Attempting to rid culture from the game

[Barchan]

Originally posted by vondrack
6) Effect of the Railroads: how come that railroads improve the effect of mining and irrigation? I mean - they have nothing to do with it! Yet another weirdness in this weird game.

I think the idea is that with railroads you can move a lot more stuff in less time, and this improves the efficiency with which you can get the raw materials (crops and ore) to secondary markets for processing. This improved efficiency leads to greater overall levels of production, hence the bonuses.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Barchan
I think the idea is that with railroads you can move a lot more stuff in less time, and this improves the efficiency with which you can get the raw materials (crops and ore) to secondary markets for processing. This improved efficiency leads to greater overall levels of production, hence the bonuses.

Yep, sure, I know the design idea behind, of course (almost the whole post of mine was not meant seriously). But taken wordly, the fact that I am able to transport the crops from the field to the city by RR, does not increase the productivity of the crop field itself. It affects the turnaround times and that kind of stuff. The productivity rises with fertilizers, better irrigation systems etc. To accept it as a reasonable game concept, you have to imagine lots of things "behind the scene". And that was exactly what I was trying to illustrate by my silly "10 reasons" - one has to use his/her imagination to see various concepts as "reasonable".

BTW - I would agree with most of your post on flipping. Some fine ideas there, even if "defecting workers" would probably make Coracle simply adjust his posts...

The problem is that it is difficult to distinguish between the conquest time and the peace time. If you allow to completely prevent the flip with a strong enough garrison, then you would have no flips in the peacetime - everybody would simply station troops enough in the border cities. Well, maybe, it could be taken into account if it is wartime or not... the whole thing is a bit complicated...

If you agree with the border shifts, then it is difficult to omit shifts involving cities - otherwise, you could simply build a belt of small 1-pop border cities that would "hold the border" for you.

You (and Coracle) have my full support as far as an adjustment of the flip mechanics work - like troops not vanishing etc. Even if it is not a big deal for me (I think I have never lost a strong garrison to a flip, just one or two units at most), I do admit that making the resisting citizens damage the garrison, leave the city... whatever... might make the game more "realistic" (which is what so many people apparently want), while not changing the game balance significantly - maybe even improving it.

Let's discuss what can be done to improve the concept instead of just repeating "the way it is done it's wrong" (although there were some good discussions on this topic in the past).

Should we do some serious debate on that here, I promise to compile our ideas into a single, possibly multi-option proposal we could use as a start of the "To Firaxis: City Flipping Adjustment Ideas" thread that would be free of trivial whining and full of technically feasible solutions to what so many disagree with.

[Coracle]

Speaking of vanishing troops, I saw an example of NINE military units disappearing when a town oif '1' flipped. That is absurd. It also would simply end a game in defeat for the victim. More time wasted.

Culture Flipping borders and cities is bad enough in concept. But it is even worse in those game mechanics that also make a mockery of any semblance of reality or history.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Coracle
Speaking of vanishing troops, I saw an example of NINE military units disappearing when a town oif '1' flipped. That is absurd. It also would simply end a game in defeat for the victim. More time wasted.

Culture Flipping borders and cities is bad enough in concept. But it is even worse in those game mechanics that also make a mockery of any semblance of reality or history.

Again... an awesome example of the criticism that leads to nowhere. Do you propose any solution to the problem? Or just venting off your frustration?

[MarkG]

he is venting for the last 9 months and he's got plenty more

vondrack, please, the next time you have a post of such fun value as the "10 points", please (again) sent it as an article for the column
http://apolyton.net/misc/column/submit.shtml

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
And another thing. I have a size 1 city with 6 legions garrisoned in it that just flipped. I thought if u had more military units in a city than the population, it will never flip?

Effective resistance = number of foreign nationals plus number of culture tiles overlapping in the working radius of the city.

Then the garrison should be 1x - 3x depending on the proximity of the capitals, resistance, the overall culture, etc.

[Zachriel]

Taking Sidon on the Persian mainland, our trusty marines will secure and build an airport (disband less experienced units). This will allow luxuries and resources, but more importantly, we can now funnel huge numbers of military units into Sidon.



(Our huge military force has nothing to fear from civilian resistance. Count eight resisters, one for the population of Sidon and seven for overlapping culture boundaries. Our forces total many dozens.)

