a rational tool for planning. When I gamble I shoot craps...I have the odds memorized for every bet on the table. Which guarantees absolutely NOTHING! Dice have a mind of their own...and frequently ignore the law of large numbers.....and...take money from my wallet!

At least city flipping hasn't done that....yet!

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Polonius
I think that the current system is fine, I just think it's poorly understood. (But of course I'm biased - I play high culture, happy civs and make cheering up captives a priority - and in over 100 captures I've never lost a city).

Great. But for me, by mid-game I usually have roughly 50% of the TOTAL culture on the map, and many cities in WLTKD. I rush build infrastructure in conquered cities, because I rarely conquer unless I can afford to. While I tend to have small armies, I concentrate them to garrison in the conquered cities. Under these conditions, flips still happen to me.

Maybe there were two different versions of the game shipped, because there seems to be some unending divide here...

R.III

 

[A E Butterfield]

I think that the major problem people have with the city flipping phenomenon is its aparent randomness.


I have had conquered cities with many improvements, that are provided with five luxuries, entertainers, no resistors and a fully assimilated population, flip. I have had ravaged, burnt out, ungarrisoned, just-conquered cities remain loyal. I have never lost a self-founded city to a flip period! I cannot figure it out.

The result is either city razing or unintended wars as rebel cities are reconquered. Propaganda is a possibility, but the flip problem exists long before espionage!

I feel that a garrison equal to the city's population should stop flips. Also, the type of government should effect the chance of flipping - a despot, monarchy or communist - like Hitler, Stalin or Gengis Khan - would simply butcher any rebels, while a democracy or a republic - like France and the USA in Vietnam - would not.

The problem with the city flip is that it alters the game balance if the human player cannot compete with the AI - I have little luck in getting my conquered cities to flip back to me.


Andrew Butterfield

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by A E Butterfield
Also, the type of government should effect the chance of flipping - a despot, monarchy or communist - like Hitler, Stalin or Gengis Khan - would simply butcher any rebels, while a democracy or a republic - like France and the USA in Vietnam - would not.

Good example. Within a couple of generations, all the Khans conquests reverted including the garrisons. The invaders of China became Chinese. The invaders of India became Indians. The invaders of Russia became Russians. Mongolia became just another nowhere on the Eurasian steppes, just like it was before the Khans.

 

[A E Butterfield]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Good example. Within a couple of generations, all the Khans conquests reverted including the garrisons. The invaders of China became Chinese. The invaders of India became Indians. The invaders of Russia became Russians. Mongolia became just another nowhere on the Eurasian steppes, just like it was before the Khans.

Actually, the Mongol Khanate disolved through civil war, most of the mongol troops in China returned to fight other Mongols, leaving Chinese troops behind. The Muslim invaders of India never became Indian - turn on your TV and watch the possible war between India and Pakistan (once part of India) that is developing, and the British went home (50,000 British once controlled all of India - WWII not Ghandi made them leave!). The Golden Horde was driven out of Russia by the Cossacks (there were never many Vikings). Territory rarely changes hands without a lot of fighting and dying. Most rebellions change the type of government - not the civilization. And no city rebels during a war and gets away with it!

The Romans lost Jeruselum twice due to insufficient garrisions (their historians viewpoint). The Warsaw uprising was crushed in 1944 as the Germans had a large enough garrison. If a city is going to flip, the garrison should either change sides or go out fighting - elite troops don't surrender to civilians, only enemy soldiers.

I agree that steps can be taken to reduce the flip risk, but rediculous results still occur. I am yet to see one of my cities that has been overrun by the computer flip back to me.

The problem is that this encourages barbarianism, like razing, starving and ethnic cleansing, rather than encouraging a peaceful takeover by a superior culture!


Andrew Butterfield

 

[Luca Brasi]

Originally posted by A E Butterfield

The Golden Horde was driven out of Russia by the Cossacks (there were never many Vikings).

Not correct. The Russians, lead by Dmitri Donskoi, defeated the Monglos at Kulikovo Battle in 1380. The Mongol influence gradually weakened and they were driven out 100 years later as Moscow rose under Ivan III. However, the Russian nationality still contains large traces of Mongol-Tatar blood, not to mention numerous ethnic Tatars scattered through southern Russia. Cossacks didn't come until the 16th century.

In fact, a large percentage of what we know known as ethnic Russians originally were Vikings (Varyags), with the first great Russian ruler - Riurik - being a Scandidavian chief (862, way before Mongols came). Their influence on the creation of Russia as we know it today is huge. The Vikings, in fact, became Russians of today, but of course with a large mixture from other tribes.

P.S. Don't actually remember the dates, had to look them up.

 

[ironfang]

I love this debate in logic. I think that the cultural flip is the most insightless aspects of the game. While I do agree that the citizens of a city CAN rise up and "lynch mob" a small garrisoning force, there is now way in the depths of hell that they are going to slaughter a medium to large garrison.

Any any case, the garrison, even if the city DID decide to rise up, would fight back, causing massive casualties. If you really want to see what its like for a citizen revolt against a garrison, check your WWII history books under the Nazi occupation of France, or some of the revolts that occured in Rome.

If we want to talk about troop loyalties due to culture, why would a soldier all of the sudden "switch" if they are on the obviously victorious side. Or, on that point, why would an army march to their doom against an obviously superior enemy? Why not simply have a military coup within your own defenseless nation?

Just another reason why CivIII has not been installed on my cpu since the beginning of December. Even with the patch, its just another InfoCRAP product.

IronFang