Culture-Flipping Exposed - Page 3

barefootbadass · January 24, 2002, 14:55

Quote:

Originally posted by frankdog
In my last game, I captured Beijing. After a few turns the resistance was stopped and I rush-built the Forbiden Palace in it.
A few turns after that, it reverted back to China.. FP and all!

It was moderately garrisoned, I thought the FP would would act like the Palace and secure it for me!

No, it doesn't, never build your FP in a city that has citizens of another civ that is still in the game. Rush a settler(with your citizens!) or something or bring one nearby.

Murtin · January 24, 2002, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Easy Rhino
Remember, if the chance of flipping is "only" 5% or so, that's still checked EVERY SINGLE TURN, so the odds of a flip happening EVENTUALLY are pretty decent.

True. I guess the probabilities are usually much smaller than that. If they were in the 5--10% range, with ~10 of your cities neighbouring other civs and equally many foreign cities neighbouring yours, you'd have cities flipping all over the place, and all the time...

Alcatraz · January 25, 2002, 01:16

I've noticed that empire size seems to matter. On numerous occasions I've had a city revolt and join my empire immediately after losing a different city elsewhere on the map. One possible explanation for this is that the average culture per city (either total generated, or culture generated per turn) is important and that by losing a culturaly insignificant city, my average increased, thus triggering the flip. Interestingly enough, in the one game I won with a cultural victory (Babylon, Monarch level, large map) only 3 cities reverted to my empire through the course of the entire game.

I've also noticed that cultural flips occur more often on smaller maps. This might be because the number of cities is smaller, supporting my theory above. It also might mean that the distance to your capital/their capital is important independent of the ratio. In other words let's say a Russian city is 9 squares from Babylon and 3 from Moscow (3:1 ratio) on a standard map, and 60:20 (also 3:1) on a huge map. The fact that it's "only" 9 squares from Babylon may make it more likely to flip than the city that's 60 squares away.

Xin Yu · January 25, 2002, 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Alcatraz
I've noticed that empire size seems to matter.

That could be the case. In fact I suspect that 'average accumulated culture' is a key factor. In one game I couldn't find a good site for my capital so I wandered for a long time before settling down near another civ. I had only one city thus the accumulated culture per city was large. An AI had about a dozen cities and far more total culture than me, but still a city flip to me after about a dozen turns (when I accrued enough culture).

Flight · January 26, 2002, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Xin Yu

That could be the case. In fact I suspect that 'average accumulated culture' is a key factor. In one game I couldn't find a good site for my capital so I wandered for a long time before settling down near another civ. I had only one city thus the accumulated culture per city was large. An AI had about a dozen cities and far more total culture than me, but still a city flip to me after about a dozen turns (when I accrued enough culture).

That may have just been due to the distance to capital feature of flipping, depends how far the enemy city was away from its capital

Psycho_Mantis · January 26, 2002, 15:49

Too much Math.

I play Civ 3 to get away from work

Still, some enlightening information.

Encomium · January 29, 2002, 00:26

Cities should NOT flip with big garrisons in them, and IF they did, the garrison should either be EJECTED outside the border, or REDUCE THE POPULATION a number of points.

As for CULTURE FLIPPING BORDERS. . . they should NEVER flip on someone else's improvements and fortresses. Never. As things are now, we get blamed for starting a war if we refuse to leave our improvements. And the damn AI NEVER forgets - a thousand years later civs still holdf a grudge.

JohnE · January 29, 2002, 14:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Unregistered

Has anybody ever had a city flip that had a garrison of offensive/defensive capable land units greater than the city pop? Or greater than the foreigners pop?

Yes, just last night. I had five Tanks and one Mechanized Infantry in a city with five non-resisting citizens of a civilization that still existed, and it defected.

barefootbadass · January 29, 2002, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium
Cities should NOT flip with big garrisons in them, and IF they did, the garrison should either be EJECTED outside the border, or REDUCE THE POPULATION a number of points.

As for CULTURE FLIPPING BORDERS. . . they should NEVER flip on someone else's improvements and fortresses. Never. As things are now, we get blamed for starting a war if we refuse to leave our improvements. And the damn AI NEVER forgets - a thousand years later civs still holdf a grudge

Let it go, a turn is at least a whole year and more for most of the game. There is nothing unreasonable about a coup occurring. Those troops need support to keep functioning.

You must have lost a load of units in your games and never learned to be this upset about this. I generally go with one unit per resister and ML troops or only 2 or so otherwise, most units are out in the field keeping any attackers from getting to the city or from pillaging around it.

