Culture Flip: The real issue

[VetteroX]

Um, I really dont think people who support culture flipping understand the main issue. Its not that people agiast it hate culture, or dont build any cultural buildings, its just dumb how it happens. I want everyone who responds to this post to answer A) How can a city with 10, 15, even 20 units in it flip? how does the city flip when it has more of your units in it then population points? Where do thoes units go? B) Why does the city flip back to the other side AFTER ive held it for 50 turns and now theres more of my race in the city then the previous race? C) Why do I have over half the avalible wonders in the game in my cities, tons of cultural buildings, my adviser says everyone likes my culture, my people are happy, and it STILL flips back to the other civ? why?

My problem is I build a huge military AND still have the highest culture, or at least its near the top (I usually play on monarch, sometimes emperor) and I STILL get culture flips. No culture flip supporter ever says anything about these issues, all they ever say is you cant just warmonger. My problem is I DO have a ton of culture and happy people and the enemy cities still flip back to the enemy and I lose anywhere from 2 - 20 units in the process. How can you support this current method of culture flipping used in Civ 3?

My proposals to chance it are:
A) A city with a certain amount of units in it (number realative to its size) simply can't flip, no matter what. You cant have 10+ units in every captued city, so it would be fair.

B) Stop flipping when I have higher culture then the enemy for gods sake...

C) How about pushing my units out of the city and its radius, and then flipping, like the population forces the army out with a surprise attack, it just doesnt make your units vanish into a void...

D) How about give me a warning, like when you get warning for mass barb uprisings? "Sir, our spies tell us that the city of X is prepairing to overthrow our rule there! We must take action to counter it!"

E) like some other poster said, make it an on off option, or at least let us edit it out (does this exist? ive made my out maps, edited units, etc, but saw no edit fr culture flip, if it exisits.)

[zulu9812]

I agree that there should be a pop-up warning

[King of Rasslin]

I am forced to stock up on settlers even after the land rush. I always raze the city an build one of mine on top. And yet, sometimes it still flips! And there are always the AI's that try to recover the land if you raze the cities and forget to bring settlers. Just slaughter them. It is more efficient than losing a dozen cavalry.

[Jethro83]

I never used to take the matter of culture flipping seriously until recently.

I am currently playing a game, standard map, continents, Regent as Egypt. I wiped out Rome early, and wiped out most of Persia (suing for peace and all their techs afterward). Then I turned to take on Babylon (a$$holes beat me to Sun Tzu's AoW). I capture Akkad (since Sun Tzu's is in there). I starve the population to 4, quell resistance and rush build a temple AND cathedral. Long after I sued for peace (and the Egyptian culture and population have boomed there), the city flips back. The temple and cathedral were there for quite a while before the flip (long enough to accumulate plenty of culture), and my nearby cities were well cultured (with cathedrals, universities and J.S. Bach's Cathedral adding to it). WTF?!

A decent idea poorly implemented. But apart from that, I still enjoy the game (at least I could turn around and wipe Babylon off the face of the earth later on, and I did).

If the people want to culture flip to another civ, they should try an exodus from their city, to join the nearest city of the culture they want to join. The whole city shouldn't have to suffer from a minority's need for a different culture (as I said, I had my own nationals, and my own culture there).

[notyoueither]

Starve it to 1 pop.

[Kryten]

Everybody keeps talking about 'culture-flipping' in violent terms. But really it represents or simulates the exact opposite. Let me give just two of the many, many historical examples:-

Hong Kong in the real world:
In 1997 the 99 year lease ran out and the colony was to be returned to Chinese control. Now the people living there didn't want this, the people back in Britian didn't want to lose one of their prize possessions in the Pacific, and the British government didn't want to lose all the revenue and tax that the colony generated. So John Major (the British Prime Minister at the time) had two choices....give it back OR risk a war with China ( ). He gave it back. In other words, it was a non-violent political change of control due to circumstances beyond his control, WITHOUT a war, revolution or rebellion.

Hong Kong in CivIII:
You are playing a game as the English. Suddenly, one of your distant cities 'culture-flipps' to China. You have two choices....let it go OR go to war with China to regain it ( ). You decide to let it go. In other words, it was a non-violent political change of control due to circumstances beyond your control, WITHOUT a war, revolution or rebellon.

