Culture Flipping:

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by DeepO
Thanks Kull, both for the compliment and the answer to Coracle. It is hard to keep giving answers to his arguments or (personal) attacks.

Then it's time to add him to your ignore list. If somebody refuses to listen or always beats the same drum, let it go.

[DeepO]

yeah, I know. But than you sometimes miss where the thread is going. I prefer to (manually) ignore him for the most part, and only answer when there is something new to be said. I liked the screenshots he gave here, it was an opportunity to show him that he was still thinking wrongly about the issue, or was deliberately abusing an example to fit his own needs.

DeepO

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by DeepO
yeah, I know. But than you sometimes miss where the thread is going. I prefer to (manually) ignore him for the most part, and only answer when there is something new to be said. I liked the screenshots he gave here, it was an opportunity to show him that he was still thinking wrongly about the issue, or was deliberately abusing an example to fit his own needs.

DeepO

Yeah, the one's you want to ignore are usually the one's that drive the direction of the discussion......

[Ming]

[dunk]

I think culture flipping is a good thing. It encourages you to have a sufficient force to take more than one city of your opponent within a few turns. You better move quickly through the Babylonian territory or else the population will revolt against your occupation. Seems fine to me.

Sometimes I putz through a conquest (waiting for a nifty new weapon like tanks or infantry and artillery) and a city flips. Oh well, I just conquer it again in the next few turns.

I agree that an option should be implemented to de-activate culture flipping. Scenarios will definately suffer if it can't be eliminated from a game.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by miccofl
Not looking to start another discussion here, I just thought that with all the discussion on the subject it might be interesting to get a head count.

That's the very first post, and while I apologize for getting COMPLETELY off the Thread's title (I did, I admit it, wasn't intentional, just got carried away making wise cracks...), I don't think the creator considered this thread all that sacred.

But I do want to go on record that I LIKE CULTURE FLIPPING. The first time it happened (I lost a city to Ghandi), I went into shock, fell on the floor LMAO, and immediately went after the traitors!

Seriously, all these people that are complaining about losing their garrison of 9 units when a city flips and now they can't win the game have bigger issues.

Namely, how the heck were you going to conquer the world with only 9 units?

[miccofl]

That's the very first post, and while I apologize for getting COMPLETELY off the Thread's title (I did, I admit it, wasn't intentional, just got carried away making wise cracks...), I don't think the creator considered this thread all that sacred.

Sacred?

When I started this thing I knew it was going to stir up some defecation, but I really didn’t expect the defecation to impact the rotary oscillator in such grand fashion. However, if we just disregard all the statements pro and con, all the arguments, rants, raves, flames, whines and miscellaneous BS then just look at the vote, the message is clear. 20 days left...

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by miccofl
. 20 days left...

Till the end of the poll?

There certainly are a lot more people who LOVE it, rather than hate it. That suprised me, the people who hate it really get there point across....

and across....

and across....

[miccofl]

Till the end of the poll?

There certainly are a lot more people who LOVE it, rather than hate it. That suprised me, the people who hate it really get there point across....

and across....

and across....

Yeah, I shouldn’t have chosen such a long time period… Oooooooopppps!

The choice I found to be the most fascinating, was number three – the clear majority – who believe the game imitates life; you take what it gives you, you deal with it or use it to your advantage and then you move on. In retrospect I should have named the poll “Electronic Darwinism” (but then I also think Ming’s avatar should emit a running sound clip from the movie after it loads. )

[Zylka]

Now more then ever, I'm NOT a fan

[Martinus Magnificus]

I find the idea of CF interesting, but I don't like the way this concept is implemented in the game. I think it's ridiculous that it is possible to lose any garrison over 5 units. Can sombody please explain to me how citizens armed with no more than rifles at best can kill a much better armed occupying army? (now, don't bring up the Stalingrad thing again, that's only applicable to tanks). A city occupied by a reasonable force (2-6 units in game terms) should not ever be able to CF, it is simply impossible. If so, then what the heck is the idea of martial law? Wasn't that supposed to represent the power of armed forces presence?

Therefore I'm looking for a way to turn this feature off, or tone it down at least. Can someone tell me how to do that? I read something about changing the 'resistance' numbers in the editor, but I'm not sure.

If only they had made this feature optional...

[Kull]

One critical element missing from the poll is context. For example, if the poll was titled "Culture Flipping in the Basic Game" my answer would be one thing. However, if the poll asked "Culture Flipping: Should it be moddable in Scenarios" than you'd get a completely different opinion.

As I've said before, Culture Flipping is - if anything - understated in terms of it's true historical power. So I love it's inclusion in the game. But as a scenario developer, there are times it may be necessary to do away with it altogether - and it would be nice to have that option.

