It finally happened!

[Theseus]

Coracle,

You are an experienced and thoughtful player.

In my estimation, however, you need a temple, a marketplace (and 8 luxuries), a colosseum, a cathedral, a courthouse, and a police station.

Maybe a justified war, too.

And a couple of happiness GWs to top it off.

You feel like that 60th city, far away... beyond distance and OCN.

That's OK, comes with the territory (pun intended).

However, I have a proposal:

Just like the 60th city, there should be a purpose. I might put down a 60th city for resources, or for military advantage... something!!! If and when I do, I'll invest HUGELY to get the payoff I'm looking for... and I'll eventually get it.

It's very rewarding, getting that 60th city up from 1 shield and the rest lost, up past 12 pop, with all city improvements in place...

So I ask, what does Coracle, fully built out, in WLTKD, offer to the Apolytonian Empire?

[frostycreep]

Coracle, you cant turn culture flippin off! It would ruin the game. Without it a warmonger will just build military units as if this was comand and concour red alert, as opposed to civilisation. Without culture flipping why would a warmonger need any culture? Culture flipping is in this game for a reason, to give a warmonger a challenge. You turn culture flipping off, and a warmongers map will just consist of small cities as there boundaries will not of expanded. Ok there is a random aspect that you will be unlucky but you just have to get over it im afraid. If i lose a city to culture flipping, i build up my forces and take it back again. Problem solved.

[alva]

Originally posted by Coracle

- genocide is encouraged.

agreed

"Razing" is as absurd as Flipping. A city of millions can instantly vanish leaving nothing but a grassland tile and all you need is one unit (even damaged) of any kind to do it?? Absurd.

again, agreed

posted by Coracle
Yep. We'll never have to hear about it again! Super!

hmm, you couldn't start now, could you?

[MarkG]

genocide is encouraged

in the same sense that civ1 and civ2 are promoting war and conquering the world for more than a decade now

here is another discovery! there are games in which you kill people! even more horrible, there are games where you kill aliens!!

[Coracle]

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

genocide is encouraged

in the same sense that civ1 and civ2 are promoting war and conquering the world for more than a decade now

here is another discovery! there are games in which you kill people! even more horrible, there are games where you kill aliens!!

OK, this is a good issue.


Civ 1 "promoted war" more than historical reality, and Civ 2 did that a little less with more cultural aspects. Good! It was, in that regard, more true to reality than Civ 3. How so?

First, I know some people couldn't care less about reality or truth-in-advertising, nor history. These are the same kind of folks who went to see the movie "Signs" thinking it was about an alien invasion - because that is what the ads claimed it was. It was NOT; it was some "spiritual journey". I resented being fooled; others didn't care.

So some folks also just don't care that Civ 3 was not in the tradition of Civ 1 and Civ 2, and was much less historical with very unreal concepts. We know the ones.

Well, good for them. Glad they are happy, but others were not so happy.

Civ 3 and "promoting war"?? The game OVERLY initially promotes CULTURE doing numerous arbitrary contrived things to try to play down warfare. BUT, there are two problems: it thoroughly underestimates the importance of warfare and the military throughout history, AND in the GAME MECHANICS actually in certain areas OVER PROMOTES slaughter and killing!! That is the bizarre irony of it all.

In reality, an overwhleming military force known for slaughter would see less subsequent slaughter as other towns and cities would surrender to them and beg for mercy, not daring to ever revolt (Flip) in the
future. But in Civ 3 we have towns revolting despite huge enemy militaries just over the horizon. Not smart.
And they never surrender: with a stack of thirty Immortals heading towards your town of '3' with two spearmen in it I guarantee the townspeople would surrender. Not in Civ 3, though.

Having to go through the TEDIUM of exterminating an entire civ for fear of a crazy Flip is unrealistic, and it just isn't much fun in game play either. Being able to "raze" cities of millions, instantly, with their populations vanishing is absurd and promotes genocide MORE THAN IN HISTORY or in the other Civ games!

So, while trying to give us Culture (fine idea) and less warfare (unrealistic) Firaxis has succeeded in adding to game tedium, and encouraging slaughter on a scale that even Hitler and Genghiz Khan never dreamed of.

But of course, some people look at Civ 3 the same way they do SMAC - just another Fantasy game. But I do not. It wasn't advertised that way, either.

It is just a poorly thought out, and poorly playtested, set of game concepts that are in conflict with each other to the detrement of game play.

