Shangri-La: Any sufficiently populated capital is unconquerable

[Pantastic]

Thta´s incorrect: Paris was occupied in 1940, Vichy France in 1942, following the Allied invasion of French North Africa from November onwards.

What's incorrect? They just puppeted france on the initial invasion, and didn't actually go for annexation until later, like I said. They would have had troubles with immediate annexation, otherwise they would have just done so straight away. The game is abstract, a puppet still lets you put troops in the territory you've puppetted.

 

[Conspirator]

I don't understand danny. That's a really good idea suggested. Much more realistic than global happiness.

 

[dannythefool]

I don't understand danny. That's a really good idea suggested. Much more realistic than global happiness.

What I meant is that global food would let you settle anywhere and grow all your cities to exactly the same size regardless of where they are built. A city on the moon would grow as fast as one in the Nile delta.

Abstracting happiness on an empire level makes much more sense because you *can* measure the overall happiness of a nation's population.

 

[Jediron]

What's incorrect? They just puppeted france on the initial invasion, and didn't actually go for annexation until later, like I said. They would have had troubles with immediate annexation, otherwise they would have just done so straight away. The game is abstract, a puppet still lets you put troops in the territory you've puppetted.

Even that is not correct ;-)

The German occupation of France during World War II occurred between May 1940 and December 1944. As a result of the defeat of France and its Allies in the Battle of France, the French cabinet sought a cessation of hostilities. An armistice was signed on 22 June 1940 at Compiègne. Under its terms, a designated area in the north and west of France, the zone occupée, was occupied by the German Army; in this region, the French government located at Vichy, headed by the aging Maréchal Philippe Pétain, was subordinate to the Germans. Most of the remaining third of the country was set aside as the zone libre, to be fully controlled by the Vichy government. Alsace and Lorraine were reincorporated into Germany proper (thus subjecting their male population to German military conscription.) Several departments along the Italian border were occupied by Italian troops, while areas along the Belgian frontier were administered by the German occupation authorities in Brussels. The entire Atlantic coastline was declared a military zone, placing it off-limits to French civilians (except for local inhabitants, who required a special pass). Both the unoccupied and the occupied portions of France remained legally under the control of the Vichy government.
Source.
No word about annexation.

 

[Alki]

I think the thinking is that The Govt at Vichy was the puppet.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

US citizens didn't become unhappy due to Baghdad being conquered, they became unhappy because of the war itself and the losses of (in terms of Civ0.V only, just to make this clear) very small numbers of soldiers.

~4,000 IS very small by anyones standards. In ONE day of fighting we lost over 6,000 men on D-Day. We had ten times as many sick as we had K.I.A. In civ terms we wouldn't even have lost a unit.

On topic:

Occupied city's should increase happiness in your empire on the turn they are captured, occupied cites should suffer major problems but shouldn't bring down your empire. Or courthouses should be really easy to build.

On France: I would say that the Vichy areas were puppets and the rest of France had been annexed.

 

[Alki]

It's only very recently, in Europe at least, that Agressive Empire building was seen as a bad thing. 200 years ago we'd be celebrating every new colony and victory abroad. 100 years ago and it's starting to turn. Post WW1 and the change in public opinion is gathering pace. Post WW2 and it isn't possible anymore.

As I said, a recent phenomenon linked to the social policies we have in place at the time. In Roman times each new victory, each new city to fall was a reason to celebrate.

Carthage Falls \o/ cue celebration in the streets of Rome.

Something is broken somewhere, either the concept itself or how the game represents it.

 

[dannythefool]

Both the unoccupied and the occupied portions of France remained legally under the control of the Vichy government.

I think the point is that Vichy was the puppet. Note that even though Vichy formally had jurisdiction even over the occupied parts of France, they did defer to Germany as asked. This is the very definition of a puppet government.

You're right that Germany never actually annexed all of France, but they certainly started doing so in 1942. We know why they didn't finish but I'm pretty sure they eventually would have annexed all of France if they had met less opposition.

 

[lschnarch]

It's only very recently, in Europe at least, that Agressive Empire building was seen as a bad thing. 200 years ago we'd be celebrating every new colony and victory abroad. 100 years ago and it's starting to turn. Post WW1 and the change in public opinion is gathering pace. Post WW2 and it isn't possible anymore.

As I said, a recent phenomenon linked to the social policies we have in place at the time. In Roman times each new victory, each new city to fall was a reason to celebrate.

Carthage Falls \o/ cue celebration in the streets of Rome.

Something is broken somewhere, either the concept itself or how the game represents it.

Correct.

Civ0.V is a game of punishment.
You are successful in wartime? You get punished.
You are successful in creating a big empire with many inhabitants? You get punished.
You get one unit more than what your "empire" shall be able to support? You get punished.

