Cultural value of captured cities should stay!

[Robert Plomp]

Say the French have Paris,
Paris contains some old churches, The Eiffel Tower, and more of that cultural stuff.

Now I, the rampaging dutch hordes, take over Paris.
unfortunately we burn down the old temple, but the eiffel tower and the Sacre Coeur (or what is it named like?) survive the fight.

Why would Paris suddenly have left over no cultural value at all? The eiffel tower and the Cathedral still have a cultural value. Pherhaps even more because it was build by the ancient french. Of course there's no cultural value for the lost temple anymore (unless there's one wall left over, like some city somewhere in the middel east has )

Thus, I say that in Civ3:PtW the change should be made that big cities keep the cultural value earned by the 'left over' buildings after being captured.

It makes no sence that such a city is completely cultural downgraded after an attack.

[Gangerolf]

It's still French culture (not Dutch), the Dutch won't get any culture points from the buildings they didn't build themselves.

[Caliban]

No culture points for buildings you didn't build... easy formula.

Btw, the Germans conquered Paris once, and weren't interested in cultural... affairs.

As is any invader.

Even the Dutch.

[Nubclear]

However a number of years later, they shjould begin getting culture again. The ancient egyptians build the pyramids but now modern day egyptians are getting 'culture points' for it.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
The ancient egyptians build the pyramids but now modern day egyptians are getting 'culture points' for it.

Well, this happens also in Civ3 every time I play as the Egyptians.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by lockstep


Well, this happens also in Civ3 every time I play as the Egyptians.

I mean ancient egyptians built it and muslim 'egyptians' are getting culture points. If you didnt know already.

[GhengisFarb™]

So what you're saying is the Dutch shouldn't generate any culture from the Temple/Wonder they now control unless they remodel it in a Dutch theme? So, does that mean they would have to build a big windmill on to it to make it generate Dutch culture?

[Dimorier Maximus]

Yeah, if you are Dutch, you should be able to add a windmill to the top of any wonder you capture. Then it should start generating culture for you.

[Robert Plomp]

I'm sure that if we, the dutch, will conquer Egypt (blink, and we did it! ) of course first there will be a few years of resistance, but after, let's say 10 years........... the pyramids will have the same cultural value they ever had.

It's not suddenly like people will say: "Oh mam, let's visit those new pyramids build by the dutch 10 years ago"

Btw, the Germans conquered Paris once, and weren't interested in cultural... affairs.

That's because there were some USSR people knocking on their east door, and some Canadian / Britisch / American guys who were knocking on ther west door.

But if you would have given them more time, they would surely have loved to visit Paris from Germany to see the Eiffel Tower.

[Panag]

hi ,

YES , IT SHOULD STAY !!!

have a nice day

[ixnay]

After a certain amount of time - perhaps when the city's population is completely assimilated - the wonders should start generating culture again.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
Yeah, if you are Dutch, you should be able to add a windmill to the top of any wonder you capture. Then it should start generating culture for you.

or plant a tulip field in front of it to have the same effect

[Panag]

Originally posted by ixnay37
After a certain amount of time - perhaps when the city's population is completely assimilated - the wonders should start generating culture again.

hi ,

, nope its fine the way its now , ....
there is even a sence of logic (!) behind it , .....

have a nice day

[lockstep]

Originally posted by ixnay37
After a certain amount of time - perhaps when the city's population is completely assimilated - the wonders should start generating culture again.

This may need fine-tuning (because 'completely assimilated' could mean 'never' in a lot of cases), but I actually like the idea.

[Robert Plomp]

there is even a sence of logic (!) behind it , .....

No, there is not.
The pyramids won't start with a cultural ZERO value after being captured. Their cultural value will be the same. The city will keep it's cultural value and famousness.

Paris won't be a cultural ZERO city after being captured.

there's no logic behind that.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The pyramids won't start with a cultural ZERO value after being captured. Their cultural value will be the same.

And it will stay the same - in the EGYPTIANS' overall cultural value. Being captured simply stopped additional culture production of the Pyramids - which means no culture FOR YOU.

IMO, there IS logic behind that.

[Purple]

The cultural points are a secondary benefit that only goes to the original builder. The primary benefit (e.g., granaries in every city) does transfer to the conqueror, right?

That seems fair to me.

Here's a question:

If the original builder loses, then retakes a city with a Wonder, does culture start flowing again?

[Robert Plomp]

And it will stay the same - in the EGYPTIANS' overall cultural value. Being captured simply stopped additional culture production of the Pyramids - which means no culture FOR YOU.

Why does it matter who build it?
A City is attractive because of it's past. No matter which leader ruled the city in the past.

And the more time passed by after the building was created, the more value it has. Again, no matter who was the original creator. We don't know who build Stone Henge, but hey, the british are the one who we credit for it. The Taleban didn't care about the Bhuda buildings, but it was not like the entire world said: "YEah, you can blow them up, they have no cultural value after you conquiered it"

After you took a city, the cultural value = 0, but from that moment on culture starts to grow again.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The Taleban didn't care about the Bhuda buildings, but it was not like the entire world said: "YEah, you can blow them up, they have no cultural value after you conquiered it"

In Civ3 terms: The taliban razed a wonder, which made other civs 'furious' with them and in the end added to their obliteration. But had the taliban kept the statues, they would not have gained any culture from them.

After you took a city, the cultural value = 0, but from that moment on culture starts to grow again.