And that's why since Firaxis can't PROPERLY use culture, Flipping has to be turned OFF.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

genocide is encouraged

in the same sense that civ1 and civ2 are promoting war and conquering the world for more than a decade now

here is another discovery! there are games in which you kill people! even more horrible, there are games where you kill aliens!!

A little tough on Coracle aren't ya?

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Tuberski


A little tough on Coracle aren't ya?

I already responded to that sophistry, above.

[MarkG]

i'll try to make some sense out for your post

Originally posted by Coracle
Civ 1 "promoted war" more than historical reality

why is "war" the opposite from "historical reality"? history is full of war. if civ1 had lots of war then it would be closer to hear rather than away from it

and Civ 2 did that a little less with more cultural aspects.

what cultural aspects exactly? elvis?
please remind me the difference between civ2 and civ1 regarding culture...

First, I know some people couldn't care less about reality or truth-in-advertising, nor history.

i care about history a lot. i dont care about historical accuracy in a game though whose first mission is to be fun.

So some folks also just don't care that Civ 3 was not in the tradition of Civ 1 and Civ 2, and was much less historical with very unreal concepts.

the same tradition which included that americans can exist at 4000bc and that you can have a greek palace while being an aztec...

Civ 3 and "promoting war"??

i didnt mention anything about civ3 and if it promotes war....

And they never surrender: with a stack of thirty Immortals heading towards your town of '3' with two spearmen in it I guarantee the townspeople would surrender. Not in Civ 3, though.

not in civ1 or civ2 either

Having to go through the TEDIUM of exterminating an entire civ for fear of a crazy Flip is unrealistic, and it just isn't much fun in game play either.

meanwhile, civ1 and civ2 had not end-game tedium either....

Being able to "raze" cities of millions, instantly, with their populations vanishing is absurd and promotes genocide MORE THAN IN HISTORY or in the other Civ games!

and in previous versions you could a starve a city to death. isnt that "genocide"

And that's why if Firaxis can't PROPERLY use culture, and cities "in revolt", Flipping has to be turned OFF.

civ games are abstract simulation of history using simple models with intention of being fun. if you cant see it as a GAME and have forgotten what it is to stop being used to a previous game and LEARN a new one, it's nobody fault....

[Theseus]

Coracle, you havin' a bad hair day, or what?

Sorry, no insult intended, but you are getting a little wound up.

For the record, I'm with you, losing all units on a flip is absurd. I'd love to see Firaxis address that in PTW.

Otherwise, you got your wish, CF will be an option. No need for further rants.

I ask again, show us Coracle in WLTKD!!

[Schee]

I don't have a specific sentence to quote but :

During WW2, the liberation of Paris can be assimilated to a culture-flip, and she was in the middle of the occupied France and was herself occupied by an army...

And after WW1, Verdun was practically destroyed, though she was more than a medium city...

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Theseus
Coracle, you havin' a bad hair day, or what?

Sorry, no insult intended, but you are getting a little wound up.

For the record, I'm with you, losing all units on a flip is absurd. I'd love to see Firaxis address that in PTW.

Otherwise, you got your wish, CF will be an option. No need for further rants.

I ask again, show us Coracle in WLTKD!!

Yea, whatever.

At least I can TURN THAT CRAP OFF. Victory is mine.

But I would have preferred an intelligent and historical approach to the whole idea of towns/cities surrendering or defecting, that instead of the idiocy Firaxis gave us, or a mere OFF switch.

[MarkG]

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

He was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out and his elbows broken,
To have his kneecaps split and his body burned away
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir Robin!

continue this way coracle, i'm soon going to reach my favorite part!

[Objectivist]

If you moved your actual palace instead of building your FP you would have never had this problem. Even if the city flipped the Palace would have just m oved to the next closest city. So shame on you for using your FP in a location where you could easily lose it to a culture flip.


As for people *****ing and moaning about culture flipping that is what for the raze city option is for. If your neighboring civ looks like i might steal some of your cities through culture, you have no choice but to attack them and burn their beautiful cities to the ground so your people wont realize how badly youve neglected them.

[alexman]

Objectivist, I don't think a 0.1% chance of having a city flip in the course of 20 turns qualifies as "easily". Besides, I already mentioned that I should have moved my Palace, in the very first post on this thread. The problem was that I didn't have a FP built yet.

Also, you might want to know that Palaces do not flip. And if you lose your Palace, it doesn't move to the next closest city. The move is somewhat unpredictable, but it depends on proximity, population, and probably city improvements.