Encomium · January 31, 2002, 22:28

You think it is "reasonable" for a large garrison of veteran troops to disappear into thin air if a city defects??? I DON'T.

I can't think of one instance of an actual major civ's city "defecting" and the garrison just vanishing. The only times garrisons disappeared is when their entire government collapsed into ruin, as with italy in 1943 or South Vietnam in 1975.

A garrison should either be ejected outside the border or reduce the city's population (in combat).

I think it is absurd that garrisons do not have a major effect on preventing flipping - they in reality barely have any effect at all.

Besides cities, culture flipping borders are another crock. I've had a border flip (GOD KNOWS WHY) on a road, mine, and garrisoned fortress of mine - and then I'm told to get out. If I don't, everyone blames me forever!

"Culture borders" and cities defecting as they do are a figment of Sid's imagination. A city of '12' that had been Roman for 5,000 years does not suddenly decide to join a foreign civ - as happened to me in Civ III.

A lot of people find this "Culture Border" stuff to be a lot of crap, either with cities or borders. For me, it is in my Top Five of things I hate about Civ III.

BTW, "Culture Flipping" is a concept ALIEN to the Civilization games. Sid shouldhave come out with a game called "Culture" if he was so obsessed by it and kept it OUT of the Civ games.

zergling · January 31, 2002, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium
BTW, "Culture Flipping" is a concept ALIEN to the Civilization games. Sid shouldhave come out with a game called "Culture" if he was so obsessed by it and kept it OUT of the Civ games.

Not really.. Cities in Civ1 can also "flip"

The city said something about admiring other civ and decided to join them..

vmxa1 · February 1, 2002, 02:26

I have seen some strange flips. One a size 12 that had been mine for centuries and no connection to another civ and flipped back. It had 6 units, no resisters and had been all happy faces? Seems a bit much. I agree, if it has not been long, they are connected to the other civ or it is at least nearby, maybe. This civ had lost its capitol and been forced to move it three times, in other words in was on its last legs. Does not seem right to me.

Dodgy Geezer · February 1, 2002, 02:51

From what I am reading of the complaints on this thread it all seems to boil down to two complaints:

1. Flipping seems to be way to random, making it difficult to prevent. This grates with strategy game players as there is no strategy for overcoming the it, which makes many players (myself included) raze captured cities unless I am planning to take the whole civ down within a couple of turns.

2. It is not "historically accurate", since cities do not 'flip sides'. I am not sure of this one. Certainly cities have swapped sides in civil wars, but off their own bat, well... you did have Hawaii choose to join the US, and the same thing seems to be happening to Costa Rica (and maybe Mexico). Hong Kong has 'reverted' to China. Various European colonies ended up being part of Indonesia. East Germany reunited with West Germany (maybe Korea will do the same). It's probably worth bearing in mind that cities in CIV3 represent territories, and not necessarily just a city.

My guess is that flipping was introduced to allow for peaceful players a way of growing territory. But as it stands it seems to ecourage huge wastelands to appear in the Industrial Age. Oh well, it is just a game after all.

Just remember, if you don't want to lose a large garrison, don't keep one there. It isn't a major part of the flipping calculation anyway, and the whole thing is just too random to leave to chance.

Murtin · February 1, 2002, 05:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium
Besides cities, culture flipping borders are another crock. I've had a border flip (GOD KNOWS WHY) on a road, mine, and garrisoned fortress of mine - and then I'm told to get out. If I don't, everyone blames me forever!

Still raving mad about that one, eh? Well, I'm not God and neither are you, but we both know why the border flipped over that fortress: The fortress was closer to another civ's city than to your nearest city. End of story.

Arbento · February 5, 2002, 02:20

One question to these formulas: As far as I can see none of them can fit.
Perhaps You know the bug with the settler on a ship - if You sink the ship You exterminate the whole civ which causes the game to crash.
In one of these situations (I'm absolutely sure that this civ had nothing more) one of the cities I had taken from him flipped back. I liked it, since now I could sink his ship and then take back the city and get rid of him, but I was very surprised losing that city.
Any idea how this fits to the calculations?

Purest Warrior · February 5, 2002, 08:18

Considering the effect the number city tiles within enemy borders, has on cultural flipping, would it actually in some cases be better not to build cultural improvements in newly founded cities?

An example to clarify: Two civs found cities, with two tiles in between, on the same turn. Both cities have nine city tiles and the borders are touching. When the one city builds a temple and expands culturally five turns later, three of the twelve new city tiles will be within enemy borders and, accordindingly, the city with the temple will be subject to a cultural flipping-check every turn, whereas the other city will have all its city tiles (nine) and, hence, not be subject to a check at all.