Even the rewarding system does not work.
You've won? You get... hm... what exactly?
You've built an inspiring world wonder? You get.... hmm... a picture?

You want to look at how you've mastered the past 6000 years? You.... can't.

Would you like to live in a world ruled by Jon Shafer? I would be afraid.

 

[Alki]

I like the artwork for the wonders, actually. Much better than the carp movies they replace.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I actually thought the OP was going to go on a different tangent from the title of the thread. I assumed he meant that any sufficiently large city would have such a high defence that nothing could do any damage to it.

Now I haven't been paying that much attention to city defence numbers in my games (as they don't matter since they fall so quickly anyway), but I've noticed that they seem to be higher for more populated cities. Is this observation correct?

I've also noticed that after a certain point, weaker units will no longer do any damage against cities with sufficient defence. So extrapolating those two assumptions (assuming they're correct), one would assume that at a certain point a city's innate defence through population becomes so high that no unit can do any damage to it. Of course, that point probably cannot be reached in a realistic game.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

raze the citys

 

[Alki]

Hitler wasnae razing cities as he went and his country was bankrupt when he got into power so he wasnae rush buying a ton of new football stadiums either...

It was his social policies that allowed him to conquer Europe I suppose.

 

[Tridus]

The global happiness system is terrible, and this is just one of the many reasons why.

We just won a glorious victory conquering the enemy capital and now we ca... wait, why are my cities no longer growing and why do my troops have a huge combat penalty?

Winning used to be a GOOD thing. Now it's punished unless you simply raze most of the cities. You'd think wiping cities of the map would be something punishable, really.

 

[lonemessiah]

The global happiness system is terrible, and this is just one of the many reasons why.

We just won a glorious victory conquering the enemy capital and now we ca... wait, why are my cities no longer growing and why do my troops have a huge combat penalty?

Winning used to be a GOOD thing. Now it's punished unless you simply raze most of the cities. You'd think wiping cities of the map would be something punishable, really.

Why are you going to war when your empire is not happy? If you go to war when the empire is happy you have no problems. Also try targeting cities that have access to luxuries you don't, they pretty much look after themselves then.

This seems yet another 'It is not Civ4 and i only know how to play Civ4, therefore it is wrong/broken' threads. Try learning how to play the game, rather than expecting the game to be changed to suit you.

 

[Agent327]

What's incorrect? They just puppeted france on the initial invasion, and didn't actually go for annexation until later, like I said. They would have had troubles with immediate annexation, otherwise they would have just done so straight away.

Again, incorrect. Also, the division of France resulted from negotiations between France and Germany. You´re not really making a case for annexation resulting in trouble, you´re just making a bold claim - which is debunked by the very swift annexation of Vichy France in 1942, when the Axis offensive on the Eastern front was in full swing. If they had wanted to annex France, they might have done so much easier in 1940. They didn´t, because there was no need for it, since France was already neutralized.

 

[Tridus]

Why are you going to war when your empire is not happy? If you go to war when the empire is happy you have no problems. Also try targeting cities that have access to luxuries you don't, they pretty much look after themselves then.

This seems yet another 'It is not Civ4 and i only know how to play Civ4, therefore it is wrong/broken' threads. Try learning how to play the game, rather than expecting the game to be changed to suit you.

Because the AI attacked me? I almost never have to declare war myself, I just wait for them to decide to do it, then mop the floor with them.

So you're saying I'm making a strategic error by winning a war that the AI started? Really? That's the best defense people can come up with for a bad mechanic? Maybe I should just beat the AI's units and then not attack them, because my people are for some incomprehensible reason happy with a stalemate war, but unhappy if I win it for them?

I know that all the soldiers I talk to hate winning and would definitely suffer a combat penalty after a glorious victory. They're much happier losing.

And if you're at a happiness score of say 5, two cities is enough to go from happy to very unhappy. It's not my fault the AI is so terrible at warfare that taking two cities is really easy.

This is a flawed mechanic that people are coming up with bizzare excuses for, nothing more.


(Also, on large maps luxuries don't give enough happiness to offset the happiness later, particularly since through trading it's not hard to get all of them. At that point luxuries don't help you when taking cities.)

 

[mrt144]

I think the reactions to war should be hinged on the era and social policies you have.

 

[Niedermayer]

C'mon people, the global happiness is just a streamlined version of war weariness in CIV 4... I like it. It's alot easier to track.

 

[dexters]

The largest city I've been able to grow is size 21 so far.

From a pure efficiency standpoint, I think the trading post spam is really a short term fix only, for puppets. You get more commerce by growing the city as large as you can, working all the tiles that give commerce bonus and putting your surplus pop into the specialist slots.