And what about East Germany:
In 1990 East Germany 'culture-flipped' back to West German control, DISPITE the size of the Soviet garrison (and with a healthy and vigorous secret police force as well!). Yet another example of a non-violent political change of control due to circumstances beyond the Kremlin's control, WITHOUT a war, revolution or rebellon.

(Ok, so the exact details of these two examples are not totally accurate in a purist sense. After all, you can't expect a game like CivIII to nit-pickingly list ALL of the many thousands of reasons for 'non-violent-political-changes-of-control'! There has to be some abstraction. But the EFFECTS, if not the CAUSES, do simulate real world events).

Nonetheless, I DO agree that there should be an 'off' button. Everyone should be allowed to play the sort of game that they like....that's what an editor is for .

[Jaybe]

As an alternative to having a game option of no city flipping, how about thorough documentation (with examples or tutorial) about the matter, straight from Firaxis. In print, with the update. Not just on a web site.

It might be easier (or harder) for Firaxis to provide education on the subject rather than provide the on/off switch (referencing Firaxis diversion of staff to 'other projects').

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Starve it to 1 pop.

thats what i usually do. i starve / pop rush until it's a size 1 with like 6 or 7 units in it. i pop rush a temple and a library, so it gets a basic cultural background for only 2 gold per turn.

(plus expanded borders in enemy territory speeds up troop movement)

[King of Rasslin]

Babylon always tries to culture bomb me. Worse, they act so innocent about it, but I know of their intents

I play the game their way and culture flip their city. Then the real war begins.

[Oligarf]

The culture flipping is a bit too much of the good, totally agree. The examples you give VetteroX seem to be not quite realistic. Sometimes it should be tempered but sometimes it should be stronger, I have games where I am the absolute king in culture (on a low level of difficulty, but that doesn't matter) that I almost could imagine that a complete civilization would flip, but not even one little city. Some documentation would certainly help, then we know what actually is happening and what not.

[ChaotikVisions]

I think a better way for culture flipping to go would be someone elses superior culture or whatever affects it creates revolutionarys(different from resisters, i'll explain) in your city. Revolutionarys if theres enough of them to overwhelm the garrison, will overthrow the city and join whatever civ. Make it so revolutionarys are harder to quell, but this way there would be at least evidence of it going over, and a way to stop it if you're quick enough.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
I think a better way for culture flipping to go would be someone elses superior culture or whatever affects it creates revolutionarys(different from resisters, i'll explain) in your city. Revolutionarys if theres enough of them to overwhelm the garrison, will overthrow the city and join whatever civ. Make it so revolutionarys are harder to quell, but this way there would be at least evidence of it going over, and a way to stop it if you're quick enough.

A good idea, but it still wouldn't cover non-violent political changes of control, without a war, revolt or rebellion, that are due to circumstances beyond your control.

(There were no revolutionaries fighting in the streets when East Germany 'flipped' to the West.)

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by VetteroX
Um, I really dont think people who support culture flipping understand the main issue. Its not that people agiast it hate culture, or dont build any cultural buildings, its just dumb how it happens. I want everyone who responds to this post to answer A) How can a city with 10, 15, even 20 units in it flip? how does the city flip when it has more of your units in it then population points? Where do thoes units go?

First off, culture flipping is an abstraction, and this is a game,not a simulation, so realism isn't the be-all and end-all of the game mechanics. As such you can't argue with me "How can a city flipp..." blah, blah, blah, because you are talking about the real world which I as a gamer don't care about. How could a city with 20 units in it flip? In real life it probably couldn't. And your point is precisely what?

Also, as many other people have pointed out, culture flipping is an abstraction of a number of different cultural mechanisms, like the HK, West Berlin analogies above, and also medieval lords pledging their allegiance to different kings. Just look at how the clans in scotland changed sides back and forth continually in it's many wars with england, and you will see many cases of culture flipping.

So in answer to your question A above: in real life it can't, in real life it can't, and I have no idea and don't care.

B) Why does the city flip back to the other side AFTER ive held it for 50 turns and now theres more of my race in the city then the previous race?

