Emigration, not culture flipping

[heidlejohn]

The diplomat on 13-06-2002 and I heidlejohn on
12-06-2002 proposed a different take on culture flipping. The original thread 'culture flipping: solutions only' morphed into a discussion on insurgent units.

What do others think about these proposals? Both of us hate the current lose a city immediately model.

Heidlejohn's culture flipping proposal is:

1) Increased unhappiness in the affected city including a pop up window saying that those citizens admire another culture a lot.

2) After N turns, more unhappiness with another pop up window. This will usually result in population loss when entertainers are created to keep the population happy.

3) After N turns, one citizen leaves the city and becomes a new unit - a colonist - and appears next to the closest culturally better city. That colonist can either join that or another city or start a colony, BUT it can not be a slave worker. This would be something along the lines of immigrants leaving to go to the 'new world' and create a better life for themselves in a different country.

4) Continued emigration until the last citizen leaves and turns off the lights, abandoning the city.

The diplomat on 13-06-2002 posted:

In terms of alternate ways to implement culture flipping, I would suggest doing it through pop migration:

the comp would compare culture of 2 neighboring cities. If the difference between the 2 is too great, then there would be a certain probability that 1 pop would move from the lower culture city to the higher one. In order to avoid the problem of teaching the comp how to move the pop unit from city to city (we don't want "refugee" units just aimlessly wandering the map, now do we?), I would have just have the comp imediately transfer the pop from the city to the other. One city would gain 1 pop, the other would lose 1. And the both civs would get a message telling them what has happened.

This should happen between any 2 cities, even 2 of the same civ. That way, you would have pop migration from culture inside your civ as well, as between 2 different civs. The reason would be that people yearn for cities with highest culture.

The advantage of implementing it with pop migration is that it would be slow. They would only lose 1 pop one turn, maybe 1 another pop 3 turns later. It would be gradual and more logical. The player would no longer lose an entire city all of a sudden which is the problem with current culture flipping.

[Adagio]

Great idea, this would defently make "culture flipping" more interesting, and still gives a nation a chance to "defend" itself!

Firaxis, listen to this idea...

[zulu9812]

I like culture-flipping exactly the way it is - emigration would only gain me population, not the strategic position and access to resources that a city does. The dramatic effect of culture flipping forces players to build cultural improvements, and to neglect culture at their peril. This is a Good Thing, IMO. I want a civ game, not a war game.

However, culture flipping also loses all the military units stacked in that city. This pisses people off a lot, and this I can understand. Still, if you lost 12 Modern Armour, 10 Bombers and 6 Infantry because of one culture flip - that's your fault for sticking all yer eggs in one basket. And if it's that deciding factor in war, that's just bad tactics on your part.. But, I could live with the units simply being expelled from the new owner's territory. Thus, you still get the city flip(which I like) but you don't lose a whole stack of units.

This, I believe, is a good compromise.

[heidlejohn]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I like culture-flipping exactly the way it is - emigration would only gain me population, not the strategic position and access to resources that a city does. The dramatic effect of culture flipping forces players to build cultural improvements, and to neglect culture at their peril. This is a Good Thing, IMO. I want a civ game, not a war game.

However, culture flipping also loses all the military units stacked in that city. This pisses people off a lot, and this I can understand. Still, if you lost 12 Modern Armour, 10 Bombers and 6 Infantry because of one culture flip - that's your fault for sticking all yer eggs in one basket. And if it's that deciding factor in war, that's just bad tactics on your part.. But, I could live with the units simply being expelled from the new owner's territory. Thus, you still get the city flip(which I like) but you don't lose a whole stack of units.

This, I believe, is a good compromise.

You would be able to build your own city where the disbanded city is and claim resources and territory that way. I don't understand your comments about 'neglect culture at their peril' because my emigration proposal penalizes a country for neglecting culture. Flipping a city all of a sudden in one turn is ridiculous, a multi turn process over several or many turns makes a lot more sense than the instanteous city flip. Culture takes time to build up and so should a lack of culture.