[Switch]

Originally posted by Coracle
"Part of the game"? Whatever crap Soren serves up is OK, huh? No sale. If a realtor sold me a house with termites I wouldn't say "it's part of the house". It is a BUG; even if Soren planned for it it is a bug because it screws up the game mechanics, is the opposite of realism, and is intenesely irritating.

I went into Editor, the Culture section, and changed every resistance rating down to nothing. Perhaps that will have an effect on this nonsense. We shall see. If not, EU2 here I come.

Regarding calling it a BUG: wrong: a bug is an unintended problem, not an intented game device (or probelm if you wish. It was still intended).

Regarding EU2: Will this mean you'll stop repetitively ranting about crap?

As to the vote, I chose the "It's in the game, deal with it." Not because I don't like it but deal with it, but merely becasue I could really care less. It's in, so I try to get high culture and flip enemy cities. If it was out, then I wouldn't. :me shrugs:

[Coracle]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO


Regarding calling it a BUG: wrong: a bug is an unintended problem, not an intented game device (or probelm if you wish. It was still intended).

Regarding EU2: Will this mean you'll stop repetitively ranting about crap?

As to the vote, I chose the "It's in the game, deal with it." Not because I don't like it but deal with it, but merely becasue I could really care less. It's in, so I try to get high culture and flip enemy cities. If it was out, then I wouldn't. :me shrugs:

OK, technically it is not a "bug". How about calliig it a "SCREW UP" or a "MISTAKE" the result of a flawed concept and poor playtesting?

"Ranting about crap". Glad you concede Flipping IS "crap". I agree. I wouldn't have to comment on it at all IF FIRAXIS listened and merely gave us some viable options - as they DID with corruption rates and crazy AI trading.

As for not caring, I guess I had higher expectations and am more discriminating regarding the quality of products I buy. Or maybe it's just that some of us care about reality in a game that supposedly is NOT a Fantasy game.

Oh well. Let me fire up EU2 for the evening. Back later. . .

[Catt]

Originally posted by Coracle



OK, technically it is not a "bug". How about calliig it a "SCREW UP" or a "MISTAKE" the result of a flawed concept and poor playtesting?

It's a design decision. It is not a "screw up" or a "mistake" (why all the yelling?), and it is not the product of "poor playtesting." Your opinion would come across better if you adhered to reasonable and widely acceptable norms of discussion and debate (regardless of what you may see in other posts), instead of labeling everything with which you disagree as "STUPID," "BRAINDEAD," a "MISTAKE" or the product of __________ Firaxis (insert one of the aforementioned perjoritives as an adjective).

Calling it a flawed concept is fair criticism - its fair because you're entitled to your opinion, not because it is objectively "fair" criticism of the game. However, making a blanket statement that the concept is flawed isn't a discussion or an argument - it's a statement. Feel free to explain why you think it's flawed, preferably without CAPS on every emotive term.

As for not caring, I guess I had higher expectations and am more discriminating regarding the quality of products I buy.

Asserting a deficiency in taste of those who disagree with you is rarely a helpful discussion tactic. I think it's fair to assume that many users who actually like the implementation of culture and culture flipping may be even more discriminating than you in many regards.

Or maybe it's just that some of us care about reality in a game that supposedly is NOT a Fantasy game.

This borders on a real argument, if only obliquely, in that rather than discussing a specific feature of the game, you choose to discuss the whole premise upon which the game is based. But, as I and others have argued before, this is one of the greatest "straw man" arguments out there. The game designers have stated, on more than one occasion, that gameplay trumps realism in the game's design. They designed the game to deliberately deviate from a more "realistic" feature or function in an effort to produce a more entertaining and engaging game. I like the game's abstacted "realism" because it is easier to become immersed in the game -- but I strongly favor more engaging gameplay over closer adherence to realism.

You may as well argue that an apple makes a really poor orange. Or you might just as well pillory the designer of a bumper pool table as a complete idiot who has no knowledge relevant to billiard table design because the bumper pool table makes a poor competition billiards table.

Back On-Topic:

I like culture flipping. It adds complexity and strategic depth to decision making. War time decision making - whether to garrison a captured city or station troops outside the city - is a tactical consideration, and a fairly straightforward one at that - I tend to have very little sympathy for complaints about war-time flips of recently conquered cities. Peace-time decision making, however, becomes more strategic with the knowledge that culture flipping is a possibility, and becomes nail-biting on the higher difficulty levels where culture flipping is a more likely event due to early AI culture leads. With AI opponents on the higher difficulty levels starting with a large number of additional units and enjoying significant production bonuses, I sense (from these boards) that the general attitude among players during the early game is to build exclusively: (1) military units; (2) settlers; and (3) the occasional worker. Temples or early libraries are not given much attention ("too costly," "a waste while a despot," "I need to reach military parity right away . . . and then superiority," etc.). But, through the implementaion of culture and culture flipping, doing so comes at a significant cost -- no cultural improvements = low civ culture (bad) and no expanding city borders (bad). Without the threat of future culture flips, why wouldn't I put off cultural improvements in favor of military and expansion units?

