Attempting to rid culture from the game

[Venger]

Originally posted by DrFell

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.

Bingo. Give me a couple Firaxis programmers, the Civ2 and SMAC source code, and six months, and I'll give you the game we all want...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by 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.

Huh? Why? You should be playing Reversi or Othello, not Civ.

Venger

[Theseus]

Vondrack is hilarious.

Vondrack is also correct... this is a game we're talking about, with rules that you can either figure out and go ahead and play, or, if you don;t like the rules, then don;t play.

I mean c'mon: Who ever saw a knight take two hops forward and then one to the left? And how the hell do you move a castle?

[GI Josh]

Originally posted by Venger


Huh? Why? You should be playing Reversi or Othello, not Civ.

Venger

Because Civ should not be a straight military conquest game. It's about building a civilization that "will stand the test of time" - no civilization survives long that doesn't maintain enough military to protect itself. But military alone is not enough to prosper. The game abstracts history in a simplified way, requiring the player to balance military, economic, cultural, diplomatic, and other factors. In general, I think that the game rewards war too much and the other aspects not enough. Moreover, while there are other victory conditions other than military conquest, cultural victory (bcs it rewards having many cities with some culture rather than a few cultural superstars) for example is not robust enough. I enjoy playing straight combat simulations (though to be honest I'd rather get a good paintball game going) - I play Civ bcs I enjoy being challenged along several different dimensions. That's why I like Civ3 so much - I'll play the same starting position in several different styles, sometimes builder-style, sometimes warmonger. I wish there were *more* ways to approach building a civ and less emphasis on warring. Civ's military aspects are too simplified to be satisfying if military prowess dominates the game.

Bottom-line, there are two competing visions of where the Civ series should be going: (i) more along the lines of SimCiv, replicating on a simplified and abstract level the political, economic, and other challenges of running a country, with what would appear to be a military emphasis (that's only from a modern perspective, imo); or (ii) more of a war-oriented game, but with the considerations of production limitation and with a longer-term perspective, thus encompassing diplomacy.

In other words, should Civ be a simulation of civilization with an emphasis on military, or should Civ be a wargame with some other considerations? I vote for SimCiv - I like the way Civ3 has evolved and I would like for it to be pushed further in that direction. I also would enjoy beefing up the strategic/operational level of the military aspects to the game, but I don't want the other aspects de-emphasized.

[Coracle]

Is someone straining themselves trying to find some logical or historical justification for this Culture Flipping CRAP?

Let me summarize.

1. Culture is important in building a civilization. But that does not mean Culture Flipping borders and towns has any validity. It has none.

2. Culture Flipping as implemented in the game mechanics is even worse. When large garrisons vanish into thin air based on some braindead formula Soren dreamed up we have NONSENSE. Same with when borders flip over my garrisoned fortress and resource (even iron) and I am expected to just. leave.

3. Culture historically has been important for maintaining strong civilizations through the centuries, along with infrastructure, government, etc. But civilizations expanded through military strength and terror. The Mongols were among many that slaughtered people in huge numbers to terrorize other cities into surrendering (not "Flipping") - not reflected in the game.

So Culture Flipping is a crock, and the same goes for its stupid cousin "razing".

How to get rid of it??

In the Editor, Culture, this might work: Set success = 0%, resistanace = 100%.
In theory this should produce ZERO culture flips.

If not, I waste no moire time on Civ 3, not after I had nine military vanish in a Flipping town of '1' early this morning.

[MarkG]

But that does not mean Culture Flipping borders and towns has any validity. It has none.

so what? it's a game

When large garrisons vanish into thin air based on some braindead formula Soren dreamed up we have NONSENSE.

as nonsense as is building units without any population loss in your cities

The Mongols were among many that slaughtered people in huge numbers to terrorize other cities into surrendering (not "Flipping") - not reflected in the game.

did you see a "if an aspect of history is not reflected and simulated accurately in this game, feel free to sue us" sticker on the box??

[Dom Pedro II]

*Shrugs*

Maybe it's the difficulty level, but on Regent, I never really have culture flipping when I invade. I remember one game, I had two cities flip, and that was the most I ever had. Normally, I start at the border cities and work my way in, and I never have a problem.

In fact, I'm even playing a game where I've invaded a country with a poor cultural standing compared to my magnificent civilization on the other side of the world. No culture flipping.

A run of bad luck for you fellas then? I do not know.

