A new take on culture

[korn469]

Culture is going to be one of the corner stones that either justifies the statement "civ3 will provide the greatest civ experiance ever" or that will make it seem blindly misguided

the idea of culture is a rather good idea, and it can have many practical applications, from being the glue that holds an empire together, to being another factor in the decline of a civ that over extended itself, culture could defeat ICS and it could also make world conquest almost impossible

however from what we have heard about culture there seems to be one fatal flaw...

that flaw is no sacrifices have to be made to establish a dominant culture

case in point, the example presented by firaxis is that a player builds libraries to enhance their culture...that is fine, except most players are going to build libraries reguardless of what influence culture has on the game...it doesn't change current build orders taken directly from civ2

it seems that culture has just been tacked onto civ3 with some really good thoughts going into the original idea, but the application and execution of that idea appears less than perfect

for culture to become a strategy of its own there needs to be specific buildings that only contribute to culture. in civ2 libraries didn't contribute to both gold and science, factories didn't contribute to both production and gold, and in civ3 museums shouldn't contribute to both culture and gold...culture needs to have a currency of it's own if it is to standout as a viable alternative strategy

there should be an entire range of culture specific buildings throughout the ages, (forums in the ancient era, opera houses in the industrial era, movie theaters/museums in the modern era for example)

there should also be a culture specific specialist

entertainers creates luxeries
tax collectors create gold
scientists create science
and
artistist create culture

the reason that there should be building that only create culture is that a player adopting culture as one of their main strategies should have to focus resources in that area...if every happiness and science structure creates culture then culture does little to change the strategy of civ3, and players adopting the "i won't attack till i have flight" are going to benefit from this

making culture a completely seperate area will force both chariot rushers and fighter pilots to divert resources into culture, and it could slow down some of the more questionable aspects of the civilization series like super early game landings on alpha centauri

i wouldn't mind at all if libraries and courthouses added to culture but those structures alone shouldn't be the primary way of enhancing culture, Star Wars is part of american (global?) culture but although it is set in space it has little to science (maybe the science of digital editing but that's about it)...the mona lisa or the odyssey has little to do with either science or the economy, but they are some of the most recognizable aspects of culture we have

culture needs more seperation from science, gold, production, military, and happiness structures...it also needs its own specialist and it have be a strong force in the game...if you neglect culture it should have dire consequences

what do you think of this?

[TechWins]

I think certain improvements should add more culture than others. A temple should add more culture than a granary. A collisseum should add more culture than an aqueduct. Not to say that an adueduct and a granary shouldn't add culture it's just that they aren't as great an influence on culture as these other improvements are. Not all improvements should be culturally equal.

[korn469]

techwins

yes temples should add more than graneries (should they even add any?) and certain buildings should add more culture than others...but do u agree with some buildings that add only to culture? how about having a specialist for culture? do u agree with those ideas?

[Rommel393]

I also think some buildings should add more to culture than other ones. There should also be purely culture pumping improvements. But when you think about it all the culture increasing improvements also increase something else. A park system is an idea I thought of that could increase culture. But wouldn't that also make people happy? Maybe the culture increasing structures could also improve other areas but be very costly to kind of even the game out for all the strategies.

Firaxis sure has a job laid out for them.....

[DarkCloud]

that flaw is no sacrifices have to be made to establish a dominant culture

This (from Korn469) gave me an idea for the temple; the temple could have 4 options for culture:

1. Sacrafices of Humans to gods (+2 culture -1 happiness [in modern era])
2. Sacrafices of Animals to gods (+1 culture +1 happiness)
3. Worship (+1 culture)
4. Inquisition (-2 trusting points from other civs +1 happiness)

[korn469]

Darkcloud

when i said sacrifice i didn't exactly mean human sacrifice

but i have an idea about culture buildings

most buildings generate culture, like a collusieum could generate 1 culture point a turn, and a temple could generate 2, etc...

then the buildings that are culture only, like museums, could have the following effect: +50% to culture like marketplaces do with gold

this would also include culture generated from culture specialists

[To_Serve_Man]

Originally posted by korn469


case in point, the example presented by firaxis is that a player builds libraries to enhance their culture...that is fine, except most players are going to build libraries reguardless of what influence culture has on the game...it doesn't change current build orders taken directly from civ2

it seems that culture has just been tacked onto civ3 with some really good thoughts going into the original idea, but the application and execution of that idea appears less than perfect

Well, there are other factors and new gameplay additions that need to be looked at as well when examining culture. You state that having culture producing buildings likethe library are build regardless of the fact that it produces culture. I agree with the idea of adding new city improvements that are like the market place, but increase culture aswell as new culture only buildings/artistan population guy. However. I also feel that the addition of the new Resource system will add to the importance of culture. First, one must decide if its worth building a settler (for a new city) and worker (for a colony) or build a culture building to expand the borders. This is the first area were the building phase will reflect a players position. By expanding your culture, you must sacrifice unit production and city expantion from settlers. The pros of that though is your border expands, which is some what like creating cities. The other thing culture can do is.. from what I have read, engulf another players area. So, for a player to have a strong Cultural strategy, they can have big bargaining rights over other teams, which is very important.