The decisions on whether to build culture producing city improvements or military units (especially early in the game), and the decisions as to how one conducts a war, have long-term consequences. All of these decisions play a role in culture flipping, and I suspect that because an episode of city flipping is more or less impossible to trace to one or even a few discrete decisions, but the consequences of that flip are there in one neat package for the eye to see in one instant, the cumulative effects of player decisions regarding cultural strategy are lost in the anger and shock of losing a city.

Culture flipping imposes a penalty, often severe, on those who neglect culture. Culture flipping, IMHO, adds to the balance of culture / science / militarism within the game -- without it, again IMHO, the game would favor militarism to such a degree as to end its replayable life far too quickly.

Catt

[Lord Merciless]

Culture flipping is generally a good idea, but poorly implemented.

[ACooper]

I like it. I love it. I want some more of it!


BTW, it's interesting that less than 12% who responded don't like it. But, this is an unscientific poll.

[Martinus Magnificus]

I think it's rather stupid to continue this discussion whether CF is good or bad. It is clear that some of us like it and others don't. So the only logical solution I see, is for Firaxis to make this a optional feature.

For me, I'd turn it off ASAP, since I think the concept is badly implemented. A garrison of 5-6 units should always be sufficient to prevent CF, and a weaker garrison should never vanish in thin air. Instead, it should be damaged and pushed out of the city.

I would like to know if there's some way to tone CF down in the editor. Anybody?

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus
I would like to know if there's some way to tone CF down in the editor. Anybody?

Give yourself 100 000 culture points from the start, and disable cultural victory. (If this is possible, I'm not familiar with the editor). Of course this will mean that AI cities will fall for your culture as flies, but it will also mean that one troop is sufficient to keep a size 30, resisting enemy city in your own empire. As long as the AIs do not build up their culture to the same level of course, but if you still have problems, give yourself 10 000 000 culture in the editor.

Which is basically also an answer to all of you who have asked for an option of turn CF off in scenarios: just give yourself 10 times the culture of the enemy, and there will be no problems with flipping, or losing troops in a recently conquered city. There might be a problem in that cities wil fall for you before you even reach it with troops, but that can be quite easily adjusted by decent city placement (i.e. not Borg style; no overlap in enemy cities).

DeepO

[Grumbold]

If overlap is a significant factor it might be easier to tweak the settling distance so nobody settles too close to other cities.

[DeepO]

Grumbold, this was mentioned in this same thread a number of times now (so pardon me if I don't spend too much time on it), but yes, overlap is a factor in the flip chances. Without any foreign citizens and without overlapping foreign squares (squares in your 21-tile city radius controlled by another nation) there is no chance of flipping.

The total culture rating only comes into play once you have foreign citizens or tiles, and will change the magnitude of flip chances. A very high culture will mean you have very low chances of CFs, and most of the people complaining about CF simply do not play balanced, and forget about culture, thinking it is not an integral part of the game.

DeepO

[faded glory]

Right on Coracle! Culture flipping is perhaps one of the most retarded aspects of this game


Hello. I have 30 units in a city and all of a sudden the city "Switches" and those men disappear/defect. What utter BS. This never happened in real life. Nor could it ever. I dont give a flying bobcats ass how hard the palestinians fight. There will never be a palestine until they stop fighting. Some things just dont and cant happen. Culture flipping is one of them. I dont see Israeli troops (having been in the west bank for 50 years) converting to Islam. On the contrary, there are 200,000 Christians and 400,000 jews in the west bank. There numbers are surging each year.

Anyway. What does this all have to do with Civ3? Im just saying. I hate this feature. TAKE IT OUT! LET US DISABLE IT. For those who like. Im happy for you

[asleepathewheel]

I personally like this part of the game. It has never really caused me problems.

But if there is an option to remove CF, then good, people will have to whine about other things then.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by DeepO
The total culture rating only comes into play once you have foreign citizens or tiles, and will change the magnitude of flip chances. A very high culture will mean you have very low chances of CFs, and most of the people complaining about CF simply do not play balanced, and forget about culture, thinking it is not an integral part of the game.

I think you're being a little unfair. Even the most culturally minded player gets hit with it full force the minute they capture an enemy city because the city culture drops to 0. In most of my games I am the leading cultural player and foreign cities are still too much bother to restrain once captured.