[Dom Pedro II]

After reading through this thread... I would also like to say that it seems to me that some of these whiners (if they want something so historically accurate) should have saved themselves the $50 for the game and should've invested it in their time machines instead...

if you hate the game THAT much, WHY even bother to post here??

I hate CtP, you don't see me going into the Call to Power forums scolding the creators...

[Cyclotron]

I just think it's funny how a thread entirely not about whether culture flipping is good or bad turned into yet another wasted culture-bickering thread. It also strikes me as a waste that so many points that could actually be valid are completely mangled by baseless insults, hollow attacks, and in a completely unproductive manner. Is there any point? Has there ever been any?

Leave the fighting threads to the fighters.

[Rust]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Does it really make sense that a warrior unit can capture a city of 1e6 people?

Yes but that warrior is Conan himself.

These ppl freak about losing one or two cities in an entire game due to culture. We can only wonder how much of their property they would destroy if their civilization was completely razed by military units.

[ruskiyparen]

There is a way to stop culture flipping(or lower it dramatically) in the editor.

[Ludwig]

I notice a number of posters seem to feel that overgarrisoning - having a number of units higher than the number of citizens in resistance - will somehow prevent a city from culture-flipping.

Actually, in my experience, a city is much more likely to flip after it comes out of resistance. So I don't see how it can be directly related to resister status. Leaving additional units in it is just giving away more of your units.

I almost never take a city intact. I always raze it. Unless I take an entire opposing civ over during a single war lasting only a few turns, it just isn't worth it to try to rehabilitate their cities. If I need multiple wars to take a civ out, they will get at least one of their cities to flip during at least one of the wars. And those of you claiming that this is possible to avoid can't be serious, or have experienced amazing statistical anomalies - I have no qualms about going into the autosaves [or even further into the past] to try to get ahead of a culture flip, with garrisons, culture improvements, destroying improved paths to the enemy capital, etc. - and it doesn't work. You can go back in time 5 or 6 turns, and fate cannot be avoided. You can occasionally prevent or delay the flip, but as often as not the AI is awarded a DIFFERENT city, instead, if you try to change the outcome. Sometimes the random number is just plain old too bad to be overcome. In addition, if you get an enemy AI down to one city on Deity, you better take that city the first turn out - to keep the AI going, perfectly pacified cities you've had for 100 years and have grown back up from a bombarded size 4 or 5 will defect immediately, in large numbers.

As long as I can still burn the cities down and disband all the workers [$%&^ those guys - I've got enough workers] this is not the end of the world. It would be nice to be able to capture a civ intact once in a while, though.

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by ruskiyparen
There is a way to stop culture flipping(or lower it dramatically) in the editor.

HOOOWWW!!??? This is exactly the purpose of why I started this thread (not really to bicker about how good or bad this concept is, since i'm starting from the assumption that its bad anyway . Perhaps you know some ways this can be done?

Something I just recently tried in the editor to lower the chance of culture flipping is I set the assymlation rates to 90% for each government type, but even after 20 or 30 turns, enemy citizens in cities which i have conquered from the AI are still retaining their old nationality, and this is even after the resistance has ended. With these settings, shouldnt the enemy citizens in my recently conquered cities be assymlating into my culture in 1 or 2 turns at the most? If anyone knows how to help, please say something.

[Ludwig]

I notice a number of posters seem to feel that overgarrisoning - having a number of units higher than the number of citizens in resistance - will somehow prevent a city from culture-flipping.

Actually, in my experience, a city is much more likely to flip after it comes out of resistance. So I don't see how it can be directly related to resister status. Leaving additional units in it is just giving away more of your units.

I almost never take a city intact. I always raze it. Unless I take an entire opposing civ over during a single war lasting only a few turns, it just isn't worth it to try to rehabilitate their cities. If I need multiple wars to take a civ out, they will get at least one of their cities to flip during at least one of the wars. And those of you claiming that this is possible to avoid can't be serious, or have experienced amazing statistical anomalies - I have no qualms about going into the autosaves [or even further into the past] to try to get ahead of a culture flip, with garrisons, culture improvements, destroying improved paths to the enemy capital, etc. - and it doesn't work. You can go back in time 5 or 6 turns, and fate cannot be avoided. You can occasionally prevent or delay the flip, but as often as not the AI is awarded a DIFFERENT city, instead, if you try to change the outcome. Sometimes the random number is just plain old too bad to be overcome. In addition, if you get an enemy AI down to one city on Deity, you better take that city the first turn out - to keep the AI going, perfectly pacified cities you've had for 100 years and have grown back up from a bombarded size 4 or 5 will defect immediately, in large numbers.