Why not take ixnay37's idea as a compromise: When a conquered city is vastly or completely assimilated, wonders start generating culture for you, maybe at a reduced rate (like in mobilization). So there's an additional gameplay reason not to raze cities with obsolete wonders. (Note: You'd still have to build temples, libraries etc. from scratch.)

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Quote:

there is even a sence of logic (!) behind it , .....

No, there is not.
The pyramids won't start with a cultural ZERO value after being captured. Their cultural value will be the same. The city will keep it's cultural value and famousness.

Paris won't be a cultural ZERO city after being captured.

there's no logic behind that.

hi ,

hang on , there was a loooong talk about from the Firaxians , now where is that talk , they explained it all , and it made perfect sence , ..... ( back then that is (!) )

have a nice day

[Bleyn]

I suspect the real reason that captured cities drop back to zero is that it would make a cultural victory easier than it is now. Extremely easy. Too easy.

I mean, if you haven't been focusing much on your own culture, and conquering a lot, you would probably start conquering cities with a lot of culture. It would make it distinctly possible that you might end up capturing enough culture to win that way before you won by the conquest or domination methods on a regular basis. And if you were building up your own culture, this would happen even faster. Its possible they may have tried it at one time, but found that it was too unbalancing.

Though, it would also make culture flipping almost totally impossible. And trying to display the cultural values from upwards of 16 different city owners on the city screen would be a mess.

Personally, I like the cultural system the way it is for the most part, and this is one of the things that doesn't bother me.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
It's still French culture (not Dutch), the Dutch won't get any culture points from the buildings they didn't build themselves.

That is the stupid and arbitrary Civ 3 rule. But in REALITY (something Firaxis never liked) you WOULD get culture from other nations' stuff, and that includes paintings, sculptures, various artists, etc. You woulnd't get it all, of course, but you should surely get SOMETHING. There are various historical examples of this - of one civ getting a cultural boost by occupying another civ's cities, even if only temporarily.

[ACooper]

OT: I think Coracle is a script.

On Topic: I think it is fine the way it is. If the French built the building, why should the Germans gain any thing from it? I might agree with giving a few points after the citizens are mostly German, though I would give this alot a thought first.

[Robert Plomp]

I suspect the real reason that captured cities drop back to zero is that it would make a cultural victory easier than it is now. Extremely easy. Too easy.

the cultural victory sucks anyway. I always turn it off.

[mwaf]

semi-on-topic:

Originially posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS in the thread Culture-Flipping Exposed

3) I didn't even know this, but apparently each city has a "memory" and remembers the total amount of culture generated by any civ who has ever occupied it. This is the 3rd most important factor, because if the "attacking" civ has more historical culture in the city than the "defender", the chance of that city flipping to the attacker are doubled. This is one reason that conquered cities often flip back to their previous owners.

[Robert Plomp]

I knew about that.

- a city starts producing culture from 0 from the first time it's owned by ANY civilization. From that moment on it will REMEMBer that cultural value.

- If you build a temple in 3000 BC, and it lasts until 1000 BC, the temple has some cultural value.

Now comes the joke: When you completely destroy the temple, the city KEEPS the cultural value generated by the temple.

That's like we, the dutch, will RAZE Paris, so there are only 10 people living. The city is almost gone to dust, weren't it that we, the dutch were that mercyfull with those last 10 citizen.

In civ that means this city, that has no cultural buildings at all anymore, still has HIGH HIGH HIGH cultural value to the french.

It should be like this:
- a city only has culture for the buildings that ARE currently in the city.
- after a city has been captured, there CAN be ruins left over, which still generate culture, but not as much as the original building, but let's face it, an old ruin of the Colloseum is still cool.

These are simple concepts that would have made the cultural thing much more valuable and fun.

[Panag]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I knew about that.

- a city starts producing culture from 0 from the first time it's owned by ANY civilization. From that moment on it will REMEMBer that cultural value.

- If you build a temple in 3000 BC, and it lasts until 1000 BC, the temple has some cultural value.

Now comes the joke: When you completely destroy the temple, the city KEEPS the cultural value generated by the temple.

That's like we, the dutch, will RAZE Paris, so there are only 10 people living. The city is almost gone to dust, weren't it that we, the dutch were that mercyfull with those last 10 citizen.

In civ that means this city, that has no cultural buildings at all anymore, still has HIGH HIGH HIGH cultural value to the french.

It should be like this:
- a city only has culture for the buildings that ARE currently in the city.
- after a city has been captured, there CAN be ruins left over, which still generate culture, but not as much as the original building, but let's face it, an old ruin of the Colloseum is still cool.

These are simple concepts that would have made the cultural thing much more valuable and fun.

hi ,

, that amount of culture is to remember what city it ones used to be , .....like in the history books , ....

the remains of the ancient city of Paris , ......

have a nice day

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
However a number of years later, they shjould begin getting culture again. The ancient egyptians build the pyramids but now modern day egyptians are getting 'culture points' for it.

If the Germans held the Eiffel Tower in 2200 AD, I doubt it would generate anything but resentment. If anything previous culture should generate resentment. The Serbs are still enraged about things that happened 800 years ago.

[Purple]

Here's a question:

If the original builder loses, then retakes a city with a Wonder, does culture start flowing again?

Does anyone know? Has anyone out there lost, then recaptured a Wonder city?

[Robert Plomp]

The Egyptians did.