The Germans take Stalingrad, the city defects back to the Soviets

[Alexander's Horse]

I keep thinking of this example whenever I think of city flipping. It just doesn't make any sense.

[Dida]

The German culture were at least in par with the Soviets, and Berlin isn't that much father away from Stalingrad. In that case, Stalingrad had very slim chance of flipping back to the Soviets.

[faded glory]

E ****in relevent



The "Kill 60 units to take this heavily armed city only to have a bunch of starving, rag-tag civilians destroy the city and declare it independent cause of culture difference" is fvckin stupid.

[SpencerH]

Moscow is about 400 miles from (then) Stalingrad and Berlin about 800 miles.

[GeneralTacticus]

Stalingrad din't defect, revolt or anything else like that. It was a battle-field between the Soviets and the Germans, and the Soviets won. This would be represented in the game by the city being a frequently captured and recaptured by one side or the other, until it was hardly worth fighting over.

[Changmai Beagle]

One might wonder how many Vietnamese cities stayed RVN (or American?) and for how long. Of course there were often firefights (such as in Hue IIRC) as they flipped back (or attempted to).

And if I recall correctly, there was a great deal of cultural flipping during the Napoleonic wars. I think that many 'citizens' had white cockades for their hats (supporting the monarchy) that broke out fairly quickly when Napoleon's army started to lose battles. I wish I could remember the names of cities but I'm sure there were some that revolted in favour of the monarchy even before then.

And there would be a number of cities whose religion reasserted them as a different culture after any number of captures and oppressions. Rochelle comes to mind.

But then I could always be wrong in my interpretation of history.

[faded glory]

Stop defending this piece of **** with historical analogys

It just doesnt happen like that. You dont move into a city EVERYTIME, just to have it ****in revolt. This Bull----......It needs to be fixed NOW!

[korn469]

faded glory

i honestly a cultural flip has only happened to me once, though i usually raise the city with the highest culture unless it has REALLY good wonders in it

[asleepathewheel]

Faded Glory:

you may not be aware that there are numerous threads dealing with how to prevent cultural flipping. And with the most recent patch, it is possible to remove the possibility of reversion entirely

Don't refer to a game as a piece of **** when you don't understand how the mechanics of the game work, or if you do understand the game, but refuse to adapt, don't blame the game.

With regards to this being an unlikely event in reality, while that may be true, what in the game IS based in reality? eh? the names of the units I suppose. Maybe some other things, but not much. Does any Civ-type game simulate reality? Any game at all?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

Don't refer to a game as a piece of **** when you don't understand how the mechanics of the game work, or if you do understand the game, but refuse to adapt, don't blame the game.

Ohhh.......Im sorry Moron Of course dont blame the ****in game!?

Its not the devolopers fault it is a flawed pile of ****! Its yours for reading into the phoney hype!


Well...you can go to hell.

Its obvouisly the fault of the devolopers. Oh I refuse to adapt? Thats a load of bull kiddo The fact is the whole war thing is a fuxin mess. Almost all the cities you capture are raised. And the ones that arent defect. This **** doesnt happen...it shouldnt have been like this!
-------------------------------------------------------


Ming I'll chill out. Sorry for the flames. I just had to say that!

[Capt Dizle]

IMHO, and speaking with a voice dipped in civility, I can say that the whole culture concept is plumb awful. I am not going to blame Firaxis for it anymore cause I understand that the fans here asked for it.

I have been blaming the wrong idiots.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
IMHO, and speaking with a voice dipped in civility, I can say that the whole culture concept is plumb awful. I am not going to blame Firaxis for it anymore cause I understand that the fans here asked for it.

I have been blaming the wrong idiots.

I agree totally. They totally botched culture.aswell as a host of options. I understand the fans wanted it. But they shoulnt have made it such a factor.

[Capt Dizle]

Have you played SMAC. I just played a bit and everytime I switch from Civ3 to SMAC I am truely stunned.

SMAC makes Civ3 look like a student project. I'll admit there are flaws with SMAC and the AI sucks, but it is still a world class game.

One example.

"don't leave..the drones need you.. they look up to you.."

Classic line from a classic game, delivered delightfully. If haven't played the game by all means get it at any cost and treat yourself.

If there were some way to just eliminate culture and then start adding tons of stuff to Civ3 if could be a good game.

Culture as a major gameplay component still has me shaking my head.

[faded glory]

I think culture should alter boundaries yes. But not take cities.....with garrisons in them. And especcially if you capture one. And leave garrison inside. Why the hell would it change its culture?

[asleepathewheel]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by faded glory



>>Ohhh.......Im sorry Moron Of course dont blame the ****in game!?