This one is easy: two words - Random Seed. Each turn there is a percentage chance that the city will flip, and as you add culture to your city the percentage chance goes down, but it does not become zero. Is the chance 50 turns later incredibly small? Yes. Did you get incredibly unlucky? Yes. Does that mean the game is broken? No. If you make a save game right after you take the city and reload it with a new random seed, every 10 reloads or so you will see the city flip. If you manage to get out to 50 turns later and do the same save-reload-new random seed you will only see a flip once every 1000 tries or so. This seems fair to me. How can you blame the game for your own bad luck?

C. If I have over half of the avalible wonders in the game in my cities, tons of cultural buildings, my adviser says everyone likes my culture, my people are happy, and it STILL flips back to the other civ? why?

America could take over Iraq today, spend billions and billions to feed each person, clothe each person, employ each person, and give each person a lifetimes supply of Snickers bars, and my guess is they would still want their freedom. This seems totally logical to me. Just because your culture is great doesn't mean that people like being forcibly assimilated into it.

My problem is I build a huge military AND still have the highest culture, or at least its near the top (I usually play on monarch, sometimes emperor) and I STILL get culture flips. No culture flip supporter ever says anything about these issues, all they ever say is you cant just warmonger.

That's because we don't consider them "issues" just known gameplay mechanics that you have to base your strategy around.

My problem is I DO have a ton of culture and happy people and the enemy cities still flip back to the enemy and I lose anywhere from 2 - 20 units in the process. How can you support this current method of culture flipping used in Civ 3?

Since the exact same thing can happen to my enemies, I try to strategize a better way of dealing with it than them, so I can win. The same as with every other part of the game design.

My proposals to chance it are:
A) A city with a certain amount of units in it (number realative to its size) simply can't flip, no matter what. You cant have 10+ units in every captued city, so it would be fair.

B) Stop flipping when I have higher culture then the enemy for gods sake...

C) How about pushing my units out of the city and its radius, and then flipping, like the population forces the army out with a surprise attack, it just doesnt make your units vanish into a void...

D) How about give me a warning, like when you get warning for mass barb uprisings? "Sir, our spies tell us that the city of X is prepairing to overthrow our rule there! We must take action to counter it!"

E) like some other poster said, make it an on off option, or at least let us edit it out (does this exist? ive made my out maps, edited units, etc, but saw no edit fr culture flip, if it exisits.)

Even though I don't mind the way culture flipping currently works, I'm pretty open to suggestions that would make it more realistic (note - I don't mind as I said before that the mechanism is not totally realistic, but nor do would I mind if they made it more so, so long as the game mechanics and strategies it led to are interesting). As such, I think A, C, and D make a lot of sense. B doesn't because it becomes unbalancing, escpecially since it takes a long time to change the total culture, and also because it doesn't really make it more realistic. As I mentioined above in my example with Iraq, a larger total culture doesn't really make everyone love you, no matter what the propaganda says.

As for E, as many other posters have brought up, this may take some major rethinking of the AI. I don't know that for sure, since I've never actually seen the code. If it can be easily done, I'm all for it, but if it's a major effort, I would much rather have firaxis working on something else.

[Cyclotron]

This thread started as, and is continuing to be, a duplicate of all the other threads on this topic. This isn't "the real issue," it's just the same issue re-hashed for our (?) enjoyment. It's plainly obvious to me at this point that the two "sides" will never agree... and that's fine. But I fail to see why starting a new thread is even slightly productive.

[Capt Dizle]

I am trying to produce a change in the game.

[player1]

My suggestion:

Cities with only 3-4 units should flip automaticaly.

Cities with more units should lose 3-4 units per turn (number should depent from pop of city)

Now you'll have option to:
-get out with rest od the units from city (and thus making it filp in next turn)
-put more unit and try to save the city (maybe)

P.S.
Fliped city should get some free units (pop dependent) to prevent: "get out, get in strategy"

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I am trying to produce a change in the game.

I am going to respond to this one, because it deserves a response.