[zulu9812]

My my, we seemed to have stirred up quite the hornet's nest, haven't we? As far as a captured city flipping back, there is a very simple way to prevent this:

ATTACK IN OVERWHELMING NUMBERS

That's hardly new and innovative, is it? In fact, it's been a basic military principal since time began. Attacking one city with a large stack allows me to take that city in one turn. Resistance will also only last one turn. Once I've garrisoned that city, the large stack moves on and attacks the nest closest city, again taking it in one turn. This then decreases the chance of the first city flipping even further. By maintaining a solid line of attack, I am able to keep newly captured cities close to my territory rather than stringing out my attacks, thus still further reducing the chance of flipping. In all this, I never attack with anything less than 8 units - even for size-1 towns. The average task-force is 15 units, some stacks a little smaller, but some a little bigger.

[MarkG]

ATTACK IN OVERWHELMING NUMBERS

WOW! you should write strategy guides!


yes, civ3 is terrible, it forces you to actually have some real force before geting into a war...

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Barchan
The introduction of culture created a new dimension to the game and forced players, for better or worse, to reevaluate their strategies and focus on formulating new ones.

Indeed, I have modified my war strategies considerably since civ2. Nowadays at least half the time upon capturing a city I'm forced to say 'burn it all to the ground'. I feel like such an enlightened despot.

[spy14]

I've said it before and i'll say it again, "Culture" adds a good new element to the game, especially regarding border expansion. "Flipping" was a stupid thing to include, and it works like it was tacked on after a hard night at the pub...

[Amadan]

Originally posted by Venger
Zulu if I squeezed all the BS from your post it'd delete itself. If you've never had a city flip, then YOU are playing the game wrong. What do you do, garrison 25 units in every captured city? Were Civ2 and Civ NOT real Civ games because they didn't have the asinine pantywaist concept of 'culture'?

Venger

I have rarely had cities flip, and I only maintain a small garrison in each.

Maintain a culture of 5:1, and its never a problem!

[whosurdaddy]

Has anyone read my suggestions near the top of this page on ways to try and get culture flipping out of the game? That was the reason i started this thread, not to debate whether culture flipping is good or bad. There are some who will like it (a.k.a. the insane) and some who dont. So will those who do like it stop putting post after post into this thread and let the rest of us try and figure out if there is any way to get this insane concept of our own games that we play. I think i'll put my ideas into a different thread so people will actually see them and i can get feedback rather than have them get lost amongst all these pro-culture flipping comments.

[Q Classic]

ah.

before i saw the screenshot, i was going to suggest that you just raze the base... or abandon the city, as this one puts it.

but if you need it as a foothold, hm...

yeah, other than pressing your own cultural advantage and attack in overwhelming numbers.

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by Barchan


Actually, you are both wrong and right. The French cities in Normandy were full of French nationals, not German nationals. They were garrisoned by German soldiers, but the citizens were French. When the allies landed, they got a lot of assistance from the French, both active (i.e. French resistance destroying railroad tracks and setting ambushes) and passive (not following German directives, pointing out German defenses and fortifications). So, to a certain extent, the concept of culture flipping isn't entirely non-historical.

Of course the cities of France in ww2 had French nationals in them in real life!!! The problem is when we make scenarios, if we start the scenario off after the german conquest of France, we are going to have to place the French cities as German cities, with german nationals (you cannot place german controlled cities with french citizens in them in the editor), so when the allies take normandy as a foothold, and do not immediately conquer everything else, IT WILL FLIP TO THE GERMANS taking the d-day invasion force with it. That was just an example of how culture flipping will break down many a scenario.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by MarkG
he is venting for the last 9 months and he's got plenty more

[Barchan]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
Of course the cities of France in ww2 had French nationals in them in real life!!! The problem is when we make scenarios, if we start the scenario off after the german conquest of France, we are going to have to place the French cities as German cities, with german nationals (you cannot place german controlled cities with french citizens in them in the editor), so when the allies take normandy as a foothold, and do not immediately conquer everything else, IT WILL FLIP TO THE GERMANS taking the d-day invasion force with it. That was just an example of how culture flipping will break down many a scenario.

Ah, now I see. Your previous post didn't have the scenario creation background info in it and I, not being a scenario creator, missed it. But I do see your point. OTOH, is CivIII really the best platform to try to recreate military campaigns? I could rattle off a whole host of reasons it isn't, and culture flipping wouldn't be at the top of the list....

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Coracle

No fan of Civ 2 ever asked for this in five years of forum discussions after Civ 2 came out. But we sure got it anyway.

How can you say this when from first appearance, you have only been around since Feb.?

Back in 2000 and primarily, 2001, a number of Apolytoners put together a very substantial list of desires for Civ3 (actually two documents, both of which can be found here - one is called The List, the other is EC3 List). Culture was very prominent.