[SofaKing]

While I agree that culture flipping is not particularly realistic, I think it is valuable as it was designed. Currently, it allows a person to dominate culturally rather than strictly militarily. If it is changed, the only defense against an aggressive CIV is to be equally aggressive. It seems like most of the changes that are suggested on this board are geared to the "Conquer" style of play. As so many people have pointed out, war mongering is already an easier style of play than being a "builder." With PTW coming in a few months, I hope that both style of play are better balanced. It would make multiplayer alot more interesting.

[The diplomat]

heidlejohn: thanks for acknowledging my suggestion from the other thread. I did not think anyone had noticed it.

Originally posted by SofaKing
While I agree that culture flipping is not particularly realistic, I think it is valuable as it was designed. Currently, it allows a person to dominate culturally rather than strictly militarily. If it is changed, the only defense against an aggressive CIV is to be equally aggressive. It seems like most of the changes that are suggested on this board are geared to the "Conquer" style of play. As so many people have pointed out, war mongering is already an easier style of play than being a "builder." With PTW coming in a few months, I hope that both style of play are better balanced. It would make multiplayer alot more interesting.

I actually happen to be one of the most "anti-conquest" people on this board. one of my biggest gripes against civ3 is that the military strategy is too advantageous.

In defense of my suggestion:

1) pop migration still gives the "culture" player a strong tool against the warmonger. Losing pop to another civ would be a bad thing in any game. it would mean losing the ressource that pop was contributing to your city, and having the other civ gain it. Especially, if that scientist specialist decides to leave your culture deficient police state (obviously the scientist should give more than just 1 beaker, but that is another debate). Imagine having a city suddenly gain a scientist specialist or a taxman! What better way to help a builder than to give it more pop from another civ. This would encourage players to build more cultural civs and discourage unilateral militarism! It just does it in a smoother way that to just flip a city with 12 units and 2 wonders!

2) my suggestion introduces the brand new idea of pop migration within a civ. having your pop move between your own cities would add a really cool new element to the game. The player could improve the culture and happiness in a city to encourage the population to move there!

3) It could be used to create scenarios like the real life situation of population migration out of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, to find freedom in the West!

[Coracle]

Cultue Flipping in concept is non-historical unrealistic nonsense. It was dreamed up by Firaxis. Nobody who ever played Civ 2 wanted it.

Culture Flipping in terms of game mechanics is poorly implemented and does things that are illogical. The examples have been cited over and over.

All that said, "continued emigration until the last citizen leaves and turns off the lights, abandoning the city" does not sound all that goofy IN THE ANCIENT PERIOD.

Many ancient towns and even capitals were quickly or gradually abandoned, the most most famous being the Hittite capital of Hattusas.

So, abandoning cities for various reasons with emigration elsewhere is worthy of consideration.

[Sean]

It certainly sounds like a good idea to me. Culture flipping is a little silly, to say the least. Particulalry when it is military units that really determine control of a given area.

[Venger]

Emigration, and creation of a guerilla unit (if hostile to the owner) is an excellent, intelligent change to Civ3.

Venger

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by heidlejohn
Flipping a city all of a sudden in one turn is ridiculous, a multi turn process over several or many turns makes a lot more sense than the instanteous city flip. Culture takes time to build up and so should a lack of culture.

The effect of a culture flip might only take one turn, but thr process has been going on for a number of turns. Think of it as an uprising or rebellion.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by zulu9812
The effect of a culture flip might only take one turn, but thr process has been going on for a number of turns. Think of it as an uprising or rebellion.

But does the player see that process? AFAIK, the player does not get any signs that a culture flipping is on its way.

If the player were to get signs that a culture flipping is coming (through special unhappiness maybe), that in itself would be a great step in the right direction.

[zulu9812]

True, you should get a warning