Does this make sense?

Dodgy Geezer · February 5, 2002, 10:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Purest Warrior
Considering the effect the number city tiles within enemy borders, has on cultural flipping, would it actually in some cases be better not to build cultural improvements in newly founded cities?

An example to clarify: Two civs found cities, with two tiles in between, on the same turn. Both cities have nine city tiles and the borders are touching. When the one city builds a temple and expands culturally five turns later, three of the twelve new city tiles will be within enemy borders and, accordindingly, the city with the temple will be subject to a cultural flipping-check every turn, whereas the other city will have all its city tiles (nine) and, hence, not be subject to a check at all.

Does this make sense?

The original post stated that it was based on the 21 squares of the city. My guess is that it uses them even if the culture of the city is low. My experience is almost always with captured cities flipping back, in which case they tend to be culture < 10, or at least my culture.

Purest Warrior · February 5, 2002, 11:33

Quote:

The original post stated that it was based on the 21 squares of the city. My guess is that it uses them even if the culture of the city is low. My experience is almost always with captured cities flipping back, in which case they tend to be culture < 10, or at least my culture.

Reread the the first post. Thanks for pointing out the 21-tile (not 9) condition.

But still, I don't mean "back-flipping". Assuming that there are no foreign nationals in either city, both could actually flip even before the first cultural expansion, because it's the 21-tile area that is counted and not the 9-tile.
Even if your city has the full use of it's initial 9 tiles, it can flip?

This seems kinda strange to me.

PW

barefootbadass · February 5, 2002, 14:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Purest Warrior
Considering the effect the number city tiles within enemy borders, has on cultural flipping, would it actually in some cases be better not to build cultural improvements in newly founded cities?

Actually, it would still be best to at least build a quick temple, the other civs city with the temple has a chance to defect to you and getting at least a little culture will increase your odds in this 'battle'.

Actually if I wanted that city I'd go all out and add a library and cathedral to get to 100 culture first.

godinex · February 5, 2002, 19:47

Damm!! 1 turn to make washington revert to america.
Its enough

Killerdaffy · February 6, 2002, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Arbento
One question to these formulas: As far as I can see none of them can fit.
Perhaps You know the bug with the settler on a ship - if You sink the ship You exterminate the whole civ which causes the game to crash.
In one of these situations (I'm absolutely sure that this civ had nothing more) one of the cities I had taken from him flipped back. I liked it, since now I could sink his ship and then take back the city and get rid of him, but I was very surprised losing that city.
Any idea how this fits to the calculations?

I seem to have noticed that there is an extra chance for a new AI city if they are down to one (city or settler). Sometimes it's the "teleporting settler" starting a new city on an island far, far away (w/out the neccessary naval technologies to get there) but I guess it could be a flip as well.

Just my two cents...

Encomium · February 6, 2002, 01:19

Culture Flipping doesn't get more ridiculous than this.

I led all as the Iroquois, but Greece Declared War with no warning (or apparent reason) anyway even though they had been "Polite" for centuries and we had just concluded a trade deal.

I crushed them. None too smart by their AI.

914 to 538 is the score, Iroquois to Greeks, and that difference is rapidly increasing owing to my military victory twelve turns earlier.

I have eighteen cities, and the Greeks just two. My Culture is very high, likely five times that of the Greeks. Sparta has a temple and library, plus the usual useless large garrison. My Military could swat the Greeks like a fly.

So what happens? Sparta flips, turns Greek, and the garrison vanishes. "Imagine"!!

No, I can't imagine. IT IS EFFING ABSURD.

So now I go to war, raze Sparta, but even the Indians will hate me as a "warmonger".

Another game ruined.

Obviously, Culture Flipping is determined ONLY by the PROXIMITY of one civ's laborers to their capital city, and no doubt some randomizing factor. It is truly a joke.

zergling · February 6, 2002, 02:58

When you capture an enemy city, immediately take all citizen from their field work practically starve them to death

. Rush-build worker/settler to lower its population if the captured city population is too high. Of course you must end resistance to rushbuild so garrison troops inside. After the size of the captured city is only 1-2 get your settler/worker of your nationality or workers of other nationality which is not the same nationality as the captured city (slave) to join that city. This will lower the chances of that captured city for flip back to its original owner.

Or you can also disband 1-2 unit in that city then rush build a courthouse. Yup, that will lower the chances even more.

I did that in my last game and none of my captured city reverted back to their original owner. I never razed any city I captured so in the end I achieve a domination victory. Having a high cultural points total also helps.