Actually, if you read The List, you would see many hairbrained ideas that makes the current implementation of culture seem very miniscule in its effect. The main problem with Civ3 is that Firaxis DID listen to many of 'our' ideas, most of which had no business being in a Civilization game (esp. the next iteration after Civ2). Thus Civ3 becomes too many disparate parts that do not work together well.

Those of us that wanted Civ2.5 was shouted down. Now, if you have read many of suggestions since last November, civers want to bring back some of the elements from Civ2. Firaxis should have made Civ2.5, which could include some form of culture and resources, but in a way that they don't dictate how the game should be played or force you to play a certain way.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Venger


Of course you garrison them, it's the only way to bring the city into order. However, I shouldn't have to garrison 12 units in a size 11 city when it took only 3 units to conquer it. Additionally, I shouldn't lose my entire army when it occurs.

Well no wonder your frustrated, you obviously you don't know how to work it properly. There's no way in hell a force of 3 units should be able to hold a city that size. That would be like saying a bus load of Canadian hockey fans could go to New York and capture the city. Soren himself said you need at least 2 units for every citizen. Then you just starve out the resident population until it's down to size 1 so you can continue your campaign. Or else raze the city.

[Jawn Henry]

Originally posted by Coracle
Speaking of vanishing troops, I saw an example of NINE military units disappearing when a town oif '1' flipped. That is absurd. It also would simply end a game in defeat for the victim. More time wasted.

I've never had this happen to me, as i'm still playing on the easier levels. But i do agree it would be a darn pain in the butt, losing units to a re-flip. Maybe in the next Civ, they ought to simply kick the garrison out of the city, say, maybe 2 hexes away - it would give a chance for the AI to build a defender. And maybe add some code that says if a city is conquered 2 by the same civ in a given amount of turns, it cannot flip back to the original owner...

Thoughts?

JH

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by Barchan


Ah, now I see. Your previous post didn't have the scenario creation background info in it and I, not being a scenario creator, missed it. But I do see your point. OTOH, is CivIII really the best platform to try to recreate military campaigns? I could rattle off a whole host of reasons it isn't, and culture flipping wouldn't be at the top of the list....

recreating military history was a time honored tradition with civ2 (just look at the thousands of scenarios that were created), but now u yourself have even admit that doing such things is damn near impossible in civ3 as it is now.

And please dont anyone say, if you love civ2 so much why dont u go back and play it. I played 50 dollars for civ3. Is it too much to ask that it do everything civ2 was capable of, plus perhaps a little more?

[Willem]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy

And please dont anyone say, if you love civ2 so much why dont u go back and play it. I played 50 dollars for civ3. Is it too much to ask that it do everything civ2 was capable of, plus perhaps a little more?

Is it to much to ask that people accept that things change, and that Civ III should no longer be compared to Civ II? Learn how the new rules work, instead of getting nostalgic! You might find the new challenges a bit more entertaining that way.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Steve Clark Back in 2000 and primarily, 2001, a number of Apolytoners put together a very substantial list of desires for Civ3 (actually two documents, both of which can be found here - one is called The List, the other is EC3 List). Culture was very prominent.

Actually, if you read The List, you would see many hairbrained ideas that makes the current implementation of culture seem very miniscule in its effect. The main problem with Civ3 is that Firaxis DID listen to many of 'our' ideas, most of which had no business being in a Civilization game (esp. the next iteration after Civ2). Thus Civ3 becomes too many disparate parts that do not work together well.

Those of us that wanted Civ2.5 was shouted down. Now, if you have read many of suggestions since last November, civers want to bring back some of the elements from Civ2. Firaxis should have made Civ2.5, which could include some form of culture and resources, but in a way that they don't dictate how the game should be played or force you to play a certain way.

You're so right.

When I first saw the list I was just praying most of the ideas put in there would not be included in the game. Many of them were just ridiculous and seemed to have been thought up by people with no concept of playability or of how they would fit into the game. Everyone had a different idea of what they wanted 'civ3' to be like, and the majority of these ideas were just completely unfeasible. It must have been a bit of a nightmare for Firaxis to go through the whole list, considering the sheer amount which needed to be rejected.

I was always one of the people who hoped for a civ2.5. After all, civ2 was civ1.5 and it was one hell of a game. There was SO much that could have been tweaked in civ2 and only minor additions were needed to make a great game. But too much was changed in the wrong ways, and only now is civ3 becoming the civ3 I was looking for.

[whosurdaddy]

So just cause I want a game that makes some semblance of sense, you guys are saying I want Civ2.5 and not Civ3. Absolutely not. A game can be different but better (civ3 is different than civ2, but many of the additions such as culture flipping are silly). Just because a game IS different does not necessarily make it better.