As long as I can still burn the cities down and disband all the workers [$%&^ those guys - I've got enough workers] this is not the end of the world. It would be nice to be able to capture a civ intact once in a while, though.

[whosurdaddy]

And shouldnt culturally absorbing a city be an act of war!? You should not be able to annex swaths of other country's territory without any repercussions.

And yes, i do build up my own culture in my own games, its just since i consider flipping to be such a horrible concept, even when AI cities decide to defect to my culture, I TURN THEM DOWN.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy 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)

You mean the game *doesn't* have pink civ-destroying elephants in it??? Ohh, boy. I'd better lay off the martinis while playing....

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ludwig
I notice a number of posters seem to feel that overgarrisoning - having a number of units higher than the number of citizens in resistance - will somehow prevent a city from culture-flipping.
. . . And those of you claiming that this is possible to avoid can't be serious,

That is incorrect. It is very possible to control flipping in nearly all cases. In my latest game, "Cleopatra, Queen of Thebes," Cleopatra has cities close to three different capitals, and maintains those cities over hundreds of years. A sufficient garrison will always stop cultural reversion.

** WARNING ** CFC GOTM9 SPOILER **
http://www.zachriel.com/gotm.htm

In the game, "German Valor," Bismark loses a large city to flipping during a Panzer blitz. Frankly, he didn't have the forces available to secure the city and continue the blitz, so he left the city with a token garrison. By simply mopping up any remaining military resistance first, Bismark returns to the errant city and puts down the rebellion almost as an after-thought.

Two strategies: Cleopatra moves slowly and secures enemy cities one-by-one, using strong garrisons to prevent flips. Bismark moves quickly, destroys the enemy forces, leaves token garrisons, then quells any revolts afterwards.

[Rust]

Yes, that is another option that I will usually do. Just leave one unit in the city and one unit outside the city to immediately retake the city if it reverts.

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by Rust
Yes, that is another option that I will usually do. Just leave one unit in the city and one unit outside the city to immediately retake the city if it reverts.

Problem is, culturally annexing an enemy city isnt an act of war. So if one of my cities reverts after I have already signed the peace treaty with that civilization, then I have to re-declare war and risk a huge world wide war outbreak (since in the event of war, all the AI civs will declare war on me) just to recapture the city that was mine and recognized in the Peace Treaty.

Another thing that no one has responed to. There will be scenarios where turning off culture flipping will be absolutely A MUST! For example:

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. How is this supposed to be dealt with???

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy


Problem is, culturally annexing an enemy city isnt an act of war. So if one of my cities reverts after I have already signed the peace treaty with that civilization, then I have to re-declare war and risk a huge world wide war outbreak (since in the event of war, all the AI civs will declare war on me) just to recapture the city that was mine and recognized in the Peace Treaty.

Except... you don't. You don't "have" to declare war. A flip is only one city; I fail to see how war is mandatory after a single flip. If you don't want war, fight culture with culture.

Another thing that no one has responed to. There will be scenarios where turning off culture flipping will be absolutely A MUST! For example:

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. How is this supposed to be dealt with???

Easily. Either place enough units in the city to remove any chance of flipping, or lightly garrison the city and let D-Day forces re-take it if necessary. Is it really that hard? I apologize, but I just don't see the major problem in your scenario.

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Easily. Either place enough units in the city to remove any chance of flipping, or lightly garrison the city and let D-Day forces re-take it if necessary. Is it really that hard? I apologize, but I just don't see the major problem in your scenario.

So its not the least bit silly that I'd have to heavily garrison or else RAZE the cities of France which I as the allies would supposed to be liberating in order to prevent them from culturally flipping to the GERMANS???

[Venger]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy

So its not the least bit silly that I'd have to heavily garrison or else RAZE the cities of France which I as the allies would supposed to be liberating in order to prevent them from culturally flipping to the GERMANS???

Of course it's silly. Dude the whole culture/border thing is a kludge of the old SMAC border engine. A proper implementation of cultural resistance/effect would involve resistance, reduced production, guerilla units, sabotage, defection and migration, etc. But no, we just get wholesale evacuation of entire cities, garrissoned heavily with elite troops.

Why? No good reason. They just wrote it that way. Never mind that you would like to make a more measured, reasoned approach to it...