Hey there, no need to devolve into name calling, eh?

>>Its not the devolopers fault it is a flawed pile of ****! Its yours for reading into the phoney hype!

It's my fault that you think the game is a flawed pile of ****? What are you talking about? It was a concious design decision by the programmers. There are several ways to avoid the flips, and if you can't deal with it and destroys the game for you, then play a different game.

>>Well...you can go to hell.

I'll get right on that

[Ethelred]

Ohhh.......Im sorry Moron Of course dont blame the ****in game!?

Why should he blame the excellent game for you inability to placate your victims. Cities do flip in my games. Mostly to me. Hardly ever the other way. I like that.

Its not the devolopers fault it is a flawed pile of ****! Its yours for reading into the phoney hype!

It is the developers fault that the game works pretty well most of the time. Including culture flipping. Now I don't like the loss of troops. That is really annoying. So I don't leave my troops in. I just wipe out the civ in those rare cases where they have much more culture than I do.

Well...you can go to hell.

My how illuminating. I can see why you can't use culture flipping to your advantage. Uncultured lout. Much like the Assyrians. Conquered large territories and then culture flipped to be indistinguishable from the conquered.

Its obvouisly the fault of the devolopers. Oh I refuse to adapt?
Thats a load of bull kiddo

Don't you roll your eyes at me little boy. Now clean up your room and put the toy soldiers away. Your not treating them very well and they may run away to the neighbors little boy. He is much nicer to his toys.

The fact is the whole war thing is a fuxin mess. Almost all the cities you capture are raised.

Thats can be very true. The cities in my games were almost all RAISED out of the mud the late unlamented enemy had dragged their unfortunate populace through. In my last game I RAISED Thebes from the Egyptian capitial to become MY capital. Launched the Space Ship from it.

Ming I'll chill out. Sorry for the flames. I just had to say that!

Sorry you felt the need to show how poorly you deal with both culture and flames. Do try to get some culture for yourself. Perhaps if I was to point you to some nice Bach or Beethoven recordings or maybe some good musuem sites on the web.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Why should he blame the excellent game for you inability to placate your victims. Cities do flip in my games. Mostly to me. Hardly ever the other way. I like that.

Of course you newbies like that....you just like the cool graphics and eyecandy. And the lame animations . Please.....I want meat and bones. Every hard core civer would agree with me here.

It is the developers fault that the game works pretty well most of the time. Including culture flipping. Now I don't like the loss of troops. That is really annoying. So I don't leave my troops in. I just wipe out the civ in those rare cases where they have much more culture than I do.

What game are you playing? And why should I have to Raze entire Civ's to the ground? What the hell kinda simulation is that? It makes the game incredibly lame....

My how illuminating. I can see why you can't use culture flipping to your advantage. Uncultured lout. Much like the Assyrians. Conquered large territories and then culture flipped to be indistinguishable from the conquered.

uh?? Your a moron. Culture plays almost 0 in real conflict. West bank anyone? I dont see Israeli troops defecting or getting kicked out so easily.

Don't you roll your eyes at me little boy. Now clean up your room and put the toy soldiers away. Your not treating them very well and they may run away to the neighbors little boy. He is much nicer to his toys.

uh.....nice Thanks kiddo. But if you werent such a retard and actually read my post. I wasnt talking to you.

no need to foam at the mouth jr.

Sorry you felt the need to show how poorly you deal with both culture and flames. Do try to get some culture for yourself. Perhaps if I was to point you to some nice Bach or Beethoven recordings or maybe some good musuem sites on the web.

Nice flames. And you accuse me? Iwas over the flames jr. But seeing as how you attacked me like so!? Let the flames (in your case) the Lames! Fly

Thats can be very true. The cities in my games were almost all RAISED out of the mud the late unlamented enemy had dragged their unfortunate populace through. In my last game I RAISED Thebes from the Egyptian capitial to become MY capital. Launched the Space Ship from it.

Oh your a true warhorse now Bet your daddy is proud! !



Oh I know this thread will be closed. Thanks alot!

[Ming]

Let's chill folks...

And Faded Glory... you are one swear word/insult away from going back to Mingapulco

[faded glory]

Alight Im sorry......

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by faded glory



Of course you newbies like that....you just like the cool graphics and eyecandy. And the lame animations . Please.....I want meat and bones. Every hard core civer would agree with me here.

Newbie is youbie. I have been playing computer games since the Apple ][ and cassette tapes. Played Civ since it was an English boardgame. Not even all that new here. Just decided to stop lurking. I figured I would have gotten myself banned if I was dealing with Lib. I wouldn't be able to help myself.

