Is Culture Flipping unbalancing?

[Harovan]

Bad example, Vienna as the capital can not flip, Austria flipped as a whole for a reason very different of culture. I think every Austrian would be insulted to death if he would be culturally compared with a German. This works the other way as well.

But there have been numerous examples of culture flipping throughout the history. Lots of seemingly successful conquests ended up as long term failures, because the conquerors were "assimilated" by the local population. China comes to mind, which was conquered by the Mongols, but it remained to be China in the end without combat. The Mongolians simply got lost among the Chinese without countable cultural influence. Or numerous Germanic tribes conquering parts of Rome.

But this historical flipping was a long, floating process, not a sudden switch like it is implemented in Civ3. Also, it happened with conquered territory, I can't think of a single example of peaceful flipping (though there may be some, I am not a history expert). This is why I call it "poorly implemented". There are better solutions, like a slow loss of population in border cities or others. Sudden flipping is the easiest to implement, but the most annoying for the player. But the predicate unfun has never been a hinderance to implement something in Civ3.

Let's see how Civ4 works out. There have been some announcements by Mr. Johnson in his presentation, about eliminating unfun elements. But this is theory. More practical reasons like limited budget and even more limited development time will most likely strangle this noble intention.

[hexagonian]

If Firaxis is retaining the high corruption level for cities, especially for cities on the fringes of an empire, I'd favor actual shield and gold transfers from those cities rather than population transfer. These transfers would not be affected by corruption either.

If city A loses a pop. to city B, but that pop. does not really add anything to city B except another mouth to feed (because of high corruption) then there is little to gain by it.

Production and gold transfers, however, can make culture lucrative without the brazen aggrivation caused by a flip. Sorta like slowing bleeding your rival to death.

[eris]

Originally posted by Vince278
Never liked flipping. Very unrealistic. I'd also like to hear some good historical examples that match what happens in the game.

Any city outside of the US that has a McDonald's in business is already in the first stages of culture flipping. Other symptoms include Coca Cola, Rock and Roll, and TV sitcoms. Beware.

[Rommel2D]

McDonalds now serves salads and British Rock and Roll was the cause of the Vietnam defeat.

Coke should be a new resource in Civ4...

All hail New York's Sienfeld!

[dunk]

Originally posted by Theseus
Oh, Coracle?? Where are you??

Has he been here lately? I haven't popped into this forum for quite a while. I miss his

[conmcb25]

I dont find it unbalancing and it adds another dimension to the game.

Like someone previously said starve down the city and add a worker or two.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by gunkulator


The problem with keeping most units outside the city is that you'll never end the resistance in any decent sized city. You need units inside the city for that. Until the resistance ends, you can't starve down the population.

And just how do unarmed civilians defeat so many fighting men and not suffer even one citizen lost? I know realism isn't the end-all but come on.

When the host civ has been finally conquered, then you can garrision the city safely, and that will end the resistance.

[Vince278]

I also never liked losing that cool stack of death when the city flips, especially when their best regular troops were unable to stop it. What happens to them? I guess the city gets them all drunk then runs around slitting throats will they are passed out.

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by hexagonian
If Firaxis is retaining the high corruption level for cities, especially for cities on the fringes of an empire, I'd favor actual shield and gold transfers from those cities rather than population transfer. These transfers would not be affected by corruption either.

If city A loses a pop. to city B, but that pop. does not really add anything to city B except another mouth to feed (because of high corruption) then there is little to gain by it.

Production and gold transfers, however, can make culture lucrative without the brazen aggrivation caused by a flip. Sorta like slowing bleeding your rival to death.

From reading your post, it doesn't sound like you are talking about the Civ3 culture flip. Population does not move from one city to another, but cities are suddenly assimilated by the superior culture in whole. Perhaps you were thinking of that game in your head that is both more realistic and fun to play...

