Is it supposed to be this way?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Mavfin, Mar 16, 2002.

  1. Mavfin

    Mavfin AC was still the best!

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Missouri
    Here's the situation: Standard map, I'm playing Germans, and putting my Panzers to good use.

    I had just wiped out the zulus, and had razed all their cities but the last one on that continent, as the Japanese and the Greeks were on that continent, also, and ripe for the plucking. I was trying for conquest or domination this time, for a change from my usual builder style. The Zulus did have one city on another island, and a transport/destroyer combo was on its way.

    This city had been drafted down to one citizen, so I figured, OK, I'll let my units heal in here, and start building up this place with my own people. The one Zulu in the city wasn't happy, as they had been drafted AND whipped a lot evidently, or so she said.

    Here's the part I'm not sure is right: The city grew to 2 citizens, the second one being a German, of course, and, lo and behold, HE was unhappy! I asked him why, and it was because of the drafting and the whipping! I had done NO drafting that game, and any whipping was only just a little on the other continent, right off the start of the game. I'm talking three AGES ago, as the last whipping was in Ancient times, and not very much of that, so that was LONG gone.

    I thought that unhappy people shouldn't show up in a captured city, if they're yours, at least not for something the old civ did! :smoke: :smoke:

    Any insights?
     
  2. D. Boon's Ghost

    D. Boon's Ghost Failed Moralist

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    138
    Location:
    Ohio, the heartburn of it all.
    One of the more senior members of this forum would answer the question better than I, but I will attempt it. It seems that the unhappiness you mentioned carries over and 'infects' the citizens of that captured city, no matter the ratio of native to 'foreign'. That unhappiness, as you suspected, was the result of Shaka whipping the city for pop rushing (hurrying the production in a city with citizen lives). Was it earlier in the game? If so, despotism can be rough in that way.
    I am experiencing the same things as yourself in my current game. The unhappiness seems to lead to the dreaded culture flip right back to the original owner.
    As much as I hate to raze the cities, it seems that unless your culture is so much stronger than the next guy, the unhappiness factor/corruption of these cities puts a big hamper on my civ. If it is vital strategically or if it has captured Wonders, I will do my best to keep it. If not, I raze them.
     
  3. Mavfin

    Mavfin AC was still the best!

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    Messages:
    308
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Missouri
    Yeah, I've done some more reading, and gathered that the game does this, even to your own added citizens...I just thought it would be confined to the Zulu citizen(s), not the German ones homegrown (not worker or settler-added). To me, making homegrown citizens of my civ that I'm playing unhappy because of Zulu whipping/drafting that they weren't there for , is a bug! (if the worker-whipping is the problem, fine, flag them for being worker/settler added, but don't do it to HOMEGROWN citizens!!!, i.e. growth AFTER capture)

    If anyone's listening at Firaxis, is this supposed to be patched, or is this going to stay this way, just because of people using the worker-added whipping cities exploit? Why should legit players suffer for the abuses of the cheaters? I mean it does make perfect sense that the Zulu citizen(s) who got whipped would be madder than hell for a while, no matter whether under my rule or not, but my own citizens, who haven't been whipped or drafted? I have no problem with having to deal with the inherited citizens. That part makes sense. It's inconvenient, but logical, so I can accept that. But the other part is irritating.
     
  4. korusus

    korusus Dictator

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2001
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    North America
    Ya, alot of people have been complaing about dat' one.
     
  5. Lt. 'Killer' M.

    Lt. 'Killer' M. Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,475
    there`s a good thread around here (can`t find it rigth now) where to pros and cons were excessively discussed.

    Final consensus: maybe some unhappiness should caryy over - but NOT to new citizens and certainly NOT to other towns if the town in question is disbanded.

    Advice: raze them all!

    pity, I thought it was Civilization, not Razinization or Nazinization, but there you go!
     
