Make City Flipping an option

[Nubclear]

Culture flipping only happens to me 3 or 4 taime a game. That's not bad for 6,000 years of history.

And how many times does it happen to anybody else? It rarely happens for me but that's because I usually focus on culture. Those who dont will certainly have a different answer.

The combat is the calculation that goes on every turn. I understand if that is unsatisfying, but that brings me back to my orignial point... would graphics make it more satisfying? Is this only a graphics question?

Calculations may be calculated, but no combat actually ever happens. Do citizens ever lose "hit points" or even get killed? No they don't. They simply 'eliminate' the military units. Combat is when two units begin fighting each other. Not when one unit 'eliminates' another.

No, not really. At least, not for me.

I would say the major majority would disagree with you. I don't like investing time in a great wonder, wait nearly fifty turns, and then when I'm almost done have a little popup saying "The chinese just built it.". That annoys me.

So does, when I invest a ton of time into creating a large army, to have it 'eliminated' by the citizens. That time, those shields, commerce....All wasted. That also annoys me.

That isn't my advice. You always need units to stop the resistance. I usually place 2 or 3 regular defense units in cities I capture... but I never put offensive units in, and I keep the bulk of my forces out.

Oh ok. I misunderstood you there. I thought you meant keep everyone out of the city.

Why would you remove your defensive units from your own cities?

I was basing the scenerio off of what I percieved to be your advise. I obviously misinterprted your advice, so that arguement becomes invalid.

Furthermore, if you were really playing a peaceful game, your culture is probably pretty big and you really don't need to worry about even your border cities.

There's this really annoying thing that happens to me quite often, and I've heard other people complain about it as well. Sometimes, even when the enemy civ is in "awe" of your culture, cities begin to flip. Border cities. It's really annoying because theres almost nothing you can do about it, not even creating culture helps in that type of situation.

Not true. They win every turn that the game calculates the chance of flipping, and the city doesn't flip.

But if it does flip, if the calculations are just right, then your military units are eliminated without a fight. They have *NO CHANCE* of winning against civilians. Because once the city flips, the civilians eliminate the military unit. There is no fight. No civilians are lost. The city isnt damaged. It's not very realistic.

There is a (graphic-less) battle every turn, as I just said. However, I would like it if some civilans bit the dust after a flip.

There is no battle every turn. There are calculations. Battles are when two sides begin to fight. Again, the civilians are eliminating the military units. The military units do not retreat, do not fight, do not move. They are not fighting. They are not engaging in battle.

[kring]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


There is a (graphic-less) battle every turn, as I just said. However, I would like it if some civilans bit the dust after a flip.

This makes a lot of sense because you could have a mini civil war within the city; or you could just have a peaceful one, depending on the other civs and your styles and types of leaderships.

What if we had a fight between the military units and the civilians? Winner takes city control.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Calculations may be calculated, but no combat actually ever happens. Do citizens ever lose "hit points" or even get killed? No they don't. They simply 'eliminate' the military units. Combat is when two units begin fighting each other. Not when one unit 'eliminates' another.

Did you ever play Civ1? Did you like it? That's how combat worked. Arguably, Civ2 and Civ3 combat was much better, but nobody railed against the "vanishing" units. You are comparing flipping to combat, and expecting them to work the same way... but they do not.

I would say the major majority would disagree with you. I don't like investing time in a great wonder, wait nearly fifty turns, and then when I'm almost done have a little popup saying "The chinese just built it.". That annoys me.

I view a loss, whether in units or wonders, as part of the game. I would have no fun if I won all the time. Culture flipping is the same way: you win some, you lose some. Fortunately, you have a lot of control over flipping, and I probably win 5 times as much as I lose... which is a better ratio then I get in combat!

So does, when I invest a ton of time into creating a large army, to have it 'eliminated' by the citizens. That time, those shields, commerce....All wasted. That also annoys me.

I feel the same way when I lose a battle... but I make more units, and I use them more wisely the next time. That's how culture flipping needs to be looked at too.

Oh ok. I misunderstood you there. I thought you meant keep everyone out of the city.

I was basing the scenerio off of what I percieved to be your advise. I obviously misinterprted your advice, so that arguement becomes invalid.

No problem.

There's this really annoying thing that happens to me quite often, and I've heard other people complain about it as well. Sometimes, even when the enemy civ is in "awe" of your culture, cities begin to flip. Border cities. It's really annoying because theres almost nothing you can do about it, not even creating culture helps in that type of situation.