[korn469]

First, one must decide if its worth building a settler (for a new city) and worker (for a colony) or build a culture building to expand the borders. This is the first area were the building phase will reflect a players position. By expanding your culture, you must sacrifice unit production and city expantion from settlers.

early on in the game there is only one reason to expand your borders and that is so you can secure resources that are close by...if you start the game beside of another civ, if they are smart they are not going to say, "hey i can engulf this civ beside of me inside of my borders! halt production on the chariots! start building a library ASAP!" cultural borders will not engulf your enimes early on, unless a single library could make your borders rapidly grow and surround your enemy then make his cities switch sides...and i don't think it will happen like that

also unless borders spread fairly rapidly, then i would say it would be much quicker just building a worker who would connect you to the resource and then build a colony...a worker will probably take like two rows of shields and a pop point...a temple will probably take four rows of shields, and a library will probably take eight rows of shields...to use a resource not only does it have to fall inside of your borders, it also has to be connected by road, so besides building culture buildings early on you will have to build workers to claim special resources and probably early on colonies will be the most effective way of securing special resources

this means that temples and libraries aren't motivated by the need to "build more culture" as your astute advisor would tell you...they are motivated by the same reasons in civ2, you will build a temple to pacify your population, you will build a library to increase your research ability

what i am saying is that culture needs a few buildings of its own, by having culture buildings this forces the player to make a real decision, no longer are there only two roads (militaristic ICS, or perfectionistic research slavery) then culture becomes its own path, and this is where strategy is involved...basically no resources are diverted from the perfectionistic research game, culture is just an added bonus to those who want to quickly aquire tech...culture is impassive and requires no strategy...what kind of choice is, should i build a library to increase science and culture or should i build a library to increase science and culture? a real choice would be should i build a library to increase science (with a small cultural benefit) or should i build a museum to increase culture?

i'm not sure what the late/mid game effects of culture are going to be yet, there just isn't enough information available to know exactly how it is going to effect the game

[TechWins]

a real choice would be should i build a library to increase science (with a small cultural benefit) or should i build a museum to increase culture?

Yes, I do like this choice much more. It adds greater depth to culture. They should be add the most culture (e.g. temple adds 3 culture then museum adds 6 culture).

[Buck Birdseed]

Cetain non-essential "artisan techs" add culture as well, IIRC.

Perhaps certain actions should detract from your culture, much like Reputation in Civ2?

[Grumbold]

Some of the Alpha screens showing culture values in their thousands did make me wonder a bit. I hope that in the final product buildings like a library or temple have a cap on exactly how much cultural strength they can produce. If it takes 200 culture to get your borders to maximum and 400 culture to make every citizen a fanatic defender of their way of life then higher values seem odd. A city with a library, museum, cathedral, colloseum and arena should quickly beat one which just has a library, no matter how long the thing has been standing, and it should not be possible to reach maximum cultural limit with a library alone.

[LaRusso]

but then again perhaps culture values are only put into a relative prospective and then a coeficient of sorts (my culture vs. your culture) is used for various computations when it comes to borders, co-existence, etc....

[One More Turn!]

Given the role that buildings play in providing culture, as well as other benefits, sabotage by diplos/spies could be doubly effective in reducing the capabilities of a civ. Destroying a temple in a city doesn't just make the citizens unhappy anymore, it will reduce the power of the civ relative to all others. How much of an impact it will have, I don't know, but it does add another dimension to these attacks.

[Recurve]

It all depends on the timeline.

In 100BC you possibly would cripple a town by torching the local temple. But if you flattened Canterbury Cathedral during the middle-ages you'd turn your enemy into a nation of crusaders. In effect, you'd be doing a tyrant a great favour!

[One More Turn!]

Recurve,

Maybe that's how it should work then. A civ destroys another civ's temple/cathedral, and the citizens get made at the aggressor, not at their own government and demand war or tribute. The effect could be varied by how important the improvement is to culture or happiness. Destroy a temple, the citizens call for a trade boycott and a verbal warning or something. Destroy a cathedral, and they call for more drastic measures.

[korn469]

LaRusso

but then again perhaps culture values are only put into a relative prospective and then a coeficient of sorts (my culture vs. your culture) is used for various computations when it comes to borders, co-existence, etc

i think you have described exactly how border disputes are going to work in civ3

this is a quote from the civfanatics site

Peaceful assimilation of enemy cities: When the sphere of influence increases and borders expand to a point that they're encroaching on enemy territory, a number of factors come into play that determine how the border cities react to the presence of a new culture. If a border city of the opposing culture has very few cultural points, there's a strong chance that it will be assimilated into the dominant culture as the game progresses, eliminating the need for a military force to move in and conquer it.

