culture flipping-stupid, but right idea

johncmcleod · July 13, 2002, 23:10

Firaxis had the right idea about culture flipping-people joing your civ because of a dominating culture-and this happens in real life. It's called emmigration. For example, tons of Mexicans want to join the US, and the immigrate to the US, but Mexican towns don't all of the sudden say "We're now an American town now" And then have the border change. When a city of one civ has a dominating culture of another city maybe the population of the culturally challenged city should drop and the city with vibrant culture should go up as many citizens as the other city went down. In real life, people leave to go to another country, but I haven't heard of a time (I'm sure there has been a few times throughout history) where a town just says they're part of another nation and the borders move. I'm sorry if someone has already posted something of the same nature.
John

Venger · July 13, 2002, 23:32

I would indeed rather see a population swap - down a point here, up a point there. Culture flipping, as has been aruged many times, is pretty asinine.

Additionally, how they tie it to their borders is a little weak too...

Venger

Jon Shafer · July 13, 2002, 23:35

You just had to invite Coracle to another thread to whine, didn't you?

MOHonor · July 13, 2002, 23:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
You just had to invite Coracle to another thread to whine, didn't you?

HAW! Coracle java-script bot locking on!

Iskandar Reza · July 14, 2002, 00:07

Kind of true, if a they're discontent, they usually break apart to form an autonomous state of their own in the real world, not join the more powerfull neighbour.

Boris Godunov · July 14, 2002, 11:35

I think the idea was that they wanted to show how a civilization's culture can be so strong as to have a great influence on all the surrounding areas. Perhaps it would have been better to have your strong culture first influence neighboring cities by sparking discontent and riots, rather than outright and sudden revolt. Then, if the other civ doesn't manage the discontent for a certain number of turns, the city will flip. That would give the player, at least, a chance to quell the revolts before one of his cities goes.

phoenixcager · July 14, 2002, 11:40

Even if it isn't too much like real life, I think culture flipping does add a nice touch to the game. But I agree that there should be some kind of warning before it happens.

Palleon · July 14, 2002, 12:30

Here's how I'd like to see culture flipping done. As said before, theres more likely to be immigration to your cities, rather than you gain a city. I think the more realistic scenario would be for X amount of settlers to be created next to the city that would "flip", and could then create a new city for the culturaly powerful civ, or join that civs cities, up to the player. Of course, the civ who is having people leave could always kill those settlers before they crossed the border. Which is anouther reason we need a better UN, maybe they could vote on immigration limits, where a country is only able to accept Y amount of immigrants, and after that, any more that are created could be killed by the other civ without diplomatic penalty. Whadda think?

heidlejohn · July 14, 2002, 13:19

The unhappy citizen should appear OUTSIDE his original cultural border, not inside. The 'losing culture' should have no chance to kill him.

My suggestion would be a new unit, a colonist, who could either start a colony or join a city but who could not be used as a worker.

Also there should be a new wonder, the Statue of Liberty, which would increase the chances of cultural moves such as these. We need to first, however, change the idiotic culture flipping without prior info.

Then look at a new wonder available with motorized transport to simulate the massive immigration into the US starting in the 1880s.

Venger · July 14, 2002, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by heidlejohn
The unhappy citizen should appear OUTSIDE his original cultural border, not inside. The 'losing culture' should have no chance to kill him.

Agreed.

Quote:

My suggestion would be a new unit, a colonist, who could either start a colony or join a city but who could not be used as a worker.

Interesting, should he be able to start a new city? I'd say - yes. If so, might as well make him a settler.

Quote:

Also there should be a new wonder, the Statue of Liberty, which would increase the chances of cultural moves such as these. We need to first, however, change the idiotic culture flipping without prior info.

Outstanding idea.

Quote:

Then look at a new wonder available with motorized transport to simulate the massive immigration into the US starting in the 1880s.

Bwoop bwoop (overdo alert) (overdo alert)!

Let's not go crazy here...I'm right there with you except for the last paragraph...

Venger

Iskandar Reza · July 14, 2002, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by heidlejohn
Then look at a new wonder available with motorized transport to simulate the massive immigration into the US starting in the 1880s.

That would cause a too many mass migrations that it would unbalance the game.

Coracle · July 14, 2002, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
You just had to invite Coracle to another thread to whine, didn't you?

Hey fanboy, better get your priorities straightened out. Worry about the utter nonsense that Culture Flipping is historically, and the braindead way it is implemented in the game, instead of cheerleading for Firaxis.