What game are you playing? And why should I have to Raze entire Civ's to the ground? What the hell kinda simulation is that? It makes the game incredibly lame....

Civ III 1.17f. The one this part of Apolyton is for. The game you don't know how to play. I have no idea why you have to raze entire civs to the ground. I just take them over. Use their cities for my designs. Its not the game that is lame if I can do it and you can't.

uh?? Your a moron. Culture plays almost 0 in real conflict. West bank anyone? I dont see Israeli troops defecting or getting kicked out so easily.

I am not the one that can't flame without getting banned. I don't have to call people morons to show who is and who isn't. I don't see the PLO having a capital. I don't see the PLO having any culture. I don't see the PLO having a chance in Civ III.

I do see pictures of Genhis Khan and somehow he looks Chinese even though the Mongols were more likely caucasion at that time. They were culturly conquered by China and they took so many Chinese women as wives they ceased to exist as a seperate gene pool.

And the Romans turned so Greek they had the same gods under different names. Alexander started wearing makeup to copy the Persians. His general in Egypt changed his name to an Egyptian one. Ptolomy.

Care for more?

uh.....nice Thanks kiddo. But if you werent such a retard and actually read my post. I wasnt talking to you.

If you weren't so terribly, hideously, culturaly deprived you would have noticed that this a largely open forum. Anyone that can keep their temper seems to be welcome.

You will never become a succesfull flame warrior if you can't keep your temper.

no need to foam at the mouth jr.

I take it you are quoting someone in the room with you. Wipe the drool off you chin and no will mistake it for foam.

Nice flames. And you accuse me? Iwas over the flames jr. But seeing as how you attacked me like so!? Let the flames (in your case) the Lames! Fly

Over the flames? Is that why you are near to taking a trip to Mingapulco?

Flaming is an art form. That means you need some culture to be good at it. You are in danger of culture flipping.

Oh your a true warhorse now Bet your daddy is proud! !

He died in 1976. So I suspect that pride is somewhat beyond his present capacity.

Don't bring a knife to a flamethrower fight.

I like culture flipping. I use it. Its good for builders. Its not there for the warmongers.

They really don't need any help anyway. Any competent warmonger should be able to win, corruption and culture or not. A dozen strong producing cities should be enough to take over the world. The rest are there as rest stops on the way to domination.

[Bolleck]

Civ III 1.17f. The one this part of Apolyton is for. The game you don't know how to play. I have no idea why you have to raze entire civs to the ground. I just take them over. Use their cities for my designs. Its not the game that is lame if I can do it and you can't.

Hmm? You cant take over a captured empire in 1.17f! If, please tell me how. Unless you mean size 1 towns with taxmen in it.
The enemy drafts like hell and the captured town is unuseabele for 40-120 turns.

[DrFell]

'Civ III 1.17f. The one this part of Apolyton is for. The game you don't know how to play. I have no idea why you have to raze entire civs to the ground. I just take them over. Use their cities for my designs. Its not the game that is lame if I can do it and you can't.'

I have to raze almost all the large cities too. Sure, not ALL of them revolt, just 80%, and of course somehow I lose ALL 20 of my elite knights to a size 8 city full of peasant farmers (this is on deity level, on levels monarch and below, the AIs culture is generally pretty pathetic so it is easier to take over cities). How exactly these elite knights could have slaughtered the population and razed the city to the ground when attacking the city, but when garrisoned in the city get butchered by the native peasants in their little cultural revolts is beyond me. Sure there may be examples of civs adopting the culture of the conquered, but culture is nothing when you have a strong army backing you up.

[Ethelred]

Hmm? You cant take over a captured empire in 1.17f! If, please tell me how. Unless you mean size 1 towns with taxmen in it.

Speak for yourself. I can do that. True some of the cities may be down to one but even those can be used.

For one thing a city rarely is down to one if you take it fast. The cities shrink as the AI drafts and then sends the troops to another city. Kind of like armed refugees. That did happen a few times in my last game. Didn't exactly break me up when the Egyptians did that to their capital. I took their replacement capital faster though and it still had five or six pop.

That first city was Thebes. It was in the exact perfect spot for a new capital. So I used the leader I gained with my cavalry at that time to transfer my capital to the former capital of Egypt. There was an added incentive for making something of the city as it had both the Newton and Copernicus Wonders.

It did take a while, a long while, to make it whole again but by the Modern Era it had the most science of any of my cities and only my former capital had more production.

Now if Firaxis cuts the time for unrest back to 20 turns that would definitly be an improvement. 40 turns is excessive but I managed to deal with it anyway in a savagely abused city that went from over twelve to one during the seige. I made all the rest of Egypts cities functional as well. Some took much less time as they were not under seige as long as Thebes was.