Every population point that gets built in Civilization III has a nationality. If you're France, every person that's born in one of your cities is French, and they have cultural ties to France.

i think in civ3 that a strong culture will convert citizens from one nationality to another, so lets say you i build a base on the edge of your borders beside one of your large cities, my little one population base (especially if it is outside of the rest of my borders) will undergo a total conversion...my one citizen will change nationality and will revolt and become part of your empire...whereas if my city had of had a stronger culture and you conquered it then it could present occupation headaches for you

recurve

i don't exactly understand what you mean

In 100BC you possibly would cripple a town by torching the local temple. But if you flattened Canterbury Cathedral during the middle-ages you'd turn your enemy into a nation of crusaders. In effect, you'd be doing a tyrant a great favour!

can you please explain what you mean in greater detail?

One More Turn!

i don't think the citizens will make demands upon you, besides keeping them happy...that sounds more like something found in tropico (its a great game you should try it if you haven't already) but i don't think it will fit in civ

my point is that with the information currently available, culture doesn't sound like it will be an active strategy that you pursue and devote resources too...it sounds if you follow the perfectionist strategy of building up happiness building and science building that this will take care of culture for you, so if you are trying to go for a quick victory by flying to alpha centauri culture is just an added benefit for you

what i am suggesting is that since culture is so potentially powerful that it shouldn't just be an added bonus to the quick research strategy...i feel that for your civ to be the best at it should have to devote resources to culture...culture should have an oppertunity cost in civ3, and with current information it sounds like it doesn't...that is what i would like to see, that you have to actively pursue a culture strategy

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Just FYI, there really *is* an opportunity cost involved in persuing a "cultural" strategy. A lot of city improvements don't contribute anything to your culture -- granaries, barracks, city walls, and so on. The palace and the temple are the first two city buildings that contribute to culture. If you decide to go after a cultural strategy you have to make some sacrifices, and don't forget the earlier you invest in culture-producing buildings, the more culture you reap from them each turn. This gives you some interesting choices to make.

In the early stages of the game, for example, should you build a barracks first, or go for the temple? Without a temple, your culture will be based solely on the age of your palace, and you get very little from the palace. So if you go for the temple, you are taking a chance that you can defend yourself with whatever less skilled defenders you have. If you go for the barracks, you miss out on a bunch of turns' worth of culture that a temple could be generating for you.

I've played games where I employed cultural tactics and was able to assimilate some enemy border cities by spending a lot of shields putting wonders and culture-producing buildings into cities, but as a result I had a relatively weak military and had to resort to diplomacy to keep me out of war situations. This often meant I had to submit to tribute demands from civs that were militarily more powerful. I've also played games where I eschewed culture in favor of military stockpiling, but as a result my borders rarely expanded very far, and as a result I couldn't reach resources I needed. I subsequently had to rely on colonies to help me reach resources, which is always a riskier strategy than keeping your resources inside your borders.

And to answer your next question the new Civ site is almost done.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

[yin26]

[yin26]

Dan's post reminds me somewhat of some of the decisions you have to make in AoK regarding particular upgrades, econ or military. Those were some of the nicest details to master in the game, and though we don't have a complete picture here, it sounds promising.

I wonder, though, how good that AI is? So much hangs on that...

[korn469]

and don't forget the earlier you invest in culture-producing buildings, the more culture you reap from them each turn. This gives you some interesting choices to make.

Dan thanks for taking the time to respond! i really appreciate it...that little bit of insider information makes things clearer...so instead of following normal preculture build orders you have to bring certian structures up in your build to really get a massive cultural benefit right? how much extra culture do you get per turn? with a temple would it be like this (1+1+1...) or is it ((1+1)+(2+1)+(3+1)...)?

however i it sounds like some of the most valuable buildings (ie the ones you are going to build first anyways) are the buildings associated with culture

In the early stages of the game, for example, should you build a barracks first, or go for the temple?

if you are playing on deity then not even taking culture into account in virtually all circumstances you are going to build the temple first, add in culture and it's not even a contest...now if barracks gave you culture and temples didn't then that would be really interesting

though i guess you would have to decide if you were going to build the temple first or expand, so that is a choice you would have to carefully consider

actually my next question is this...when you assimilate an enemy border city is it a total conversion? do those citizens switch to your nationality or do they remain the other civ's nationality?

you also confirmed some conclusions on colonies that grumbold and i came to...here is another question...when another civ's borders overtake one of your colonies does it disappear like when your borders expand to include your colony?

one last question...what does the team think of poets (cultural specialist)? any chance you might add them to civ3? if not can i bring it up again in the civ3 expansion wishlist?

i can't wait to check out the site!! i hope it comes out this week

[Warm Beer]

Another thought on culture and nationality: say you are playing the culturally strong French I am an playing the culturally weak Germans (for the sake of arguement) and we find ourselves with a common border. As a result of your higher culture rating, you convert a small border city or two earlier in the game. If those citizens of those aquired cities remain German, that could make an interesting situation in the future of the game.