You guys say, "Oh you just dont know how to play the game, you should get used to playing with culture flipping then u'd have no problem."
Listen, I could design the game to have pink elephants that randomly appear in the game that can destroy whole cities, and sure ... I could prolly learn how to play the game and deal with these pink elephants so that they dont destroy my civ, but that doesnt mean having pink elephants in the game is fun or that it even makes any sense! (I hope you guys like my analogy)

[Proserpine]

I haven't seen this commented on anywhere else, so here looks like a good place

Wasn't there a version of some kind of "culture flipping" in SMAC? Occasionally a city would "revolt" and join another faction. Usually, in my games, it seemed to be my cities joining their faction. I don't recall whether the chance of this happening was affected by the presence of military units. It was RARE, however, and in my view not unreasonable. Anyone remember how it worked?

[SpencerH]

Heres another suggestion. How about if we toss out the concept that a single military unit can instantly capture a metropolis. Does it really make sense that a warrior unit can capture a city of 1e6 people? It makes more sense that the unit enters the city but does not capture it. The city is lost for production by its owner and becomes "neutral" until pacified by sufficient invading units and joins capturing civ or is recaptured by its original owner.

[GI Josh]

vondrack - you owe me drycleaning money, i laughed so hard that i soiled myself.

culture in general and flipping specifically are both great concepts. in general, culture is not rewarded enough - flipping during peacetime should happen more easily and more often. right now the game still favors the warmongerer too much and the cultural player doesn't get enough for his efforts. also, cultural rating should be somehow averaged or affected by number of cities, i.e. a few cities with high cultural values should not be swamped by a lot of cities all with minimal cultural values.

as far as flipping is concerned, there are two problems: (i) it happens without warning, swallowing huge garrisons in a seemingly arbitrary fashion; (ii) the garrisons required to prevent culture-flipping seem to be too much. Proposed solution [note to Zouave, "solution" is in the dictionary and is generally considered acceptable to use in polite company]: (i) cities go into civil disorder first before flipping; (ii) each turn that a city is in resistance, for each resister there is a chance that a garrisoning unit will be destroyed, or a partisan unit produced, or nothing; (iii) lower somewhat the required number of units to keep a city controlled.

overall, culture needs to be *strengthened*, not weakened. the game needs to provide greater rewards and opportunities to the civ that focuses on economics or culture (i.e. building a civilization worthy of emulation) - right now the rewards are oriented primarily around territory, which is primarily a function of warmongering.

[GI Josh]

"Garrisons should never vanish.

Razing cities must be drastically curtailed.

Borders should never flip over garrisoned fortresses, resources, improvements, or colonies. "

Coracle, these comments of yours from another thread are actually well-taken. If you limited yourself to discrete observations such as these, especially when coupled with how the *mechanics* should be changed, and you'd be far more persuasive and far less annoying. You're right - garrisons shouldn't just "disappear"; fortresses should have some effect on borders, and so should colonies. Now add some constructive suggestions as to how the mechanics should be changed, without reducing the game to a one-dimensional warmongering game.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by DrFell


No there wasn't Bribing was the closest you could get, but that correlates as civ3 'propoganda'.

But there was in civ1... although it almost never happened. In many many games over a few years I only had it happen once... all of a sudden a Russian city right in the middle of their empire decided to rebel. Of course it was virtually no use to me. Never saw it happen again.

Sorry, you are correct, I was thinking of Civ1.

I had the same experience.... it only happened once, and I will never forget it.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Willem

Well no wonder your frustrated, you obviously you don't know how to work it properly.

Horse ****, I just finished a 1.29 game on Monarch, Large Map, and conquered everyone. I *DO* know how to work it, I do not like HOW it works.

There's no way in hell a force of 3 units should be able to hold a city that size.

Really? What holds the city of Houston in order? Surely not 3 armored battallions. Far less does.

Why should I need 25 motor rifle batallions to garrison a size 12 city against a CULTURE flip? Dude FREAKING PLEASE.

That would be like saying a bus load of Canadian hockey fans could go to New York and capture the city. Soren himself said you need at least 2 units for every citizen.

I beleive this has been reduced in later patches - I beleive it's down to city size +1 - because too many people wretched about it.

Then you just starve out the resident population until it's down to size 1 so you can continue your campaign. Or else raze the city.

Back to the genocidal maniac theory. When I take Paris, I take it because I WANT PARIS, not a grassy weedpatch growing on a bulldozed city.

Venger