If the city still flips back, of course you can still reload, get all your troops outside the city and then when it flips, you can take it back

JFB · February 6, 2002, 11:16

OK, I know that for a strategy-game, it's a little frustrating NOT to be able to predict and plan for every event that is going to happen in a game, but in a way that is part of the charm for me. For those of you who want the game to be more like real-life, IMHO having random, unpredictable, unexplained events occur that drastically affect your plans and decisions is much more true to reality than being able to have complete control over every nuance of the game.

Also, one thing about CIV II was that, after reaching a point of domination in the game, you would CHOOSE not to win by domination if you won another way. If you wanted to, you could easily conquer everybody. Now, with the idea of culture, even if you are the dominant player there is no guarantee that you can conquer the world militarily, forcing players to consider other ways of winning and in a way makes it MORE strategic.

Anyway, there ARE things that you can do to give yourself better chances of holding on to cities, even though it isn't absoulutely certain. Having to plan for uncertainty is one of the things I enjoy most in the game, although when you have forgotten to plan for that uncertainty most people get mad at the game instead of themselves.

I think these new concepts in CIV III forces a player to play a more balanced game. If you put all your efforts into one area (military, culture, science, etc.) you will have a weakness that can and will be exploited.

When I want complete control (or responsibility) over my playing situation, I will go play chess.

Maybe we can open an X-files thread for strange, unexplained culture-flipping occurences and investigate why it might have happened ...

Maybe I like the idea of culture 'cause I'm a musician

- JFB

Dodgy Geezer · February 6, 2002, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by JFB
Now, with the idea of culture, even if you are the dominant player there is no guarantee that you can conquer the world militarily, forcing players to consider other ways of winning and in a way makes it MORE strategic.

Dunno about that. IMHO once you get ahead of the pack you can win just about any way you please. Flipping doesn't stop you beating the crap out of the opposition - you just raze and settle or make sure you take 'em out in a couple of goes. This is possible if you get to Cavalry, Tanks or Modern Armor first, or even simply if you are bigger than them.

One thing I have noticed, but can't confirm, is that flipping does not seem to occur the turn immediately after the storming of a city. Anyone else got any views on this?

Purest Warrior · February 6, 2002, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by zergling
Or you can also disband 1-2 unit in that city then rush build a courthouse. Yup, that will lower the chances even more.

Building a courthouse does not lower the chances of culture-flipping. It lowers the chances foreign propaganda flipping your city.

JFB · February 6, 2002, 19:41

Dodgy, yeah you're right, but to me it seems a bit more tedious now to conquer the world and makes the other ways of winning a bit more attractive, and it seems that more things are uncertain and could possible foul up your plans. Maybe I just haven't played enough to understand all of the mechanics. I feel like the guys at FIRAXIS have intentionally made it easier to defend than attack, maybe to encourage other styles of play. The addition of a cultural and a diplomatic victory seem to indicate that they are seeking more variety than just conquest or space race.

I normally play deity, and I haven't quite found a way to not be playing catch-up the whole game (or to hold on to my lead in some area), so maybe I'm just inexperienced.

Lewsir · March 1, 2002, 09:20

Looks like this thread kind of ran its course...but I'm left wondering how many people are fine with the current mechanic and how many would welcome an adjustment of some kind.

For me it does seem a bit silly that the number (and strength!) of troops doesn't matter much, if at all. I'd like to have some knowable relationship, like having as many troops as population completely prevents flipping (and that should work both for flips and re-flips, of course). There are lots of examples of countries heavily garrisonning their own cities and regions to prevent culture-driven flips (e.g. Tibet). Hey, some have to garrison the entire country (N. Korea). But it does tend to work...

If anyone from Firaxis is listening, I wonder what is the chance of getting an adjustment in a future patch.

DrSpike · March 1, 2002, 10:48

I thought the number of troops helped in the newest patch (1.17f), which has been out for a couple of weeks at least.

Lewsir · March 4, 2002, 06:55

I haven't actually played with the new patch yet, but would be very interested in hearing from people who have - any insights on whether the patch has much effect on city flipping, especially if you put a lot of units in?

From what I gather from Firaxis, the new patch does increase the influence of military, but it still sounds pretty difficult to hold onto a large foreign city. From the Apolyton news clips Feb 16, they post, from Firaxis:

"Number of units to supress cultural reversion: cities with 2 or 3 foreign nationals and full control of their city radius probably will be under no risk with 4 to 6 units". If this relationship holds for bigger cities, you'd need around 20 units to be sure of holding a size 10 city. Ugh. Thus it still seems the case that for large cities, either pound them down with artillary ahead of time, starve em out quickly once you get em, or just raze them to the ground. I hate those choices.