Apolyton Archive  |  Preserved copy of the Apolyton Civilization Site forums as they ran on Ultimate Bulletin Board, 1998–2001. Read-only; nothing here can be posted to or replied to.  |  Forum index |  About this archive |  The 2005 site & forums

  Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
  Civ3-General/Suggestions
  Taking over city

Post New Topic  Post A ReplyPost A Reply In A New Window

profile | register | preferences | faq | search next newest topic | next oldest topic bottom of page
Author
Topic:   Taking over city Format for Better Printing
grapevine
Settler
madisonville, KY USA
Apr 2000
posted October 19, 2000 02:15   Click Here to See the Profile for grapevineClick Here to Email grapevine  send a private message to grapevineSend a Message to UIN: 27726564
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I believe that this has been covered before but I'm not sure so I'll talk about it anyways. I think its entirely too easy to take over other cities in civ2. I hope civ3 will make it much harder. In civ2 all I do is produce mech. inf. for defense and then make mostly howizters with occansionnally other units later like stealth fighters and cruise missiles. I guess I'm just looking for a challenge from the AI to kick my ass once in a while
phoenixcager
Prince
Singapore
Sep 2000
posted October 19, 2000 04:47   Click Here to See the Profile for phoenixcager   send a private message to phoenixcager
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
...Or if you have a lot of money, you could just send in the spies.

Maybe it needs to be a bit less predictable rather than merely more difficult.


Deathwalker
Warlord
Grteat Britain
Mar 2000
posted October 19, 2000 05:54   Click Here to See the Profile for DeathwalkerClick Here to Email Deathwalker  send a private message to Deathwalker
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I agree it needs to be harder, at the moment it is to easy and you do not even have to win over the local popluation really.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

DarkCloud
Prince
of Posts
Jul 2000
posted October 19, 2000 18:54   Click Here to See the Profile for DarkCloudClick Here to Email DarkCloud  send a private message to DarkCloud Visit DarkCloud's Homepage!
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
The populace of the city should have a rating for each faction:

Hate/Love Ratio

-which determines exactly how willing and for how much they will be bought out by rival civs.
-By increasing trade caravans you can improve this
-By not using atrocities you can improve this

If hate/love or h/l ratio is below 50% then you cannot buy a city out. From 100-50% you will have varying amount of moneies to pay.

This can also work for keeping order.
100% love- no disorder
75% love- 15% disorder
50% love- 30% disorder
25% love- 45% disorder
0% love- 60% disorder

Dom Pedro II
Warlord
Ridgefield Park, NJ, USA
Nov 1999
posted October 19, 2000 21:45   Click Here to See the Profile for Dom Pedro IIClick Here to Email Dom Pedro II  send a private message to Dom Pedro II
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
Well, grapevine, you make a good point, but you haven't exactly given a lot to respond to. What is it that you want to be more difficult? The AI tactics?

There's been talk about lines of supply, unit energy requirements, and suburbs around the cities which would all make invasion much more difficult. Troops could easily become bogged down under such conditions. It leaves a lot more to be considered and gives the AI much more of an oppurtunity to clean up your army. They could cut off trade routes and supply lines.

But I agree, after breaking the back of the other civilization, it does sort of suck the fun out of obliterating them. I'd maybe like to see the people becoming increasingly more aggressive as you take more. In other words the population have more civil disorder and partisans become a frequent problem. Cities defended with only an attack unit could certainly be suseptable to partisan attack. The only two factors that might change this for better or worse are government and religion. A Democracy taking cities under a dictatorship may seem more like a liberation the the population.

However I would also like to say that while I think taking out cities should be harder I think the overall should maybe even be easier. The reason is that I think its such a pain having to take out one civilization, pack up troops and ship them half way around the world to attack someone else and continue repeating this process ESPECIALLY since the AIs can often times be hiding in unexplored territory. I would like to be able to make an overall strategy rather than chucking units at their cities. This would be through trade and other means to gain the means to allow me to crush my enemies at the right time. And they should be able to do the same to me in turn.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