Actually, exapanding your borders helps a lot. Read the culture flip formula thread or whatever by Fitz... the guys there have some great suggestions on how to avoid flips. National culture is a factor, but just because you are ahead in one factor doesn't mean you can assume you win the game.

But if it does flip, if the calculations are just right, then your military units are eliminated without a fight. They have *NO CHANCE* of winning against civilians. Because once the city flips, the civilians eliminate the military unit. There is no fight. No civilians are lost. The city isnt damaged. It's not very realistic.

And, if the roll goes against me in combat, I lose a hit point. My hitpoint is eliminated without a fight. That's not very realistic, either.

Like I said, the civilians are assumed to "lose" every time the roll goes against them. However, we are in agreement that some civilians need to perish to make it a better system.

[Nubclear]

Did you ever play Civ1? Did you like it? That's how combat worked. Arguably, Civ2 and Civ3 combat was much better, but nobody railed against the "vanishing" units. You are comparing flipping to combat, and expecting them to work the same way... but they do not.

You are right, they don't. However, it is unrealistic and I am simply saying that I want a change.

I view a loss, whether in units or wonders, as part of the game. I would have no fun if I won all the time. Culture flipping is the same way: you win some, you lose some. Fortunately, you have a lot of control over flipping, and I probably win 5 times as much as I lose... which is a better ratio then I get in combat!

But it's still annoying when you invest so much time into something, only to have it completly destroyed over a very bad, unrealistic design decision. I don't care if I'm compensated for it, I still experience the feeling of annoyance which makes the game less fun.

I feel the same way when I lose a battle... but I make more units, and I use them more wisely the next time. That's how culture flipping needs to be looked at too.

Being unemployed shouldn't be a bad thing. I mean, look at it this way: Your bossless. Nobody to set schedules for you that might wreck your sleep, no more orders....And your more appreciative of your money and you spend it much more wisely! So, being unemployed must actually be better than having a job. Not really. You can look at it that way, but that does not change fact that you still need a job.

You can look at culture flipping that way, but it does not change the fact that its annoying, and unrealistic. If I'm a soldier and I get shot in the heart with an arrow, I'll probably die and thats realsistic. If I'm a soldier and I happen to be in a city thats revolting, i wouldn't expect to be 'eliminated.'. Something needs to happen that gives military units the chance to survive.

Actually, exapanding your borders helps a lot. Read the culture flip formula thread or whatever by Fitz... the guys there have some great suggestions on how to avoid flips.

To try to avoid flips, but in the end ya either flip or you don't. A city flipping to a culture thats 'culturally' inferior to you isn't realistic, especially when the city claims theyre flipping because of the superior culture. (Or at least thats what the advisor tells me) And then, all the soldiers are eliminated.

And, if the roll goes against me in combat, I lose a hit point. My hitpoint is eliminated without a fight. That's not very realistic, either.

No, your hitpoint is eliminated with a fight. To my understanding, what your saying is: If two soldiers shoot each other and one soldier hits the other soldiers arm, the soldier with the wound was injured without a fight.

The objective is to hit your enemy. Sometimes your enemy hits you, but you still put up a fight. If the injured soldier were to not use his weapons and just sit there, then the soldier got injured without a fight.

And...Ya know what? I'm kind of getting the feeling that were basically rehashing our arguements over and over. Do you not agree?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
And...Ya know what? I'm kind of getting the feeling that were basically rehashing our arguements over and over. Do you not agree?

I'm getting that feeling to. I think we should agree to disagree, and see what Firaxis does with PTW. Good debating

[Coracle]

The comments were MEANT for FIRAXIS. Maybe if those of us who despise Culture Flipping explain it loud enough, and verrrry slowly, Firaxis and Soren will finally understand it has to go, or at least be implemented in the game in a less idiotic way.

[MarkG]

well as of now coracle has a week in mingapulco to think about his attitude and how he would like to participate in this forum. away from "statistical freaks" he will have some free time to perhaps read some of these suggested books:
- The Art and Skill of Conversation
- The Lost Art of Listening
- How to Disagree Without Being Disagreeable : Getting Your Point Across With the Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense


people who might want to discuss the above travel arrangement can do so in the apolyton forum. please continue

[Phat_Phal]

I hate repeating myself but I think its necessary here. Can you all read the heading ? It says " Make City Flipping an option " . This isn't a debate over whether culture flipping should be in the game, but it does relate to it as its the means for the option. But seriously people, if not an option, make it a scale. Like Barbarians, do I want raging hordes or restless tribes. This could be applied to Culture flipping, do we want to set this at 0% ( realistic is later stage of game ) or do we want 100% culture flipping * whats installed now and whats got alot of people up in a roar*

You may say that its part of the game, but is it really, its not the focus of the game, its a dimension that makes a part of the game. Just like diplomacy and trade. But culture has over stepped its line and is now influencing gameplay and the style of game immensly.