Let's suppose I am not disposed at attacking you for one reason or another (your high culture may bring added diplo-benefits, so you have a good alliance and I have none...) so, I decide to get in to a "culture war" with you. I build a coulpa more wonders than you and get those temples up.

Now an interesting thing could happen- those cities you took earlier in the game are still "German" and still have some cultural ties to me, they see the improved culture and think "Wine and cheeze is getting old, hear the Germans have some great beer, now-a-days" or whatever. While I still can't rival your culture, your French cities are staying French, but those old German ones may want to rejoin the Fatherland.

Of course, if they become French as a result of the "cultural conversion" all this is a moot point (besides, that does make sense), but if they remain German ...

Which brings up another question: If you have a city of another nationality and it grows under your dominion, are those new citizens (let's use the same example) German or French?

[TINOMan]

well, culture should have a very important role in civ3, because it'll add a new dimension to the civ series. However, if it's gonna be done right and work properly to the point where it influences how people play the game, I have some ideas on how this can be done.

You can't set amounts of culture gained from certain buildings.

The amount of culture that a building adds/decreases should be decided on:
- The relationship between the building and your civilization
- The relationship with the time
- The relationship with the current culture (what's their take on the building?)
- The relationship to how you (the player) has been playing the game. Depending on what you've done in the past, it should change.

[TechWins]

Thanks for posting here Dan. You should do it more often. In doing that you would take away a lot of pessimism that is going on here. Maybe that might influence you to post here more, no I doubt it.

The palace and the temple are the first two city buildings that contribute to culture.

Doesn't that mean your capital will start off with some cultural borders? If so this will then decrease the importance of colonies. If not then I am really confused.

Did anybody notice the wink in Dan's last sentence? I don't like that one bit. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything but you never know.

[LaRusso]

cmon, he even anticipated the next question to appear on the thread. he'll put up a civ3.com only to be crippled by code red. that's our luck

[Solver]

Thanks Dan for your comments. I think culture is really going to bring more interest in the game. As far as I understand, you can still decide to ignore culture, then you can just create military units and conquer nearby civilizations, but you will do that for the cost of having almost none culture.
I believe this will make the game much more enjoyable.

[Provost Harrison]

As you can tell, in terms of culture, the earlier you get started the better in terms of expanding your culture. But conversely, landgrab seems to be important in grabbing those resources and building up military power. So again, you do have a balancing act. Which is a good thing. Opportunity cost.

[Grumbold]

So culture can gobble cities? Interesting. If you know your population is about to defect, what happens if you pull all your garrisons out 1 tile and reoccupy the minute they switch? Could be a good way to reset this cultural oppression and maybe steal some techs How can new cities even get started if they are on the border with another culturally strong empire?

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
As you can tell, in terms of culture, the earlier you get started the better in terms of expanding your culture. But conversely, landgrab seems to be important in grabbing those resources and building up military power. So again, you do have a balancing act. Which is a good thing. Opportunity cost.

The balance in this thing seems to be that the landgrab is not doing you much good if you can't get the resources you need. You can still get them, but at the cost of building workers, and when you're using colonies to get your resources, you always run the risk of your colonies being swallowed by some culturally enlightened civ.
I guess you can always go to war with them, but then have to reestablish your colony and other headaches.

I wonder if they will implement the idea I had that culture dictates how often leaders will show up to help you. low culture, less leaders, less stacked armies. get trounced by the stacked armies of the cultural elite.

I personally disagree with the idea of buildings that only produce culture. I think it should just be an added incentive to certain already existent buildings. personally.

Korn-
is that a picture of Al in between the t and e in your avatar?

[LaRusso]

hm
it seems to me that, as presented, cultural option might be less 'controllable' than a military one. that is, the more culture, the bigger empire, even without my control, unless i want to stagnate. that is, i cannot 'project' culture towards someone, it just evenly spreads. whereas, i can direct my military attacks with precision.
this would make cultural expansion much less attractive if it could seriously impair diplo relations. unless, of course, there is something we do not know.

[One More Turn!]

Glad to see a more active involvement from Firaxis

Given what Dan, and others in this thread have said. It would seem that culture could be used as more a defensive strategy than offensive. Strong culture keeps your borders strong, and expanding (even if slowly), and makes it harder for your enemies to subvert your cities.