  6. Zachriel

    Zachriel Kaiser

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    Jovian System
    Gen. Westmoreland, it is not necessary to destroy the village in order to save it. Here is a typical captured city on a distance continent (from GOTM5):

    1870AD - resistance

    1872AD - resistance ended

    1874AD - most citizens back to work

    1876AD - entire population appeased

    1878AD - We Love President Lincoln Day


    As the Americans, we used TOTAL CONTROL to end resistance, then force-rushed the temple, then rushed the cathedral. If you choose to destroy cities because you are not capable of or not willing to find a better strategy, that is your weakness. Just don't blame necessity.
     
  7. Lt. 'Killer' M.

    Lt. 'Killer' M. Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,475
    all well and nice, Zachriel, but now please do the same for a city that the opponent whipped down from size 12 to size 1.......
     
  8. Zachriel

    Zachriel Kaiser

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    Jovian System
    I've never seen that happen in my games. Post one and I'll look at it.
     
  9. jimmytrick

    jimmytrick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    84
    Zach, have you really demonstrated a better strategy. You spent quite a few turns and some cash to get that city under control.

    Couldn't you just as well have made up a settler and some workers and razed the city and added them? You are in the industrial age and settlers and workers are dirt cheap.

    Unless there is a wonder in there I don't see the point of doing it your way.
     
  10. eyrei

    eyrei Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    9,186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Durham, NC USA

    Realism.
     
  11. jimmytrick

    jimmytrick Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    84
    What does realism have to do with it? Its a game, you are going to look for the best way to do it. If the game is designed in such a way that the best way to do something is ahistorical, then the designer has rendered the game unrealistic. Realism? Totally ridiculos answer, what are you thinking?
     
  12. eyrei

    eyrei Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    9,186
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Durham, NC USA
    I rarely raze cities for several reasons.

    1. After the middle ages, it is not really possible to do in real life.

    2. It is quite possible to gain and keep control of the populace. It takes time, money and effort, but that is the way it should be. It is entirely too easy to raze and rebuild.

    3. Many times, there is not a settler handy. The city may be on another continent, or the road and rail access has been destroyed.

    Basically, whether razing is the easiest way or not is irrelevant to me. Like some people, I actually pretend I am the immortal ruler of a civilization, so anytime I can make the game more realistic, through my actions, I do so, in order to increase the amount of fun I am having.
     
  13. Lt. 'Killer' M.

    Lt. 'Killer' M. Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,475
    sorry, no can do - the AI only des that with the increased penalty in 1.17 :confused: - and THAT won`t get onto my `puter ever again!

    But I guess quite a few people will ba able to post a save since whipping/drafting seems to be very common for 1.17 commie AIs. If seen them go from 12 towns, each size 12, to 1 town, size 1, in about 40 turns - they whip useless units (ie Longbowmen to attack entrenched Riflemen + cannons), then are down to 1 prod - and loose their towns quickly!
     
  14. Lt. 'Killer' M.

    Lt. 'Killer' M. Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,475
    Oh how nice would it be if that was realistic. But the only examples coming to my mind are Chechenia, Bosnia, some African States - all in all conquest today means using military power and genocide. See WWII and Germany - massive troops kept control - and then people started to work in the west for their own wellbeing - but they knew they`d always be independent. In the east they didn`t - since they knew it was for the Russians when they did work effectively. Crude example, I know!
     
  15. Lt. 'Killer' M.

    Lt. 'Killer' M. Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,475
    Same for me, unless I decide to play Serbian style. But there`s no reason why the game should make genocide easier than rebuilding - shouldn`t be that hard to make World opinion play a more important role in later ages.....
     
  16. Salvor

    Salvor Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    144
    Location:
    Chicago
    Of course there's a strategy for minimizing the effect of unhappy citizens.

    First, don't let the opponent whip/draft a size 12 city down to 1. I never do. Even under communism, this would take several turns. Don't give him the time to do it. Don't move within 2 squares of the city until you're ready to take it, and when you do, take it quickly.