That's perfectly fine that you want to produce a change in the game. Commendable, actually. I completely recognize your right and purpose in doing so, even if I disagree with your ways of doing so. However, making innumerable threads on the same issue has no purpose, and the sheer volume of threads only makes people less receptive to your point.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
I think a better way for culture flipping to go would be someone elses superior culture or whatever affects it creates revolutionarys(different from resisters, i'll explain) in your city. Revolutionarys if theres enough of them to overwhelm the garrison, will overthrow the city and join whatever civ. Make it so revolutionarys are harder to quell, but this way there would be at least evidence of it going over, and a way to stop it if you're quick enough.

This would be the way CTP2 handled things. Personally I like it; it's simple, logical, and works well. You have to many slaves in the city and not enough military units? Opps, the slaves revolted and now you have to defeat them or lose control of the city.

[Nubclear]

A) A city with a certain amount of units in it (number realative to its size) simply can't flip, no matter what. You cant have 10+ units in every captued city, so it would be fair.

Did they not do that in the last patch?

B) Stop flipping when I have higher culture then the enemy for gods sake...

I am with you on this one. If you are the most powerful, most cultural, most technologically advanced nation in the world I highly doubt that your citizens would want to join anybody else. Quite to the contrary, others would probably want to join you.

C) How about pushing my units out of the city and its radius, and then flipping, like the population forces the army out with a surprise attack, it just doesnt make your units vanish into a void...

I am also with you on this one too. Yesterday, I played a game of Civ 3 with me as the Chinese, my enemy as the Americans. I had a huge garrison of Modern Armour in Shanghi. Well, the same peopl that were "distainful of American cultural achievments" culture flipped to them. It was actually quite annoying.

Luckily, within a few turns, it flipped back to me. But what if my culture was only a 2:1 ratio?

D) How about give me a warning, like when you get warning for mass barb uprisings? "Sir, our spies tell us that the city of X is prepairing to overthrow our rule there! We must take action to counter it!"

To me, that would make it way too apparent. Instead, how about "Sir, the govoner tells us there is much discontent in the city, and it's about to fall into disorder!" and then (the next turn) it either falls into Civil disorder, or it flips.

That way, there is still an element of uncertanty however, you'll still get a little warning before something happens.

E) like some other poster said, make it an on off option, or at least let us edit it out (does this exist? ive made my out maps, edited units, etc, but saw no edit fr culture flip, if it exisits.)

I agree that we should be able to edit it out or toggle it in rules. Because even though I like culture immensly (because it usually flips to my side), others don't seem to share my opinion. I don't want to be forced by their protestings, and vice versa, so making it an option is the best way to go.

Tassadar

[tinyp3nis]

Happened in last game, i have (about) 20 mech inf, 20 modern armor and 10 artillery in a city or its radius (tested both with reloading). They had more total culture, it was their former city and it flipped back. It was also peacetime. Just wondering that how many houndred units i need to keep the city? I actually dont even want it but it served as rails to take out their capital few turns earlier, so its no problem for me. Just wondering....not even their army could take it from me if we were at war...

And YES!!, its 1.21!

Someone above said it dont need to be realistic, yes i agree gameplay>realism. But this is so "gay" its not even funny anymore. And in civ3 gameplay even demands MODIFIED cultural flipping. Flipping is nice, but poorly implemented what comes to military units. They disappering is another funny thing. I mean maybe my men want to join egypt? Why dont egypt get my men then? Maybe they left to alpha centauri with the ship i "destroyed" earlier? Firaxis should change flipping just a bit and it would be all ok for me.

[Jethro83]

About my situation above with my war against Babylon:

1. Akkad was close to one of my size-12 cities (Heliopolis) which had temple, library, university, cathedral, colosseum and JS Bach's Cathedral.

2. My total culture exceeded the total culture of the Babylonians.

3. Babylon, which was next to Akkad, had already been conquered before Akkad. It DIDN'T flip, despite the fact that it had a palace, temple, cathedral, library and The Pyramids adding to its culture.

4. I only starved two citizens out of Babylon, reducing it to size 7 and it STILL didn't flip.

5. Before I conquered Akkad, there was a temple and possibly library there (as well as Sun Tzu's Art of War... the initial purpose of my conquest). Not very cultured for a city with a Great Wonder.

Taking that into consideration, I can definitely say that there is something wrong with the system that is currently in place.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Happened in last game, i have (about) 20 mech inf, 20 modern armor and 10 artillery in a city or its radius (tested both with reloading).

