Is it supposed to be this way?

I really think the best way to solve this would be to allow communist governments to rush with gold. Or maybe half gold, half population. Maybe have it set up so that one pop point is used up, but the rest is paid in gold. Part of the problem is that once communism is available, most units cost 3-6 population points. I once rushed a factory at a cost of 8 pop points (the city was surrounded by railroaded floodplains) just before I switched to democracy. While the rest of my empire was in WLTK days, this city needed like 5 entertainers just to keep out of disorder for the next 40 turns. 40 turns is a very long time in the late industrial age.
 
Originally posted by Zachriel
As history has shown, forced labor is not the most efficient use of resources.

hmmmm, that`s exaclty everyone`s point, isn`t it? That the excessive poprush is not very realistic, and that it`s implementation in the game kinda sucks!
 
Pop rushing is implemented fine. What is not implemented correctly is:

  1. The AI's understanding of ROI when doing it. It's one thing to whip a doomed city to death (big ROI, since the future value of the city is nil), quite another to whip a production center such that you need to add entertainers.
  2. Penalizing a conquering empire for the cruelty of a former regime. If you think about it, the "oppression counter" should be flipped - if 40 turns of unhappiness were done by the old regime, the conquering empire should be rewarded with 20 turns of happiness for freeing the people from tyranny. The exception would be city trades not involving a peace treaty.

Cheers,
Shawn
 
Originally posted by Carbon_Copy
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.

You don't get to keep any culture producing buildings (aside for Great Wonders) in captured buildings. In fact, destroying culture producers prior to occupation prevents the "cultural memory" from increasing in the turns it takes you to capture a city. Granted marketplaces + luxuries would make your life easier, and harbors could give you a trade route for those luxuries,

IMNSHO, communism should stay pure population. After all, isn't that the idea of communism focus on the people, not the state or cash, but the collective?

I do think the sins of the previous civ shouldn't carry into the new one, but just a memory in case of recapture (if that makes any sense).
 
Originally posted by Killer
hmmmm, that`s exaclty everyone`s point, isn`t it? That the excessive poprush is not very realistic, and that it`s implementation in the game kinda sucks!

Stalin pop-rushed millions to death in the Ukraine. Shortly afterwards, Hitler razed large swaths the Ukraine. So it seems there is historical precedence for both these aspects of "civilization." (That doesn't mean that these leaders could not have chosen another method of accomplishing their goals.)
 
Originally posted by Zachriel


Stalin pop-rushed millions to death in the Ukraine. Shortly afterwards, Hitler razed large swaths the Ukraine. So it seems there is historical precedence for both these aspects of "civilization." (That doesn't mean that these leaders could not have chosen another method of accomplishing their goals.)

There's a fine line between pogroms and forced, slave labor. Although Stalin "rushed" it resulted in less productitvy not necessarliy emmigration (like the manual claims contrary to what the game says, hmm they contradict each other).

One of the major weaknesses of Communism is that rushing by population is so inferior to cash rushing.

The computer on the other hand, while rush/draft until they are a corpse, reducing the need to raze (or mabey increasing it depending on your prefence for keeping illlocated size 1 cities).
 
Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


There's a fine line between pogroms and forced, slave labor. Although Stalin "rushed" it resulted in less productitvy not necessarliy emmigration (like the manual claims contrary to what the game says, hmm they contradict each other).

You'll never get an exact match between a game and reality, of course. But if you know you were going to lose a city, then you may as well sell all the buildings and draft everyone. It's really a standard strategy, the counterpart to razing.

I have never seen this effect, though. How often does it happen? If the AI occassionally panics and then over drafts, that would be not unusual historically. Usually, when they start drafting children, it's the dying gasp of a tyrant.
 
Originally posted by Loopy


You don't get to keep any culture producing buildings (aside for Great Wonders) in captured buildings. In fact, destroying culture producers prior to occupation prevents the "cultural memory" from increasing in the turns it takes you to capture a city. Granted marketplaces + luxuries would make your life easier, and harbors could give you a trade route for those luxuries,

Ah, of course this is true. But what I'm saying still holds because having a city intact with bank, market, harbor/airport if applicable, barracks, factory, coastal fortress, etc. is still a LOT better than blowing them all to smithereens just to get rid of the library, university, temple, cathedral, and colosseum. And taking it quickly means that the civ may at most get two whips in before you can put an end to that foolishness, so if it's close enough to one of your capitals, then it is ready to go almost off the bat.
 
Zach,

I'm seeing it in my current game. Egypt had one of the largest civs, and I've been wearing it down. I've been using mostly infantry and artillery because I've burned up most of my elite samurai and the few cavalry I upgraded from vet samurai. (I thought I'd skip building a lot of cavalry because the war started well into the industrial.) Whenever I press one of Egypt's cities, not just putting a couple infantry next to it but a creditable force of 3 or more infantry plus start an artillery bombardment, their cities shrink dramatically. I don't think it's bad, because I am going to take that city, so why not demolish it? It really does happen tho. I figure that if the city gets down to size one, it's screwed, so I raze it and plant a new one. Prior to communism and nationalism I didn't need to raze conquests. All the artillery I'm using certainly contributes to the problem, but I've seen cities shrink from 12 to 1 pop. in the space of two or three turns, it seems.

It was nice of Cleo to build Shakespeare's Theater in her capital.
 
Originally posted by Ironikinit
Zach,
. . .
I'm seeing it in my current game. All the artillery I'm using certainly contributes to the problem, but I've seen cities shrink from 12 to 1 pop. in the space of two or three turns, it seems.

Interesting. Maybe I attack too quickly to see it. Would it be historically incorrect for the AI to vacate a city, draft everyone including children, do anything to slow your advance? After all, they are communists. Or is this some sort of game bug that makes no sense whatsoever? Post a game. I'd like to see the phenomena.
 
I don't think it is drafting that causes the problem, but pop-rushing. For one, unless I am mistaken, you cannot draft below pop 7. At this point, the AI rushes a couple of infantry or riflemen, and the city is suddenly down to 1 pop. I think territory is far more important to the AI than individual cities. The cities exist only to expand territory. Thus, it is ok with crippling a city to keep the tiles within that cities cultural boundary.
 
Top Bottom