Stuff2
Warlord

Sep 1999
posted October 20, 2000 11:44   Click Here to See the Profile for Stuff2   send a private message to Stuff2
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I think that the best way of making the game harder is simply to connect the military production with the population. Whenever 'building' a unit (i would prefer conscription) u grab a part of the population to work in the army. The army don't make any monetary or industrial contrebution , instead they need support with food and money. Whenever capturing a foreign city you can't simply recruit men from there. Instead you need policing units from your army to keep the city in order. This means that whenever expanding, your original civ (those cities which you have built on yourself or have been integrated in your empire ages ago) has to produce even more military units and at the same time lose work forces just to maintain order in the captured regions. This means that there is a limit of how many soldiers you can produce. Or how big you can get. There is not possible to in a few turns conquer the whole world (unless half of it already are yours). Too much war will indeed hurt your empire.
red_jon
Settler
Eastbourne, East Sussex, England
Oct 2000
posted October 20, 2000 15:14   Click Here to See the Profile for red_jon   send a private message to red_jon Visit red_jon's Homepage!
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
I think that as well as having the citizens more aggressive the more you take (partisans, civil disorder), they should be more/less aggressive according to ideologies. For example, If a democracy is at war with another democracy, the populace shouldn't be as much trouble as if a democracy and communism is at war. Perhaps attrocities and conflicting religions (if included) should have an effect as well, after all, you wouldn't want to be captured by a nation notorious for enslaving captured cities would you?
Dalgetti
Prince
aka The Artist ;)
Apr 2000
posted October 20, 2000 15:32   Click Here to See the Profile for DalgettiClick Here to Email Dalgetti  send a private message to DalgettiSend a Message to UIN: 64477545
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
Well I think that this is true ... but it should also depend on the conviction of the person ( notice, conviction ,not just religion ) .

conviction is made of 3 points :

Religion : any Civ has a beginning religion . with time some religions prevail etc. etc.
Conviction : Democratic , Socialistic , Comunistic , Fascistic .... some kinda scale should be made on this one ... the closeness of Democracy to Socialism etc. etc.

phoenixcager
Prince
Singapore
Sep 2000
posted October 21, 2000 00:28   Click Here to See the Profile for phoenixcager   send a private message to phoenixcager
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 10-20-2000 11:44 AM
I think that the best way of making the game harder is simply to connect the military production with the population. Whenever 'building' a unit (i would prefer conscription) u grab a part of the population to work in the army. The army don't make any monetary or industrial contrebution , instead they need support with food and money. Whenever capturing a foreign city you can't simply recruit men from there. Instead you need policing units from your army to keep the city in order. This means that whenever expanding, your original civ (those cities which you have built on yourself or have been integrated in your empire ages ago) has to produce even more military units and at the same time lose work forces just to maintain order in the captured regions. This means that there is a limit of how many soldiers you can produce. Or how big you can get. There is not possible to in a few turns conquer the whole world (unless half of it already are yours). Too much war will indeed hurt your empire.

This makes a lot of sense!

Alternatively how about a model that's similar to Colonization where citizens can either be involved in production or trained to be specialists/ military units?

Shogun Gunner
Chieftain
Fairfax, Virginia
Oct 2000
posted October 21, 2000 13:33   Click Here to See the Profile for Shogun GunnerClick Here to Email Shogun Gunner  send a private message to Shogun Gunner Visit Shogun Gunner's Homepage!
Edit/Delete Message    Reply To And Quote This Message
IP: Logged, Admin Access Only
quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 10-20-2000 11:44 AM
I think that the best way of making the game harder is simply to connect the military production with the population. Whenever 'building' a unit (i would prefer conscription) u grab a part of the population to work in the army...

In Civ II, when you press F11 and get civilization comparison, many relevant measurements are listed. One that I never understood was "Military Service" I assume it mean something simliar to what you are posting, but I never really see the connection in the game. My civilizatin always seems to be on or two years where other, smaller civs especially, are near 10 years or more. Can someone explain this?

I would agree some practical limits through support of a military unit(besides just a shield) are needed.

Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
> > > Civ3-General/Suggestions Forum

next newest topic | next oldest topictop of page

All times are EDT

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic | Top
Post New Topic  Post A ReplyPost A Reply In A New Window
Hop to:

Contact Us
Apolyton Civilization Site

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.44a
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Front Page | Civilization III | Dinosaurs | Civilization II | Call to Power | Call to Power II | Alpha Centauri | Alternative Civs | Misc | Links | About ACS | GameStats
GameLeague | Scenario League | Hodadian Award Central | Civilization Scenario Collection | Spanish CivII Site | Clash of Civs | CtP Maps | Art of War