    Also, bombard the heck out of the city. If you bombard him down below size 6, he can't draft anymore. If you bombard him down to size 1, he can't poprush either. And in the process, you'll knock his defending units down to 1 hp each, so it'll be easy to take the city.

    Once it's yours, pay attention to the people and keep them happy. Hook them up to your trade network immediately, so they benefit from your luxuries. Rush (with cash) a temple, marketplace, cathedral or whatever you need. So it takes 4-5 turns and costs some cash. So what? You want the city, it takes some work, not everything in this life gets handed to you on a silver platter. Having wonders can help, too. Prioritize the Sistine Chapel, JS Bach, or other wonders that provide happiness throughout most or all of your civ.

    If you'd rather raze and rebuild with settlers, that's your choice, and it's a valid strategy. But it doesn't invalidate Zach's strategy. Maybe you prefer razing and rebuilding. Zach, myself, and others prefer to keep cities and rebuild them a different way. Just because it's not what you would do, or it's something you think is too much trouble, doesn't mean it isn't a valid strategy. I do it all the time, and it works just fine for me.

    Look again at Zach's pictures. Five turns is not long to wait to turn a city around. How long would it take you to rebuild it with a settler and workers, especially if you didn't rush-build a temple and cathedral in your newly-built city?
     
  17. Carbon_Copy

    Carbon_Copy Elemental

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    623
    Location:
    Indiana, USA
    The best way to capture a city you intend to keep is on the turn you enter its awareness radius or the turn after. Every turn you delay in grabbing that city is more cash out of your wallet and more headaches. And if possible, try to take it WITHOUT bombarding. The biggest advantage to taking a city quickly is to have infrastructure like marketplaces and libraries and Universities in place already before the civ can sell them off or you destroy them with artillery.

    If you're shelling out buildings and defenders over a number of turns with artillery while the AI whips and drafts, the city you're left with when you take it is almost always indistinguishable from a newly-built city, except the one citizen is a foreigner and he's mad at everyone for centuries to come unless you lavish him with rush-built happiness. If it's a long, bloody battle to take the city, or if it's an ancient city (like Memphis would be for Egypt, or New York for America, etc.), then you're usually best to just raze the sucker, take your slave labor, and drop down a new settler (you do build settlers prior to your invasion in anticipation of razing, right?). The transferred unhappiness, IMO, is a bug, so I don't have a problem with razing them off and starting anew when I am going to get zinged for the AI's bad decisions to no gain on my end.
     
  18. Zachriel

    Zachriel Kaiser

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    Jovian System
    Razing is certainly a legitimate strategy. It's just not the only one.
     
  19. Selous

    Selous King

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Messages:
    766
    Location:
    aussi
    danm it ... i cant wait till multiplay ... then these statigies can be tested properly .... the evil warlord on one side ... the democratic perfectionest on the other .... im thinking the stalin/hitlers are going to roll over everyone ... then have no problems with culture flips or any of that .... and people wont trust them to much because of the genocide statigies .... usually ... i like to capture the cities if i think i will be able to roll over the entire AI civ and wipe it out .... but if we are evenly matched then i will attack a city and raze it .... because i know i wont be able to hold it .... then he has to build the citys culture up from scratch when he rebuilds it

    and with a city that has been whipped to death by the AI i fint i dont have to many dramas .... untill it has regrown to around size 8 .... i build a temple then a cathredal as soon as possable .... but i never rush them ... not worth the moneys spent .... i would rather spend those hard earned spondoolies on teck development
     
  20. Lt. 'Killer' M.

    Lt. 'Killer' M. Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    7,475
    Salvor: good one! :goodjob:

    what I was harping about is when you can`t employ that strategy! Like he`s on another island and starts rushing Longbowmen after he lost his res. Then, the AI will try to get sufficient numbers and poprush far from the front!

    I also prefer to keep the cities, that`s why I`m pissed with this excessive unhappiness carryover!
     

Share This Page