[edit: upps, just figured out you were responding to something Sir Ralph mentioned. BTW- flipping is more likely the closer to a capitol you are, so corruption would be that much less a factor...]

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
But there have been numerous examples of culture flipping throughout the history. Lots of seemingly successful conquests ended up as long term failures, because the conquerors were "assimilated" by the local population. China comes to mind, which was conquered by the Mongols, but it remained to be China in the end without combat. The Mongolians simply got lost among the Chinese without countable cultural influence. Or numerous Germanic tribes conquering parts of Rome.

But this historical flipping was a long, floating process, not a sudden switch like it is implemented in Civ3. Also, it happened with conquered territory, I can't think of a single example of peaceful flipping (though there may be some, I am not a history expert). This is why I call it "poorly implemented". There are better solutions, like a slow loss of population in border cities or others. Sudden flipping is the easiest to implement, but the most annoying for the player. But the predicate unfun has never been a hinderance to implement something in Civ3.

The Mongol comparison doesn't seem to hold water as I believe they conquered and ruled the whole of China for many generations. The Germanic tribes would be a better example as the Palace was maintained in Rome (and later 'jumped' to Constantinople ;-).

I'm not very familliar with the specifics of the Greek-Persia conflict pb2k, but being part of an invasion doesn't sound like a comperable situation.

Would the Hong Kong situation be closer to a flip or to a diplomacy 'gifting'?

I was also thinking of the USA assimilating Toronto, but couldn't put a date on the event...

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Rommel2D
The Mongol comparison doesn't seem to hold water as I believe they conquered and ruled the whole of China for many generations. The Germanic tribes would be a better example as the Palace was maintained in Rome (and later 'jumped' to Constantinople ;-).

So? And is it Mongolia now? Or got the Mongols expelled by force? No to both. The Mongols got integrated, swallowed by the Chinese population. It is a much better example than with the Germanic tribes.

As I said, historical cultural conversion is a long, floating process. It has nothing to do with the sudden, annoying flippage à la Firaxis.

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
As I said, historical cultural conversion is a long, floating process. It has nothing to do with the sudden, annoying flippage à la Firaxis.

But if you take into account the years that pass with each turn, then early flips are exactly what you describe - they can occur a couple turns after the city has been conquered. So the process is long, taking at least 20-30 years and often much longer. Just the implementation lacks, because there are no foreshadows of the event. Later in the game the fips are simply uprisings and those are fast and violent. Sort of like the present situation in Iraq, following the American conquest...

[Harovan]

Yes, let's hope the 140,000 troops suddenly disappear.

[punkbass2000]

"I'm not very familliar with the specifics of the Greek-Persia conflict pb2k, but being part of an invasion doesn't sound like a comperable situation."

Care to elaborate why? There were many Greek city-states. The Great War(s) with Persia was(ere) imminent. Several polis abandoned their Greek brethren and joined the Persians. I'll admit it's not exactly like CivIII mechanics, but I think you're asking for too much if you expect that from anything in CivIII. Can you give me a historical example of an ROP-rape? The Pyramids putting granaries in all Egyptian cities? A unit that can move at infinite speed? Or can you accept that everything in this and any simulation game is merely an approximate abstraction of real world events?

[Rommel2D]

Well, right-of-passage agreements are the basis of the game mechanics and obvious enough. The RoP-rape is a strategy and construct of the player (but wouldn't Germany-Italy in WWII be such a situation?)

The Pyramids as a 'Wonder' indeed awed and inspired the Egyptain population. The results could readily have been increased agricultural production without the normal investment in infrastructure, IMO.

A rail transportation network is much more efficient than it's contemporary road network. The CivIII implementation of this could use serious refinement, but there are plenty of threads already dedicated to that...

Every facet of the game that I can think of seems like a (mostly) elegant abstraction of some historical reality, except for the sudden, city-based culture flip. It seems more like a clumsy, last minute idea kludged into the game to get it out the door before an Infogrames deadline...