I don't think the unrest should last that long nor do I think the the player should pay for the AI's actions, at least not to that degree, but it is definitly something that can be handled to a far greater degree than you seem think it can be.

So since you ask, here is what I do to mitigate the unrest as much as I can:

Rush a temple AND DON'T pop rush it. That just makes things worse. I used to wage war as a Democracy but now I go for Republic and stick with that till the end unless I am playing a religious civ. That game I was a Republic till the end. Won by Space Race.

Get either a Coliseum or a Cathedral next. Depending on whether you are a religious civ or not.

Then get the other.

Take some time if you don't have the cash. The city will still be there. If its late in the game and you are taking cities left and right why do you need the city to do much anyway. In that case you only need a barracks to rest your troops for one turn before you take some more cities. Your core cities should be able to produce all you need to prosecute the war.

It helps to have the Sistine Chappel as I did in that game. Thats why I built the Chappel second instead of the Coliseum even though I was playing as America and was not religious.

Each unit of population you can make content helps speed using up the resevoir of unhappiness. Luxuries help along with those buildings. If I had figured that all out before I took Thebes I could have got it fully functional faster than I did. I had made a mistake crimping its growth as much as I did. If I had let it grow a bit more than I did it would have used up its unhappiness faster.

Even when the people were still affected I was able to use it with those buildings. Those and the luxuries allowed me to have twelve content people even before all the unhappiness was gone.

The enemy drafts like hell and the captured town is unuseabele for 40-120 turns.

Yes they draft like hell. Not completely unusable though even for the first 40 turns if you put in some happiness improvements. You are simply not patient or stubborn enough. Do you want the win handed to you? Then play on Chieftain. That game was on Monarch. I don't know if I can do that on Emperor. I am only on my second game on Emperor and my first was hopless due to my isolated start on a medium small island.

I have my doubts about my second game so far as well. This the first time I have had to deal with Hoplites so soon. On top of it I am not a warmonger type player so its not going to be easy as a builder-opportunist.

[Harovan]

I am not against long-term culture flipping, at the countrary, it adds an interesting aspect to the game and it can be fun to have a nice "culture" war at your borders. A conquest for builders, why not?

As to flipping back during wars... IMHO it's completely ridiculous, that an ancient warrior unit with stone axes is able to raze a modern metropolis, but 10 units of modern armor can't prevent it from flipping. I know, with 1.17f it matters, how many units you have in the city. A good start, but it still needs too many units. Nobody can afford that. I would be glad if this number would be vastly reduced. It's darn lame to have a game, where you have to raze entire empires to effectively defeat them. Not fun not a bit.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DrFell

I have to raze almost all the large cities too. Sure, not ALL of them revolt, just 80%,

Maybe its because you insist on playing (and bragging) on deity.

That AI's large discount for improvements on deity are definitly going to make it harder to develop culture but then you seem to revel in being a warmonger anyway. So what do you care about razing cities? Could that possibly be why you raze so many?

I have played most of my games on Monarch. I only razed cities that were very badly placed OR if I was in a rush to take a lot of ground quickly and that is rare. I have had very few cities flip from me but I have had many flip to me. The odds have clearly favored me in culture flipping. I keep OVER 80% of the cities I take. Less than ten percent revolt. Only once did I have even two captured cities revolt in a game. Thats when I decided that world did not really need the Aztecs anymore. Even the other civs had a city or two flip back to the vile Aztecs in that game.

I had more cities quit my allies to join me than I lost back to the Aztecs for the few turns it took to take them back. Sure was obliging of the Zulu to build so many cities for me. Made suprisingly good allies.

and of course somehow I lose ALL 20 of my elite knights to a size 8 city full of peasant farmers (this is on deity level, on levels monarch and below, the AIs culture is generally pretty pathetic so it is easier to take over cities).

Perhaps they were all students of The Seven Samurai. The AI can indeed create a decent level of culture on Monarch. Only the religious civs are able to be overwhelming in that regard though. I still manage to handle them as well. Rush a temple or a library and in five turns the city is fairly stable. In twenty with a library and a temple the city will almost never flip.

How exactly these elite knights could have slaughtered the population and razed the city to the ground when attacking the city, but when garrisoned in the city get butchered by the native peasants in their little cultural revolts is beyond me. Sure there may be examples of civs adopting the culture of the conquered, but culture is nothing when you have a strong army backing you up.