Coracle · July 14, 2002, 15:48

As for the topic of this thread. . .

Hordes of immigrants, legal and illegal, are flooding America because America and their country of origin PERMIT it (unfortunately), AND because the U.S. is WHERE THE MONEY IS - not where the "culture" is.

Cities and borders do NOT "flip", nor has anyone "razed" a city totally since Carthage over two thousand years ago.

Jon Shafer · July 14, 2002, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Better get your priorities straightened out. Worry about the utter nonsense that Culture Flipping is historically, and the braindead way it is implemented in the game.

Is it historical? No. Do I like it? No. Can things be changed to better reflect history and be more accurate? Yes. Will they change it? No. Will your whining change it? No. Will your whining in every topic about it cause me the loss of more brain cells? Yes.

Coracle · July 14, 2002, 15:51

Then CHANGE it Firaxis!

Just fix it.

MOHonor · July 14, 2002, 18:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

Hey fanboy, better get your priorities straightened out. Worry about the utter nonsense that Culture Flipping is historically, and the braindead way it is implemented in the game, instead of cheerleading for Firaxis.

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
As for the topic of this thread. . .

Hordes of immigrants, legal and illegal, are flooding America because America and their country of origin PERMIT it (unfortunately), AND because the U.S. is WHERE THE MONEY IS - not where the "culture" is.

Cities and borders do NOT "flip", nor has anyone "razed" a city totally since Carthage over two thousand years ago.

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
Then CHANGE it Firaxis!

Just fix it.

Way to spew your usual garbage in 3 posts instead of 1. All in the span of 5 minutes no less. LOL! Looks like PCR time!

miccofl · July 14, 2002, 18:03

There are only a few other things in the game more satisfying than building my culture up to the point where I can take over an entire civ without ever firing a shot. (Even if it is a weak civ and it costs me 20K gold.)

Is it historically realistic? Consider the fact that during the American Civil War, the mayor of Savannah, GA took a delegation to meet with Gen. Sherman and agreed to give him the city without ever firing a shot, if he would agree not to burn it down. Some would call this a conditional surrender, but since Gen. Pyro had not yet reached the city, it seems a bit preemptive. Did they flip? If not, that’s as close as history is going to get.

Are there better or other ways to effect this kind of population shift? Probably thousands, my guess is they could only pick one, or that was as much time as they could spend on it without adversely affecting the cost or profit margin of the game. Reality bites!

Palleon · July 14, 2002, 19:19

Plenty of cities have been razed. Washington was all but wiped out in the war of 1812, in retaliation for the razing of...the name escapes me, but it was renamed into Toronto. The Americans blew up an ammo dump which simulated a blast comperable to a nuclear weapon in the city, which pretty much wiped it out. Yes, people came back, but the city was in shambles for a while, just like Washington was. There are plenty more examples in history.

Jon Shafer · July 14, 2002, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Palleon
Plenty of cities have been razed. Washington was all but wiped out in the war of 1812, in retaliation for the razing of...the name escapes me, but it was renamed into Toronto. The Americans blew up an ammo dump which simulated a blast comperable to a nuclear weapon in the city, which pretty much wiped it out. Yes, people came back, but the city was in shambles for a while, just like Washington was. There are plenty more examples in history.

York.

Yes, you should be able to raze cities, but it should have severe diplomatic repercussions (like nukes, only not as severe).

Iskandar Reza · July 14, 2002, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MOHonor
Way to spew your usual garbage in 3 posts instead of 1. All in the span of 5 minutes no less. LOL! Looks like PCR time!

Hey pity the guy. If he gets PCR, and then gets disillusioned and leave, we wouldn't have this much fun anymore.

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

York.

Yes, you should be able to raze cities, but it should have severe diplomatic repercussions (like nukes, only not as severe).

Doesn't it already have diplomatic repercussions?

F18fett · July 14, 2002, 21:25

I use culture flipping to take annoying little AI cities. You know how they like to march through your territory, ignoring your orders for them to go away. And then they build a nice city right in the middle of a tundra. Or, they land on a small strip of coastline right next to my border and build a crappy city. Culture flipping gets me those useless cities, so I can at least try and improve them.

But a better idea would be for them to fix the AI's illogical settling patterns and culture flipping.

Cyclotron · July 14, 2002, 21:31

It does have diplomatic consequesnces, but Trip is proposing (i think?) they be increased. I would agree.

I also agree that flipping is meant to re-inforce an idea that is true to history (and quite historical) in a game context that is not historical. It's a give and take, and I am happy where it is.

