Quick Answers

[BobV]

Lately I've been geting a lot of culture flips after capturing cities. I know this is because of their relitively high culture to me.

Two things I've done that seen to help:
Starve the city to a population of one and have a settler join the city.

Things that have made no difference:
Fortify additional units in the city and build items that add culture.

Finnally is ther any danger of a flip after All cities have been captured, regarless of the unhappiness or population size? Because with just three cities left I wanted to capture them all on one turn and not raze them.

 

[denyd]

BobV: As long as there is a foreign citizen in your city or one of your primary tiles is owned by another tribe, there is a flip risk. The size of the garrison doesn't seem to matter (although the formula says it does). What I (and many others do) is when the city is taken, leave one or two wounded units in the city to heal and keep couple of attackers next to the city in case it flips to take it back. There is s flip calculator available in the war academy and a couple of excellent articles defining how flips happen.

 

[Dianthus]

Lately I've been geting a lot of culture flips after capturing cities. I know this is because of their relitively high culture to me.

Two things I've done that seen to help:
Starve the city to a population of one and have a settler join the city.

Here's a couple of other things things to do:

1. Make sure there are no resistors (a resistor is worth 2x a foreignor).
2. Make sure all 21 surrounding tiles are not owned by another civ.
3. Don't let the riot.

Things that have made no difference:
Fortify additional units in the city and build items that add culture.

Garrisoning DOES make a difference, but you might need a lot. I've seen cases where I've needed 130 prior to quelling resistors and stopping riotting, which went down to 28 after quelling/no riotting and losing a couple of pop. 28 is quite a lot!

Finnally is ther any danger of a flip after All cities have been captured, regarless of the unhappiness or population size? Because with just three cities left I wanted to capture them all on one turn and not raze them.

It depends which version of Civ you're using. In and the AI could have a settler wandering around, so still be alive. Flips can still happen in this situation!

 

[Turner]

Bob - Assuming you're far enough ahead in the game, plant a spy and steal their plans. You'll be able to see any settlers, for that turn. You can at least get the general idea they're in, and go and kill them.

 

[Gelion]

Many unhappy citizens say that "there are too many people here" ("Il y a vraiment trop de monde"). What do I need to do with them? Turn them into workers?

 

[denyd]

Add a happiness item:
1. Build temple/cathedral/colleseum
2. A luxury item (wines, furs, etc)
3. Add a marketplace to multiply the luxury item effect
4. Increase the luxury slider
5. Build a happiness wonder (Hanging Gardens, Bach, Sistine, etc)

or
1. Build a settler/worker to reduce the city size
2. If in the right government type add a Military Police unit (up to 3 work in Despotism, Monarchy & Communism)

 

[Gainy]

You could if you wanted to, but then you'd be stuck with really small cities
Connect up luxuries, build marketplaces/temples/cathedrals/colluseums, build wonders of the world which affect happiness, adjust your luxury slider, get some military police, the options are endless

Edit: Beat me to it

 

[Turner]

It should also be noted that the 'it's too crowded' message is the default unhappiness message. When I can afford to do it, I like to turn these unhappy clowns into specialists, and get some benefit from them. not that they're not useful to begin with, but by making them specialists you can potentially kick the city into WLT_D, and that has it's own bonus'.

 

[Gelion]

you all! Carthagenians are much happier now .

 

[eg577]

Two things I've done that seen to help:
Starve the city to a population of one and have a settler join the city.

Joining settlers/workers to a captured city does not immediately reduce the chances of flips. The only benefit is that is hastens the assimilation process (converting existing foreigners to your nationality), which is a very slow process.

 

[a4phantom]

This is the worst thing I've ever said in my life, but in what order do citizens starve? Resisters starve first which is funny since they don't eat, but do foreigners starve before you citzens? Or is it a matter of right (newest) to left?

 

[SesnOfWthr]

The only thing I can say for sure is that specialists starve before working citizens.

