A new take on culture

[korn469]

Culture is going to be one of the corner stones that either justifies the statement "civ3 will provide the greatest civ experiance ever" or that will make it seem blindly misguided

the idea of culture is a rather good idea, and it can have many practical applications, from being the glue that holds an empire together, to being another factor in the decline of a civ that over extended itself, culture could defeat ICS and it could also make world conquest almost impossible

however from what we have heard about culture there seems to be one fatal flaw...

that flaw is no sacrifices have to be made to establish a dominant culture

case in point, the example presented by firaxis is that a player builds libraries to enhance their culture...that is fine, except most players are going to build libraries reguardless of what influence culture has on the game...it doesn't change current build orders taken directly from civ2

it seems that culture has just been tacked onto civ3 with some really good thoughts going into the original idea, but the application and execution of that idea appears less than perfect

for culture to become a strategy of its own there needs to be specific buildings that only contribute to culture. in civ2 libraries didn't contribute to both gold and science, factories didn't contribute to both production and gold, and in civ3 museums shouldn't contribute to both culture and gold...culture needs to have a currency of it's own if it is to standout as a viable alternative strategy

there should be an entire range of culture specific buildings throughout the ages, (forums in the ancient era, opera houses in the industrial era, movie theaters/museums in the modern era for example)

there should also be a culture specific specialist

entertainers creates luxeries
tax collectors create gold
scientists create science
and
artistist create culture

the reason that there should be building that only create culture is that a player adopting culture as one of their main strategies should have to focus resources in that area...if every happiness and science structure creates culture then culture does little to change the strategy of civ3, and players adopting the "i won't attack till i have flight" are going to benefit from this

making culture a completely seperate area will force both chariot rushers and fighter pilots to divert resources into culture, and it could slow down some of the more questionable aspects of the civilization series like super early game landings on alpha centauri

i wouldn't mind at all if libraries and courthouses added to culture but those structures alone shouldn't be the primary way of enhancing culture, Star Wars is part of american (global?) culture but although it is set in space it has little to science (maybe the science of digital editing but that's about it)...the mona lisa or the odyssey has little to do with either science or the economy, but they are some of the most recognizable aspects of culture we have

culture needs more seperation from science, gold, production, military, and happiness structures...it also needs its own specialist and it have be a strong force in the game...if you neglect culture it should have dire consequences

what do you think of this?

[TechWins]

I think certain improvements should add more culture than others. A temple should add more culture than a granary. A collisseum should add more culture than an aqueduct. Not to say that an adueduct and a granary shouldn't add culture it's just that they aren't as great an influence on culture as these other improvements are. Not all improvements should be culturally equal.

[korn469]

techwins

yes temples should add more than graneries (should they even add any?) and certain buildings should add more culture than others...but do u agree with some buildings that add only to culture? how about having a specialist for culture? do u agree with those ideas?

[Rommel393]

I also think some buildings should add more to culture than other ones. There should also be purely culture pumping improvements. But when you think about it all the culture increasing improvements also increase something else. A park system is an idea I thought of that could increase culture. But wouldn't that also make people happy? Maybe the culture increasing structures could also improve other areas but be very costly to kind of even the game out for all the strategies.

Firaxis sure has a job laid out for them.....

[DarkCloud]

that flaw is no sacrifices have to be made to establish a dominant culture

This (from Korn469) gave me an idea for the temple; the temple could have 4 options for culture:

1. Sacrafices of Humans to gods (+2 culture -1 happiness [in modern era])
2. Sacrafices of Animals to gods (+1 culture +1 happiness)
3. Worship (+1 culture)
4. Inquisition (-2 trusting points from other civs +1 happiness)

[korn469]

Darkcloud

when i said sacrifice i didn't exactly mean human sacrifice

but i have an idea about culture buildings

most buildings generate culture, like a collusieum could generate 1 culture point a turn, and a temple could generate 2, etc...

then the buildings that are culture only, like museums, could have the following effect: +50% to culture like marketplaces do with gold

this would also include culture generated from culture specialists

[To_Serve_Man]

Re: A new take on culture

Originally posted by korn469


case in point, the example presented by firaxis is that a player builds libraries to enhance their culture...that is fine, except most players are going to build libraries reguardless of what influence culture has on the game...it doesn't change current build orders taken directly from civ2

it seems that culture has just been tacked onto civ3 with some really good thoughts going into the original idea, but the application and execution of that idea appears less than perfect

Well, there are other factors and new gameplay additions that need to be looked at as well when examining culture. You state that having culture producing buildings likethe library are build regardless of the fact that it produces culture. I agree with the idea of adding new city improvements that are like the market place, but increase culture aswell as new culture only buildings/artistan population guy. However. I also feel that the addition of the new Resource system will add to the importance of culture. First, one must decide if its worth building a settler (for a new city) and worker (for a colony) or build a culture building to expand the borders. This is the first area were the building phase will reflect a players position. By expanding your culture, you must sacrifice unit production and city expantion from settlers. The pros of that though is your border expands, which is some what like creating cities. The other thing culture can do is.. from what I have read, engulf another players area. So, for a player to have a strong Cultural strategy, they can have big bargaining rights over other teams, which is very important.