But thats MY OPINION, your views may be different from mine. That is fine with me, but don't tell me I shouldn't be allowed an option because of your preferance in playing the game.

[Cyclotron]

Thank goodness for that, Mark.

Anyway, it seems like conversation is about wrapped up here. I have nothing new to say, and apparently nobody else does either. I like culture flipping, others do not. Any questions or new concerns/points?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Phat_Phal
I hate repeating myself but I think its necessary here. Can you all read the heading ? It says " Make City Flipping an option " . This isn't a debate over whether culture flipping should be in the game, but it does relate to it as its the means for the option. But seriously people, if not an option, make it a scale. Like Barbarians, do I want raging hordes or restless tribes. This could be applied to Culture flipping, do we want to set this at 0% ( realistic is later stage of game ) or do we want 100% culture flipping * whats installed now and whats got alot of people up in a roar*

Well, despite your intent, the explosiveness of the issue has taken over your thread. I think Firaxis shouldn't waste it's time taking out a feature that is a core part of the game in an option...

The problem is that this thread topic is not really a debatable point. You say yes, I say no, and it's all opinion based and we all know that. Which, in the end, is why it was threadjacked so early. Besides, anything I say is either personal opinion or shot-in-the-dark guessing at this point.

You may say that its part of the game, but is it really, its not the focus of the game, its a dimension that makes a part of the game. Just like diplomacy and trade. But culture has over stepped its line and is now influencing gameplay and the style of game immensly.

Says you. I think warfare overstepped its line, which is why culture was introduced. Every part of the game should influence gameplay and the style of play immensly, or else there is no point in having it.

But thats MY OPINION, your views may be different from mine. That is fine with me, but don't tell me I shouldn't be allowed an option because of your preferance in playing the game.

Okay, so if I can't argue with you, why did you start a thread? To give us your "how dare you" speeches? Or do you like being threadjacked?

[Alexander's Horse]

If they go to multiplayer they will have to shut off city flipping. MP won't work otherwise.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by Phat_Phal
I hate repeating myself but I think its necessary here. Can you all read the heading ? It says " Make City Flipping an option " . This isn't a debate over whether culture flipping should be in the game, but it does relate to it as its the means for the option. But seriously people, if not an option, make it a scale. Like Barbarians, do I want raging hordes or restless tribes. This could be applied to Culture flipping, do we want to set this at 0% ( realistic is later stage of game ) or do we want 100% culture flipping * whats installed now and whats got alot of people up in a roar*

I agree with these ideas. Although I am a supporter of 'involuntary-changes-of-political-control' (misnamed as 'culture-flipping' in CivIII), I can see that there will be times during scenario creation when this feature could be a serious hindrance to the historical situation that I wish to recreate. So for this reason, if no other, I would like to have the ability reduce it.

(Also, I one day wish to create an scenario based on the Roman Civil Wars of the 1st century BC, and to simulate the many mutinies, conspiracies, hidden political agendas and disloyalties of the period, I would like to have the ability to INCREASE the chance of 'culture-flipping' )

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
If they go to multiplayer they will have to shut off city flipping. MP won't work otherwise.

And why, oh why is that?

[Alexander's Horse]

Because in multiplayer city flipping will really screw up the diplomacy between the human players.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Because in multiplayer city flipping will really screw up the diplomacy between the human players.

Need I prod information out of you? Why will it screw up diplomacy?

[Alexander's Horse]

Work it out yourself - its not rocket science.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Work it out yourself - its not rocket science.

If you can't be bothered with explaining, I can't be bothered with listening. So make with the explaining, or make with the leaving.

[notyoueither]

Actually... in MP it might add a great deal.

There is always the option of rebuffing the rebels when they offer to join you. Then the city stays put as part of the culturally disadvantaged civ. I've actually had AI civs (German of all things) rebuff the rebels when one or two of my cities have tried to flip.

So. It wouldn't be a real killer in MP. It would provide a real test of the trustworthiness of your allies from time to time though.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


If you can't be bothered with explaining, I can't be bothered with listening. So make with the explaining, or make with the leaving.