I don't pretend to understand it. I just learn how to deal with it so it won't happen to me more often than it happens FOR me. Its part of the game and if you use the right techniques it can be dealt with. Clearly YOU are dealing with it if you are winning on Deity and I know I am dealing with it on Monarch as a builder. May even mangage it on Emperor that way but I know that Deity is much more difficult for builders than warmongers.

[DrFell]

It's not particularly that I have problems handling it, I don't, only very rarely does a city I keep revolt (about one in 20), because of careful razing. But just because I can handle it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Aeson]

If military units took population points to build I think there would be a valid argument against cultural flipping the way it is. If you need validation for why culture flipping can happen look at it this way...

We'll use the 20 Knights in a size 8 city example. Just how many Knights comprise a unit of Knights is anyones guess. If you had 200 actual Knights (assuming 10 making up each of 20 units) trying to supress a city of 360,000 (size 8) then it's pretty easy to see how the population can overrun the military units. If it's 100 per unit that still leaves the odds at 180:1 in favor of the city's population. The exact number that makes up a unit isn't the point, just that most situations can be explained in a realistic manner. No game will ever be able to conform to everyone's preconceived ideas of "reality".

If you look at the invasions into Russia by Napoleon and Hitler, both show how military that isn't properly supported can be defeated in other ways than on the battle feild. In a properly run Civ3 military campaign there doesn't have to be any chance for cultural reversion or drafting on the AI's part. You just have to strike quickly and decisively. A campaign which isn't quick and decisive will end up pitted against a "fight to the last man" or "scorched earth" type mentality.

In WWII you can look at the initial German offensive and see how giving the opposition little time to build up resistance works well, just as in Civ3. Then look at the composition of the German military near the end of the war, drafting is quite realistic in how the Civ3 AI uses it. Other examples of these two principals can be found in almost any war. The happiness penalties might seem severe, but they population isn't unhappy at you their liberator, just at their condition. The war may end, but people rarely forget oppression.

I'd just like to say that I find the cultural aspect of Civ3 one of the best additions to any of the Civ series of games. It usually works against me (I tend to be a brutal warmonger), but it's nice to see that a handful of military units are no longer enough to conquer and hold the entire world. Along with corruption it gives a better challenge to overcome if conquering the world than in previous Civ games. There is a reason why no one has every conquered the world IRL, it shouldn't be easy in the game.

[DrFell]

'We'll use the 20 Knights in a size 8 city example. Just how many Knights comprise a unit of Knights is anyones guess. If you had 200 actual Knights (assuming 10 making up each of 20 units) trying to supress a city of 360,000 (size 8) then it's pretty easy to see how the population can overrun the military units. If it's 100 per unit that still leaves the odds at 180:1 in favor of the city's population.'

I'd think of it as more like 1000, regardless, it still begs the question - how can they raze a city with such a low number, if they can't hold it? Furthermore you'd expect them to be fortified in the city.

[Mikel]

Culture as a game concept has its merits and flaws. I don't believe it has really achieved the goals the designers originally aimed for so we may see changes to it in future patches or expansions. Because or despite of it I still enjoy the game but like everyone else will be glad to see any improvements.

As for the historical events the cultural flips try to represent, it is not IMHO supposed to simulate a revolution as in some of the examples that have been given in this thread. A better analogy would be the Mongol invasions of the Muslim territories. They fought a merciless war and were known to execute many of the citizens in the cities they captures and create a mountain of corpses as a very real symbol of their authority. There are many examples of these ruthless warriors turning to the Muslim beliefs and within 20 years they had turned their efforts to building grand temples instead. The cities where again a part of the Muslim culture without any bloody rebellion and despite of all the original invaders remaining in the city.

As I said I am not attacking or defending the game mechanics, and I doubt this will make anyone feel any better when they lose a city and a large part of their invasion force to a culture flip. Just thought we could all use a different point of view.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DrFell
It's not particularly that I have problems handling it, I don't, only very rarely does a city I keep revolt (about one in 20), because of careful razing. But just because I can handle it doesn't mean I have to like it.

Previous statement

Sure, not ALL of them revolt, just 80%,

Can you understand my statement now. I believed you. Sorry I will keep it in mind in the future that you can't be trusted with numbers.

One in twenty vs. eight out of ten is quite a difference. Is either of those statement true? They cannot both be true. They can both be very wrong. I find the five percent claim fits the results I have seen so perhaps your second claim is far closer to reality then what you first claimed which was extraordinarily different from the second.

That sort of nonsense you posted the first time is one the reasons these discusions degenerate. There is simply no sense trying to have a reasonable discusion with someone that exagerates to such extremes merely to browbeat the unwary.

Please try to stick to real numbers Dr. Fell and leave the Imaginary ones for Dr. Hawkings.