Bad decision.

They had more total culture, it was their former city and it flipped back. It was also peacetime. Just wondering that how many houndred units i need to keep the city? I actually dont even want it but it served as rails to take out their capital few turns earlier, so its no problem for me. Just wondering....not even their army could take it from me if we were at war...

And YES!!, its 1.21!

Unfortunately, 1.21 didn't come with a feature to eliminate human error.

Someone above said it dont need to be realistic, yes i agree gameplay>realism. But this is so "gay" its not even funny anymore.

First off, using "gay" in a negative sense is offensive. Second, it is funny, because it is entirely your fault that it flipped, and yet you are apparently blaming the game.

And in civ3 gameplay even demands MODIFIED cultural flipping. Flipping is nice, but poorly implemented what comes to military units. They disappering is another funny thing. I mean maybe my men want to join egypt? Why dont egypt get my men then? Maybe they left to alpha centauri with the ship i "destroyed" earlier? Firaxis should change flipping just a bit and it would be all ok for me.

I agree that flipping could probably be implemented in a better way, but keep in mind that the units don't "dissapear" any more than they "dissapear" when you lose a battle. Culture flipping is an armed rebellion, and your units were destroyed.

You seem frustrated by flipping, but it is simply game mechanics. Placing 20 modern armor in a newly captured metropolis and getting upset because the city flipped is about the same as using a pikeman to defend your capital against a modern armor and getting upset that you lost. You can't use Civ2 tactics in Civ3, and if you do don't be surprised when you lose.

[VetteroX]

wrylachlan, if the game is going to be so unrealistic that it will allow culture flip with a huge army in it, then its only fair to be so unrealistic that people would welcome the culturaly superior invaders. I agree with you on the America Iraq example, but, like all the culture flip supports including you say, "this isnt a realistic simulation"

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by VetteroX
wrylachlan, if the game is going to be so unrealistic that it will allow culture flip with a huge army in it, then its only fair to be so unrealistic that people would welcome the culturaly superior invaders.

That's silly. If the game is going to be so unrealistic that it will allow a land unit to go across the world an infinite number of times in one year, then its only fair be so unrealistic that your land units automatically destroy Ai units, even if they are vastly superior.

No game can be entirely realistic, and to say one abstraction gives cause for another feature to be abstracted is preposterous.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Bad decision.

You are calling me an idiot, thanks! Bad??? not really, most of them were outside of the city, i was only 90% sure it wont flip, so i didnt put them in. And after it flipped i tested them all inside, no difference.

Unfortunately, 1.21 didn't come with a feature to eliminate human error.

Again..., u really want to make it obvious dont u?? Why you want to make me feel bad when you dont even know me? I didnt attack you, i think?
Besides there was no error, i won the game because i didnt raze it at the first time i got it, otherwise i would have lost the space race.

First off, using "gay" in a negative sense is offensive. Second, it is funny, because it is entirely your fault that it flipped, and yet you are apparently blaming the game.

As you can and COULD see, my english is bad, i know it means homosexual, but i did not mean any offence to you or anyone else.

It is my fault it flipped(???), yes i wanted to win a game, i also could have raze it and risk losing at 8(2) their ship ready, i really needed those rails to their capital and to win and i did. I lost A mech inf at the flip, the other units didnt go to centauri cos they were around the city (but the point is that 50 units WOULD have, so the game is flawed). Why? Their entire army was no match for those 50 units, and yet their citizens kill them all? Why didnt they defend the city with the same might with just citizens?

I agree that flipping could probably be implemented in a better way, but keep in mind that the units don't "dissapear" any more than they "dissapear" when you lose a battle. Culture flipping is an armed rebellion, and your units were destroyed.

You know the details how big the army was,and they diyng is nonsense, my units was not destroyed. Or is this back to good old miltia>veteran battleship on civ1 (i actually liked that then ). Maybe their townsfolk waited till night and killed them then? Yeah would make a great fantasy game in that case.

You seem frustrated by flipping, but it is simply game mechanics.

Yes i am, because its poorly implemented as i said.

