Now, seriously guys:

What im aiming at here, is that it was far too easy to pacify conquered foreign cities, in Civ-2. I think that establishing martial law (or rush-build happiness-improvements - hire entertainers) in newly conquered cities should enforce/lure the population out of anarchy - yes. But, directly into 100% peace and order?
I suggest a third in-between state, there the conquered city is pacified, but only produce 50% of its normal full capacity. The rest; both the shields- and trade-production is wasted or corrupted away. The lightbulb-production is completely nullified. Food-production is unaffected, however - it would only be stupid and self-destructive, if the conquered city tried to sabotage that.
City-improvement and unit maintain-costs is (of course) still full-price.

Something like "make a fist within a pocket" or "silent protest". In short: obstructive behaviour. Over time - IF you invest in health and happiness-related improvements, and IF your manage a steady food-surplus, and finally; IF you have a little patience - this state transforms into 100% order.

BTW Sirotnikov: your "Banana Republic" make me ROTFL

So, what you want is already in the game.

quote: Originally posted by Ribannah on 12-17-2000 08:24 PM Consider the factor time. The one turn (could be as long as 50 years!) of automatic anarchy in Civ2 is quite sufficient.

What have that time-scale factor to do with anything?

Early in the game you send out scouts to uncover the map. Converted into game-time, this takes a few milleniums. Dont these scouts ever get homesick? Is that realistic, perhaps?
Ribannah, that time factor is just a passive backdrop for a great strategy-GAME - its not suppose to fit super-realisticly into some in-your-dreams super-detailed Civ-10 world-simulator.

quote: You need a few more turns to rebuild the city improvements, too. So, what you want is already in the game.

The problem is that whats "already in the game", isnt enough. You can fund pretty much of the costs of rush-building happiness-wonders, by using the money from conquered city-treasures.

Its too easy! Many "conquerer the world" type of players complains/brags about how easy it is to dominate the world. Well, this and simular suggestions is designed to turn massive multiple city-conquerings, into something that is more of an uphill struggle.

I've also been through most of these threads, or similar ones in the past. So I recall some of the arguments that were made before.

If the civ is assimilated rather than made a slave-city, it may be just as happy as the rest of the nation...especially when your civ's people begin to dominate the city that was once dominated by another civ's people.

So there are two different scenarios.

Diablo - Yah, I suppose that doesn't apply that much. It was the first thing that popped into my head. Perhaps the Spanish domination of the Colombian tribes (Aztecs Incas Mayas) is a better example...though this is more assimilation (applying to the above idea ).

If a populace like you and want to be ruled by you, then you 'liberate' the city from another power. If they hate you, almost no amount of military repression, rewriting of history or building theatres, churches and cinemas will change their desire to be free. That can only be represented by requiring a permanent garrison and -10% productivity for an extremely long time, and never be forgotten entirely. The Scots may not have been living under military occupation for centuries but have just (amicably) regained the first scraps of self-government after over 500 years of rule from England. They may, in time, elect to go for full deunification. The original unification would probably never have achieved such a peaceful end had not the Royal families of the time merged, with James VI of Scotland becoming King James I of England.