{The List-} Culture

[Brent]

Pedrunn: What's the point? that is completely different from Civ3. You are in essence eliminating Culture Groups.

Culture Groups and Landmasses

If all playable civs on one landmass are of one Culture Group, all nonplayer civs on the same landmass also belong to that Culture Group. If all playable civs in a game are of the same Culture Group, there could be nonplayer civs of other Culture Groups on landmasses with no playable civs.

Culture and Roads

Have culture travel faster along roads. Let culture eventually travel as far as a road goes until it meets another civ's culture. Let culture travel faster in tiles immediately adjacent to roads than otherwise.

Culture and World Size

If you are on a very large world with few rivals, let culture travel faster.

Borders

Let borders work a little more like in SMAC.

Arch Enemies

If there are varying levels of Culture Groups, such as micro and maybe two larger levels, let civs of the same Micro culture group be more likely to be arch enemies.

[Rasputin]

you can sure see the SP versus MP people. here. SP wants all civs to have differnet culture, MP wants equality.

we almost nee dtowo differnet games, a historic one for polaying as a SP alone to re do history with the same culture as historicla civilisations. and another game for the MP people with fuly balanced civilistations.

[Brent]

Sure, they could do a side game, a little closer to the main series than Colonization was.

[Rasputin]

hopefully civ4 will be a continuation of the tradition of civ aqnd not a completly differnet game . many civ2 people feel that civ 3 was too radically changed and didnt warrant the name civ3, same as the calltopower games may have originally had the civilisation title but werent the sequel to civ2 ....

[Kramsib]

FROM THE SPANISH COMMUNITY LIST

26. When a city flips there should be a fight among the garrisoned units and the revolted citizens. The CTP system is a good idea to get inspired.

[Rasputin]

do i need to go buy ctp, or will you explain more

[Kramsib]

Ok, lets explain (I though I was suppossed to be brief, anyway you can ask anyone who has CTP).

When in Civ III a city flips, there is no matter how many units you have in the city, they are killed without a chance of defending themselves.

A fight between rebels and garrisoned units should be interesting. When a city is going to flip there should be a combat between the garrisoned units and the city rebels.

The city rebels would have the same number of units the number of rebel citizens in the city, then a normal combat begins with possible losses for both, if a rebel dies, a citizen is lost, if a garrisoned unit dies, it dies (obviously).

If rebels win, the city flips (or in other case, a new nation is proclaimed), if does not, the city remains in your hands (but your garrisoned units are weaker).

As the idea is quite general it could be combined with other ideas, for example, unit loyalty, some of your garrisoned units could support the revolution and would fight with the rebels against you.

I hope I have been able to communicate what I mean in a clear way.

[Rasputin]

very well explained.

i still think the current issue of culture flipping isnt as big as some people make out, i hav enot had a single city flip one me since my very early games.

whenever i take a city now i garison it with enough units to quell the resistaqnce. then i make sure i build culture quickly in that city and surrounding citys to make sure it doesnt get culturally assimilated back into the enemy.

mant times i have managed to get AI citys into my onw by getting my culture to expand and cause the city to flip to my side.

i like this in the game.

most saved game si seen of othe rpeoples where they claim thaqt flipping is bad, i usually see not enough gassisons or no culture near the conquered city to retain it.

[Aqualung71]

Read up the top somewhere some ideas about sacking cities. As a related issue, I think when a capital is sacked (or abandoned), there should be no "new" capital created automatically - you should have to build a new palace somewhere. This would have the added bonus of nerfing the palace jump exploit.

[Rasputin]

totally agree, a free palace is not good for game balance, neither human nor AI should get it free, needs t obe rebuilt in new city

[Flinx]

Originally posted by Kramsib
Ok, lets explain (I though I was suppossed to be brief, anyway you can ask anyone who has CTP).

When in Civ III a city flips, there is no matter how many units you have in the city, they are killed without a chance of defending themselves.

A fight between rebels and garrisoned units should be interesting. When a city is going to flip there should be a combat between the garrisoned units and the city rebels.

The city rebels would have the same number of units the number of rebel citizens in the city, then a normal combat begins with possible losses for both, if a rebel dies, a citizen is lost, if a garrisoned unit dies, it dies (obviously).

If rebels win, the city flips (or in other case, a new nation is proclaimed), if does not, the city remains in your hands (but your garrisoned units are weaker).

As the idea is quite general it could be combined with other ideas, for example, unit loyalty, some of your garrisoned units could support the revolution and would fight with the rebels against you.

I hope I have been able to communicate what I mean in a clear way.

I like this idea. More realistic than the current model.

[Rasputin]

the current model assumes your units disband as they prefer the culture of your enemy but also prefer to no longer be part of an army... there is no locals fighting your army, it is a culture flip not a military coup ...

[Arrian]

My thoughts on culture:

The current (CivIII) system is basically good, but can use some sprucing up.

Maybe there should be two things: Culture and Influence

Culture would be more of an internal thing - how your people react to other civs. If your civ has lots of culture, your citizens are more likely to resist foreign occupation, less likely to defect, etc. Culture would be built up over time, probably via buildings like in CivIII. I'd add some buildings and throw in more obselesence to the current ones, but that's another matter and not all that important... I also liked the idea (GePap?) posted regarding a new specialist that produced culture.

Influence would be a "right now" sort of thing. Sort of like power, but taking more into account. Tech level, wealth, population, military strength, stuff like that. It's a snapshot of your civ's influence on any given turn, as opposed to something that builds over time (culture).

Anyway, culture should boost other civ's attitudes towards yours, whereas influence should help you get what you want diplomatically. Influence should probably also have a negative effect on attitude once you hit a certain level of influence (nobody likes the dominant nation). Having lots of culture can help mitigate that.

Unlike CivIII, I don't think having lots of culture should help you control the cities of a civ you are conquering. Currently, if you have dominant culture, you have a much easier time crushing resistance and holding the cities. It shouldn't really have anything to do with YOUR culture, but rather your opponent's culture. If their culture sucks, the conquest should meet with a low level of resistance. If they have high culture, it should be a pain, no matter how much culture you have.

When you capture a city, the cultural buildings should not vanish (they should stand the same chance of being destroyed in battle as all other buildings do) and should continue generating culture for the other civ, albeit at a reduced rate. The amount of culture in that particular city should - along with the size of the city - determine the amount of resistance.

Wiping a civ out should not wipe out their culture. It should halt the accumulation of more culture points, but the culture (and therefore resistance and whatnot) should remain, and simply diminish in relative strength over time as other civs' culture continues to grow. If captured cities of the vanquished civ are left ungarrisoned, partisans should be able to re-take them and literally reincarnate the civ.

Apologies for the rambling, and if this is duplicative of other's ideas... I didn't make it through the entire thread.

-Arrian

[okblacke]

Arrian,

Good stuff! If I were Firaxis, this is the sort of suggestion I'd be looking for. Not too bogged down in detail and clearly expressed.

One thing I particularly like is the culture buildings not going away. They could go back to full power if the city is recaptured. Paris is no less cultured for having been captured numerous times.

[Rasputin]

ok time to summarize this lot......