After that, it seems to be fairly random - maybe least productive tile?

 

[denyd]

That's actually a help. I've had times where I've forgotten to starve a city (size 5) and it grew with one of my people being added. If I start to starve the city again, all I have to do is make sure my citizen is assigned to work and they'll survive the first cut. This is actually quite important when you've got 1 of each in a city and need to get rid of the foreigner.

 

[EMan]

The only thing I can say for sure is that specialists starve before working citizens.

Hope you're right about this!!.....I'll give it a try.

I don't think the starve order is random.........the original foreigner that was there when you took the city is VERY DIFFICULT to remove, notwithstanding your "Specialist Solution"!

BTW, adding a worker or settler to your city should have NO effect on the odds of a Flip.....unless anarres' "Flip Formula" is inaccurate.....highly unlikely!
However, garrisoning units WILL reduce the chances of a Flip!

 

[a4phantom]

I wouldn't dare contradict Anarres, but why doesn't filling a city with your people help counter flips? A city with one foreigner and ten of my people is just as likely to flip as that city with just the foreigner?

 

[EMan]

A city with one foreigner and ten of my people is just as likely to flip as that city with just the foreigner?

YES, Exactly!

You would have to garrison military units with "Land Attack" value (viz. NOT workers/settlers/explorers/catapults etc.) to reduce the chances of a City Flip!

 

[BobV]

Great, thanks for the help!

My next question: Do all luxuries have the same value? Why is it that when I trade some Civs want much more than a 1 to 1 trade? For example for wine they want silk + ivory + 10 GPT. I told them to go fly a kite. In turning it down I believe I may have seen an increase in happiness. I guess that brings about my next question: Can my Civ realize when it’s being screwed in a trade and and they react to it?

 

[eldar]

Great, thanks for the help!

My next question: Do all luxuries have the same value? Why is it that when I trade some Civs want much more than a 1 to 1 trade? For example for wine they want silk + ivory + 10 GPT. I told them to go fly a kite. In turning it down I believe I may have seen an increase in happiness. I guess that brings about my next question: Can my Civ realize when it’s being screwed in a trade and and they react to it?

The value that a Civ will place on a Luxury is how much it benefits YOU and how much it benefits THEM. Generally, this means the number of extra happy faces that the Lux will generate in the respective empires.

So for two equally-sized empires, each with (say) two luxuries, then the trade is likely to be 1-1. If you're much bigger, though, and have more Luxuries, then the price will be higher as you'll get more benefit from the incoming lux then the AI will get from your lux going to them.

On the flip side, if you trade a lux to a larger Civ, then they'll often pay through the nose to get it.

Neil.

 

[Frollo]

Great, thanks for the help!

My next question: Do all luxuries have the same value? Why is it that when I trade some Civs want much more than a 1 to 1 trade? For example for wine they want silk + ivory + 10 GPT. I told them to go fly a kite. In turning it down I believe I may have seen an increase in happiness. I guess that brings about my next question: Can my Civ realize when it’s being screwed in a trade and and they react to it?

The value of a luxury is measured by the amount of people that it will make happy. If you have a large empire and the AI you're bargaining with has only a few cities, it just *knows* that you gain more by buying one of their luxuries than they will gain by buying one of yours. That's why a small AI will often ask more in return.

As for your second question: no, your people will only respond to what you really get from a deal, regardless if it was a bad deal for you or not.
I think what happened was that you *re*negotiated the deal and then blew it off.
Let's say you buy wine from Egypt, in exhance for spare ivory. The wine will get you one happy face in each city. Your empire continues to grow larger. After 20 turns Egypt wants to re-negotiate the deal. Now they want ivory *and* silk. You tell them to ... well, you know what. And so the wine deal is discontinued, causing less happy faces in your cities and perhaps even some riots.

 

[BobV]

Well that all seems fair, so there is never any attempt to take advantage? Well maybe I should rethink that last deal. Your explanation would also seem to point to an advantage in trading with larger civs.