If overlap is still significant in increasing the flip chance with a 100% foreign city then it would be useful to prevent the AI from bunching cities too much. If its a negligible factor then the only sensible option remains razing the city to the ground and replacing it with one of your own (or starving it down to minimal population if you prefer).

[DeepO]

Grumbold, I might be unfair, but I do keep my opinion that those that whine most about CF don't bother to build up a lot of culture. And I think I posted the CF formula link somewhere on this thread, which will show you that Total culture is always the biggest factor, even if you're right that city culture drops to 0 when you capture it (in fact it doesn't, it will remember the culture the original player had, and if that is higher then the new owner (which is most of the times the cases), it will add another factor 2 to the chance).

Overlap can be significant, but you don't have to be paranoic about it, and use that as an excuse to raze cities. I haven't done any razing in months, no matter how big the overlap was. Yet I haven't got more then two hostile flips on me in a game either after I helped in the formula thread. The reason is simple, even if you are a warmonger, you will need culture or your new citizens will revolt. If you have enough culture, they will not revolt. If you somehow aren't able to get enough culture (playing at the highest levels can do this sometimes, even if Emperor shouldn't be a problem here), you have to look into other solutions, like WLTKD, or pushing back the enemy territory fast.

There is no problem whatsoever with this, so there is no need for the whiners either: if you can't play the game like it was designed (which is a totally different argument then whether it would be realistic), you either learn it, or quit. Whining only shows the inability to adapt to a given situation.

DeepO

[Thrawn05]

I don't see the big deal with cultue flipping. Cities switching sides is nothing new. CIV SNES had it, and you could call it culture flipping because I (Rome) had almost all the wonders and china had none, so theirs cities were flipping to me like mad. The bad thing about this is that I got all the sucky 90% corrupt cities that took 40 turns to build a damn Mech Infantry.

At least the cities that flip are next to you, that's a bonus for me.


And of course if you don't flipping, edit it.

[Cyclotron]

I have to agree with Thrawn... there are many things in many games that I would have done differently, but I just can't fathom how CF is somehow so egregious that it merits a huge running rant throughout this entire forum. The reaction by a few sore people seems to be very exaggerated compared to the actual impact of the feature...

[N. Machiavelli]

Well, the ranters are going to rant about something regardless. Pick your poison.

[metalhead]

Why does it always seem that the people who complain about CF the most seem to be the ones who are too dense to realize that placing a large garrison in a recently captured city is a classic blunder, on par with starting a land war in Asia? I mean, seriously, people who have apparantly been playing the game for months are STILL complaining when this happens? I would think they would have picked up on the game mechanic by now and realized NOT to place more than 1 troop in a captured city at ANY TIME until the city's original civ has been eradicated, or at least driven far away from the area. Complaining because you don't like it and making constructive criticism, even if done ad nauseum, would be understandable, but losing a garrison in a city because you still fail to grasp the game mechanics is YOUR fault, not the programmers. Play within the parameters of the game as it is now and save yourself (and us) a lot of useless ranting and raving.

Also, borders flipping over resources, while obviously extremely annoying, is not all that unrealistic. I don't know if you realize this, but every nation in the entire world is currently engaged in a border dispute. EVERY ONE! National borders are intrinsically fluid and ever-changing. Now granted, the way such border flipping over resources (which has never once happened to me - because os such phenomena I make sure that reources are safely within my borders) is implemented is a little shaky and unrealistic, but borders change constantly in real life as well.

That being said, I voted for the most popular option - it's part of the game, deal with it (or whatever.) I would have voted that I like it, but it should be made optional for those who don't, but that was not a choice. It really doesn't make sense to not allow culture flipping to be turned off. However, to not adapt to the current state of the game, and then rant when it backfires, is utter stupidity! And, if you really hate that the AI's culture border just claimed a needed resource, well, just march your army in there and take it back!

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by metalhead
Why does it always seem that the people who complain about CF the most seem to be the ones who are too dense to realize that placing a large garrison in a recently captured city is a classic blunder, on par with starting a land war in Asia?

I agree. I just took greece today south of me. I used only Cavalry for this. I kept only two units, both with really low HP, to garrison the city while the rest continued to divide the nation (I usualy never captured, but in this case they had the ONLY coal on the continent).

The concept of boarders was a major selling point for me with Civ3. I hated having chinese forces right next to Rome all the time in Civ SNES, and the senate saying I can't kill any of them (there were 15 riflemen and 10 knights).

I'm sure Firaxis had a hard time trying to figure out how to make boarders. You don't want the game to break down with units that made a tile yours or somthing like that. Yes it could be done better, but tell me a feature in Civ3 that someone hasn't said could be done better?

Hopefully they can improve the system in Civ4. Such as buying/trading land, colonies and forts having some boarders. Things like this.