Terminology question: I fail to see how Flipping, like other point of the game some people take issue with, is treated like a bug rather than a feature they don't like. How is it that you can "fix" flipping? Is it broken?

Palleon · July 14, 2002, 22:39

I think razing just has diplomatic penalties for the civ that had its city destroyed. It should probobly be a global thing, people don't take kindly to genocide.

Coracle · July 14, 2002, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
It does have diplomatic consequesnces, but Trip is proposing (i think?) they be increased. I would agree.

I also agree that flipping is meant to re-inforce an idea that is true to history (and quite historical) in a game context that is not historical. It's a give and take, and I am happy where it is.

Terminology question: I fail to see how Flipping, like other point of the game some people take issue with, is treated like a bug rather than a feature they don't like. How is it that you can "fix" flipping? Is it broken?

Firaxis has a great technique in marketing Civ 3: they take what in any other game would be an obvious BUG and call it a "feature" or a "concept" or an "idea".

There is NOTHING historical about this braindead crap Soren dreamed up. Hey Soren, how many university History credits DO you have??

EXAMPLES:

When a border flips over my garrisoned fortress, mine, and resource with road three tiles from my town and I am insulted and ORDERED to get off or be known FOREVER as a warmonger, it is a load of GARBAGE.

When you have NINE military units in a just conquered town of only '1' and it STILL FLIPS, the entire garrison vanishing into thin air, it is so ludicrous I am insulted by it. You don't think that happened?? Here is the link for proof on the CFF: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=26738

I wouldn't take PTW for free as long as this idiocy exists, something no Civ 2 player ever asked for in over five years of discussing a proposed Civ 3 on the forums.

Palleon · July 14, 2002, 22:48

Edit : Nevermind

Cyclotron · July 15, 2002, 00:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Palleon
I think razing just has diplomatic penalties for the civ that had its city destroyed. It should probobly be a global thing, people don't take kindly to genocide.

I thought it was global... but whatever it is, it does seem too minor. I would like to have the effect greatly increased, especially for destroying a large city.

Bambul · July 15, 2002, 04:21

One of the problems lies with the fundamental assumption used in Civ3 that higher food production leads to higher population and vice-versa.

Whilst it is true that a lack of food causes a fall in the general population (ie. famine), the converse is not necessarily true. In fact, currently most western nations overproduce agricultural goods and yet the greatest increases in population is in Africa/Asia, not Europe/North America.

Fix this and immigration (which is partly represented by flipping) can be implemented. However this is very difficult to do and I would not expect Firaxis to be able to do this before Civ4, 5 or maybe even 6. (Hell, how many Final Fantasy games have there been??!!)

Barchan · July 15, 2002, 04:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
nor has anyone "razed" a city totally since Carthage over two thousand years ago.

Actually, that's not true.

June 10, 1942 - The Czech city of Lidice is completely razed by the Nazis as a reprisal for the execution of SS Leader Reinhard Heydrich, who was killed by Czech partisans. The Nazis killed every male over the age of 16 and sent the remaining women and children to concentration camps. The city was then razed, building by building, until it was completely destroyed. The area of the town was then plowed over and planted with grain. The name of the town was also removed from all Nazi maps.

Palleon · July 15, 2002, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Bambul
(Hell, how many Final Fantasy games have there been??!!)

10 or 11 I think.

But getting to what you said about overproducing food, I think you have a point. Generally, as a civilization gets more and more advanced, they have less children. Most families in America will have 2-3 children, where in Africa, they'll have 5-6, mainly because life expectancy is so low that they need to have 6 children because only 2 will survive to become adults. But I don't know if that would be fair to make in a game, the stronger you get, the less population grows? No one would be able to establish a lead for very long. Of course, the countries still grow quickly due to immigration and the fact that people do live 72-75 years opposed to 30.

Dan Severn · July 15, 2002, 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by miccofl

Is it historically realistic? Consider the fact that during the American Civil War, the mayor of Savannah, GA took a delegation to meet with Gen. Sherman and agreed to give him the city without ever firing a shot, if he would agree not to burn it down. Some would call this a conditional surrender, but since Gen. Pyro had not yet reached the city, it seems a bit preemptive. Did they flip? If not, that’s as close as history is going to get.

Hmm... Conditional surrender would be an interesting option if you cannot protect a city you think you can retake. Better than when I leave my coastal capital unguarded, and I don't notice the english warrior, who walks in and destroys a size 27 city.

General pyro.

We are the pyro-maniacs...

heh heh heh

dem kiddies won' know wot 'it 'em.