[korn469]

First, one must decide if its worth building a settler (for a new city) and worker (for a colony) or build a culture building to expand the borders. This is the first area were the building phase will reflect a players position. By expanding your culture, you must sacrifice unit production and city expantion from settlers.

early on in the game there is only one reason to expand your borders and that is so you can secure resources that are close by...if you start the game beside of another civ, if they are smart they are not going to say, "hey i can engulf this civ beside of me inside of my borders! halt production on the chariots! start building a library ASAP!" cultural borders will not engulf your enimes early on, unless a single library could make your borders rapidly grow and surround your enemy then make his cities switch sides...and i don't think it will happen like that

also unless borders spread fairly rapidly, then i would say it would be much quicker just building a worker who would connect you to the resource and then build a colony...a worker will probably take like two rows of shields and a pop point...a temple will probably take four rows of shields, and a library will probably take eight rows of shields...to use a resource not only does it have to fall inside of your borders, it also has to be connected by road, so besides building culture buildings early on you will have to build workers to claim special resources and probably early on colonies will be the most effective way of securing special resources

this means that temples and libraries aren't motivated by the need to "build more culture" as your astute advisor would tell you...they are motivated by the same reasons in civ2, you will build a temple to pacify your population, you will build a library to increase your research ability

what i am saying is that culture needs a few buildings of its own, by having culture buildings this forces the player to make a real decision, no longer are there only two roads (militaristic ICS, or perfectionistic research slavery) then culture becomes its own path, and this is where strategy is involved...basically no resources are diverted from the perfectionistic research game, culture is just an added bonus to those who want to quickly aquire tech...culture is impassive and requires no strategy...what kind of choice is, should i build a library to increase science and culture or should i build a library to increase science and culture? a real choice would be should i build a library to increase science (with a small cultural benefit) or should i build a museum to increase culture?

i'm not sure what the late/mid game effects of culture are going to be yet, there just isn't enough information available to know exactly how it is going to effect the game

[TechWins]

a real choice would be should i build a library to increase science (with a small cultural benefit) or should i build a museum to increase culture?

Yes, I do like this choice much more. It adds greater depth to culture. They should be add the most culture (e.g. temple adds 3 culture then museum adds 6 culture).

[Buck Birdseed]

Cetain non-essential "artisan techs" add culture as well, IIRC.

Perhaps certain actions should detract from your culture, much like Reputation in Civ2?

[Grumbold]

Some of the Alpha screens showing culture values in their thousands did make me wonder a bit. I hope that in the final product buildings like a library or temple have a cap on exactly how much cultural strength they can produce. If it takes 200 culture to get your borders to maximum and 400 culture to make every citizen a fanatic defender of their way of life then higher values seem odd. A city with a library, museum, cathedral, colloseum and arena should quickly beat one which just has a library, no matter how long the thing has been standing, and it should not be possible to reach maximum cultural limit with a library alone.

[Fidel]

but then again perhaps culture values are only put into a relative prospective and then a coeficient of sorts (my culture vs. your culture) is used for various computations when it comes to borders, co-existence, etc....

[One More Turn!]

Given the role that buildings play in providing culture, as well as other benefits, sabotage by diplos/spies could be doubly effective in reducing the capabilities of a civ. Destroying a temple in a city doesn't just make the citizens unhappy anymore, it will reduce the power of the civ relative to all others. How much of an impact it will have, I don't know, but it does add another dimension to these attacks.

[Recurve]

It all depends on the timeline.

In 100BC you possibly would cripple a town by torching the local temple. But if you flattened Canterbury Cathedral during the middle-ages you'd turn your enemy into a nation of crusaders. In effect, you'd be doing a tyrant a great favour!

[One More Turn!]

Recurve,

Maybe that's how it should work then. A civ destroys another civ's temple/cathedral, and the citizens get made at the aggressor, not at their own government and demand war or tribute. The effect could be varied by how important the improvement is to culture or happiness. Destroy a temple, the citizens call for a trade boycott and a verbal warning or something. Destroy a cathedral, and they call for more drastic measures.