A simple cultural reversion button or slider would suffice... allowing those who like playing with strange, arbitrary rules to keep it, and those looking for something grounded in reason, to ditch it.

When BR left, he seems to have taken the lifeforce of Civ and common sense with him...

Venger

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
So its not the least bit silly that I'd have to heavily garrison or else RAZE the cities of France which I as the allies would supposed to be liberating in order to prevent them from culturally flipping to the GERMANS???

No, not at all. Especially considering the fact that Civilization simulates the rise and fall of nations over many years, not one decade... these short scenarios have always been clunky in my mind with the Civ series. When you use a long-term historical strategy game for a short-term strategic warfare simulation, there are bound to be conflicts.

[Venger]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

No, not at all.

???

Remember, when you replace a human, please put your empty alien pod out by the curb for disposal. Thanks.

Especially considering the fact that Civilization simulates the rise and fall of nations over many years, not one decade...

So why are the turns broken down into individual years?

these short scenarios have always been clunky in my mind with the Civ series. When you use a long-term historical strategy game for a short-term strategic warfare simulation, there are bound to be conflicts.

Giggle - a historical strategy game, and yet you dismiss the arguments showing how culture flipping is utterly inane and groundless historically. I think you mean to say that Civ3's culture system is a hysterical strategy game...

Venger

[Barchan]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
these short scenarios have always been clunky in my mind with the Civ series. When you use a long-term historical strategy game for a short-term strategic warfare simulation, there are bound to be conflicts.

Right, that's what I *meant* to say earlier regarding military battles. I mean, it's tough to take a game that, in its full form, covers thousands of years of time and use it to recreate an 8-10 week military campaign. You can, but there will be problems. After all (apologies to non-American readers...), you *can* play soccer with a football, but it's not going to be a very good game. I'm just saying there are better game engines to recreate individual military campaigns.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Venger
Remember, when you replace a human, please put your empty alien pod out by the curb for disposal. Thanks.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Venger
Giggle - a historical strategy game, and yet you dismiss the arguments showing how culture flipping is utterly inane and groundless historically. I think you mean to say that Civ3's culture system is a hysterical strategy game...

Please note that I used the term "historical strategy game," not "historical simulation." It should be obvious that Civ3 is based on history, but it should also be obvious that it is not a strictly realistic simulation of history.

[Keeper of Hell]

Originally posted by vondrack

Free Artistry prior to Democracy (Free Artistry allows you to build the Shakespeare's Theatre... the one that was built LONG before the very first democracy emerged!)

Actually, the first true democracy in recorded history can be found in ancient Athens, over 1,500 years before The Globe was constructed. If you're looking for something *really* ridiculous, just think about how any government based on the direct representation of all its citizens could possibly be viable in a nation of millions of people.

Edit: Well that's rather odd, this forum doesn't seem to organize threads well at all. You'd think that a direct reply to a certain post would be placed somewhere in the general vicinity of that post, rather than two pages later...

[RedBird]

Originally posted by Keeper of Hell
Well that's rather odd, this forum doesn't seem to organize threads well at all. You'd think that a direct reply to a certain post would be placed somewhere in the general vicinity of that post, rather than two pages later...

Chronological order.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have NEVER lost a city to culture flipping. That's right - never. Not under any patch. Gained plenty, but never lost any. People who ***** about culture flipping just don't know how to deal with it properly. If you don't like culture, go play a war game. This is a civilization game, and civilizations have culture. Deal with it.

I'm going to have to side with Zulu9812 I just never seem to have a problem with culture flipping. I've only lost one city and it was founded by me on an island in the middle of a huge foreign empire.

But after reading through the formula for culture flipping I can see why I've never lost a conquered city. When I attack an enemy civ I send in several units and destroy all the enemy units around the city before I attack the city.

I do this because its easier to kill them when they are not receiving the defensive bonus of the city and any potential city improvements. But according the formula, I am also shifting the culture flip stats to my favor by controlling occupying squares in the city's radius.

After I take the city I place all of my wounded units in it so they can recover for the next battle. I do this because I never send a unit into battle unless it is in the green area of hit points. Once again according to the formula I'm shifting it in my favor by garrisonning troops in the city. There are also no tiles under the opposing civs control as I secured the city's countyside before taking the city.

I always play on Diety level and have never lost a conquered city to Culture Flipping. (I lost some to Bullets Flying, but not Culture Flipping)