I reckon a single celled animal could work it out. Why can't you?

[Phat_Phal]

It is fairly obvious, take this situation. 2 players at peace nearby, playing the game out building every improvement, terrain upgrading, all nice and peaceful. a city across the border gets offered to the other civ. He takes it, the civ that lost the city gets pissed off and attacks. His reputation is ruined and is blamed the aggressor. The game turns to the bad side once more.

cyclotron7 quote:
Well, despite your intent, the explosiveness of the issue has taken over your thread. I think Firaxis shouldn't waste it's time taking out a feature that is a core part of the game in an option...

Its not a core part of the game, its a cop out for the builders who can't handle war. The reason why the topic is so explosive is because ITS ONE OF THE MOST ANNOYING parts in the game.

Opinion is exactly my point, its a preference, and people like me that don't like this one feature of culture don't get a choice.

Kryten: I'd like to make a scenario too. I made a ww1 to ww2 scenario in civ 2 which had everything re-done. Units, several levels of that unit, ie Medium tank, heavy tank, heavy bomber. I had dogfights with planes and zepplains. I had snipers and tons of boats, I had specialised units, red baron, bismarck.

It was alot of fun, I re did the whole tech tree, to fit in with the 6000 turn scenario. I had the 7 civs, huge american land as well as europe. New sounds and animations, re did al the graphics, including terrain, improvements and wonders. When they improve the editor I might start that again and re do my old scenario. I tried to customize the flags but it was a bit hard due to some bugs.

[kring]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Because in multiplayer city flipping will really screw up the diplomacy between the human players.

Just a guess. Your real life friend may be upset if you take a city of his/hers that flips this way? You could rebuff the city to not make your friend unhappy with you.

I like peaceful ways, more realistic than several thousand year wars I have read about. I do know how to war, though. I balance military and improvements to maximize winning a war if the AI starts one, or if I feel the need to start one myself. If I wanted to play a war game, I would dig out Shogun or a similar game. I don't see conquest games as that challenging. Too easy to win if you have a basic concept of military S&T, which the AI doesn't.
Want a hard game, try for domination without war. The closest I came is one that only had 2 early wars. The first I started because the computer left a city unguarded; the only military action in that one since the respawning was too far to fight. The second one a couple of turns later, the same civ demands something from me in trade, I say no; they declare war. Again, little action due to distance. I used selective city placement to gain ground and/or flip other cities. There are no guarantees on flipping either. I have seen a size 2 city not flip for an entire game, while a size 10 that is barely in sphere of influence flip.

I have also had wars where I get MA/MPP with other civs to kick one since Japan has a fascination for sneak attacking me. Reminds of Civ 2, all nice and polite, but you move stacks of units next to my cities. I tell you to get out, you declare war, my troops pull out a can of whoop a** and proceed to explain why my empire is mine.

The key to avoiding flips of your own cities is citizen happiness and cultural improvements. I rarely have a city flip due to this combo. Cultural improvements also either keep citizens happy or add to science.

[Austin]

Originally posted by Phat_Phal

cyclotron7 quote:
Well, despite your intent, the explosiveness of the issue has taken over your thread. I think Firaxis shouldn't waste it's time taking out a feature that is a core part of the game in an option...

Its not a core part of the game, its a cop out for the builders who can't handle war. The reason why the topic is so explosive is because ITS ONE OF THE MOST ANNOYING parts in the game.

Actually I think the real cop out is people who build a one dimensional civilization based solely upon military expansion, and then wonder why their empire doesn't last any longer than the historical one dimensional military expansion ones did.

If you want the freedom to simply churn, churn, churn out military units, and rush, rush, rush, then go back to CivII.

Conquest is easy. Control is not. Culture and city flipping is Civ III's way of handling the second half of that equation.

Opinion is exactly my point, its a preference, and people like me that don't like this one feature of culture don't get a choice.

At what point do you draw the line though? Is this a computer game or a computer game construction kit?

Austin

[heidlejohn]

I don't like culture flipping even though the human player usually benefits, but my question is whether a change in culture flipping is possibly under discussion by soren/firaxis? There's been a lot of discussion about this, some options have been presented on this forum, but is Soren/Firaxis actually considering changing this?

Does anyone know if this is a possible change in the future?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Phat_Phal
If it has been implemented already sorry for this thread because I haven't been following civ 3 since I lost 80 bombers and 12 modern tanks in a city flip.

HAHHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH that's what you get.... hahahahahahahah