Placing 20 modern armor in a newly captured metropolis and getting upset because the city flipped is about the same as using a pikeman to defend your capital against a modern armor and getting upset that you lost. You can't use Civ2 tactics in Civ3, and if you do don't be surprised when you lose.

When did i say civ2 tactics or anything like that? Were u angry at someone else and you like to generalize me as an idiot because i point out an obvious error with game or what, i dont get it why ur so mean and arrogant. I really hope you will not be a jerk on purpose now on, or by accident .... sorry if i was realistic but usually i should avoid answering to these, but i see everyday on all kind of forums people underestimating each other, and if i had posted more on this or any other forum of any kind i (maybe) have not even responded at all, but just think of u as just another ***hole who is too fan for something, or too blind to see not everyone is an idiot or whatever. I dont even know what ur problem is. You dont know me, and you knew me even less when posting that crap about me. I dont know u either, but i got a bad taste from ur reply. And im tired Next time try reading and undrestand a post before replying, i did that to ur post and its still insulting.

Sometimes i get so easilly pissed of...


Oh, and firaxis should really rethink that culture flipping formula, was my original idea in the first post anyway....

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

You seem frustrated by flipping, but it is simply game mechanics. Placing 20 modern armor in a newly captured metropolis and getting upset because the city flipped is about the same as using a pikeman to defend your capital against a modern armor and getting upset that you lost. You can't use Civ2 tactics in Civ3, and if you do don't be surprised when you lose.

The problem, cyclotron, is that it is logical that a pikeman can't defend against modern armor, but it is illogical and counterintuitive to think that 20 modern armor can't subdue a city. We all understand that 20 armor units represents a very large force. No city in revolt is capable of overpowering and dismantling such a force. In order to enjoy a game, however abstract, one needs to be able to suspend disbelief and become immersed in the "alternate reality" of the game.

When I first saw a flip and the loss of the garrison it was like, wow, what kind of bug is this! It was just out of context. Quite a few people feel this way. Telling people that they need to learn Civ3 tactics is not an answer and is just going to add insult to injury.

[Kryten]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
... it is illogical and counterintuitive to think that 20 modern armor can't subdue a city. We all understand that 20 armor units represents a very large force. No city in revolt is capable of overpowering and dismantling such a force.

....assuming of course that the troops don't mutiny, or sympathise with the citizens they are trying to suppress, or are led by disloyal officers, or unless Parliament/Congress due to economic cutbacks or bending to public/world opinion has decided override your decison and has disbanded the army (Vietnam anyone?), or they are led by an incompetent general who has surrendered and they have all become PoWs, or a thousand and one other things haven't happened that are beyond your control....

Please forgive me for quoting from the other 'culture-fliping' thread, but....
"I agree that there should be an 'off' switch so that those who want to play a 'god-like' game (in a world where the thoughts of every single citizen & soldier is completely under their control and always do as they are told) can play as they wish, and an 'on' switch so that other people can play as 'leader' (in a world where hidden conspiracies/mutinous troops/incompetent officers and other events that are beyond the control of the player do happen)."

That way everybody is happy

(Note: a last minute edit....I spelt 'incompetent' wrong....a bit ironic really ....)

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
You are calling me an idiot, thanks!

No, I didn't call you an idiot. Plenty of people, including me, make bad descisions... and I don't think I'm an idiot.

not really, most of them were outside of the city, i was only 90% sure it wont flip, so i didnt put them in. And after it flipped i tested them all inside, no difference.

And that was your decision to do so.

Again..., u really want to make it obvious dont u?? Why you want to make me feel bad when you dont even know me? I didnt attack you, i think? Besides there was no error, i won the game because i didnt raze it at the first time i got it, otherwise i would have lost the space race.

Whoa, please see my first comment on this post...

As you can and COULD see, my english is bad, i know it means homosexual, but i did not mean any offence to you or anyone else.

No problem. I'm not offended, but some people could be. I understand.

It is my fault it flipped(???), yes i wanted to win a game, i also could have raze it and risk losing at 8(2) their ship ready, i really needed those rails to their capital and to win and i did. I lost A mech inf at the flip, the other units didnt go to centauri cos they were around the city (but the point is that 50 units WOULD have, so the game is flawed). Why? Their entire army was no match for those 50 units, and yet their citizens kill them all? Why didnt they defend the city with the same might with just citizens?

The game is not flawed, you simply don't like the rules. That's fair, they aren't entirely realistic. However... games seldom are entirely realistic. If you don't like the feature, that's fine... but it's not a "flaw" or "problem" or anything else. It's your opinion.

You know the details how big the army was,and they diyng is nonsense, my units was not destroyed. Or is this back to good old miltia>veteran battleship on civ1 (i actually liked that then ). Maybe their townsfolk waited till night and killed them then? Yeah would make a great fantasy game in that case.

Actually, it's an armed rebellion of an entire town, with a resistance movement and years to prepare. Surely that is a little bit more manageable?

[quote]When did i say civ2 tactics or anything like that? Were u angry at someone else and you like to generalize me as an idiot because i point out an obvious error with game or what, i dont get it why ur so mean and arrogant. I really hope you will not be a jerk on purpose now on, or by accident .... sorry if i was realistic but usually i should avoid answering to these, but i see everyday on all kind of forums people underestimating each other, and if i had posted more on this or any other forum of any kind i (maybe) have not even responded at all, but just think of u as just another ***hole who is too fan for something, or too blind to see not everyone is an idiot or whatever. I dont even know what ur problem is. You dont know me, and you knew me even less when posting that crap about me. I dont know u either, but i got a bad taste from ur reply. And im tired Next time try reading and undrestand a post before replying, i did that to ur post and its still insulting.[/qtuoe]

I assumed you played Civ2, and if you did you would be aware like I am that the best way to conquer in Civ2 was to pile all your units into the city. When I first played Civ3 I tried that, and the city flipped. I was very upset; I had just lost an entire army of cavalry plus 6 cannons and 4 riflemen. I realized, however, that I was playing a different game, and if I was going to play Civ3 I would have to play by Civ3 rules.

Indeed, my post was not about "crap about you"... it was trying to convey that the game doesn't suck just because something turned out badly for you. I honestly apologize if I seemed a jerk to you.

Sometimes i get so easilly pissed of...

And sometimes I get too sarcastic for my own good...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The problem, cyclotron, is that it is logical that a pikeman can't defend against modern armor, but it is illogical and counterintuitive to think that 20 modern armor can't subdue a city. We all understand that 20 armor units represents a very large force. No city in revolt is capable of overpowering and dismantling such a force. In order to enjoy a game, however abstract, one needs to be able to suspend disbelief and become immersed in the "alternate reality" of the game.

I think that the ther culture flipping thread is becoming more productive than this one... I agree with NYE that a system to expel units instead of killing them (albeit with some damage) would be a good alternative. Everything can be improved, and culture flipping is surely one of those things. I just don't think it is broken... I think people are frustrated. Of course, the fact that people are frustrated means that an overhaul is probably a good idea... but I wouldn't count on it happening.

20 modern armor is a bit of a stretch, but I don't feel that invalidates the system as a whole.

When I first saw a flip and the loss of the garrison it was like, wow, what kind of bug is this! It was just out of context. Quite a few people feel this way. Telling people that they need to learn Civ3 tactics is not an answer and is just going to add insult to injury.

Indeed, I thought the same thing in my first flip... my comments on Civ2 tactics were more of a reference to myself (that's what I did) than a degredation of others. Indeed, I don't understand what injury you could be feeling... did the flip really make you that upset?

::jt removed from ignore list::

[Capt Dizle]

Insofar as whether or not the lost military units from a cultural flip should be considered a game flaw or something else, I would submit that, in the context of MP at least, it's a gross flaw.

I speak as someone that has played a lot of PBEM, invested lots of time, and played tight games with excellant human players. Losing a large stack to the uncertainity of cultural flips would basically stop one from playing, else, a strategy of razing all captured cities would have to be used. And this is also enough to kill any desire to play.

Even if a formula could be discovered that would be 100% accurate it still would be unacceptable. It would eliminate the ability of casual players from being even remotely competitive, as the "in the know" mathheads would have a huge edge. What a frustration to drive people away!

As far as single play, almost all of us will learn in a few games how to beat the AI standing on our head. In this case it comes down to taste, and for me, its a bitter pill to swallow.