A new take on culture

[korn469]

LaRusso

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

i think you have described exactly how border disputes are going to work in civ3

this is a quote from the civfanatics site

Peaceful assimilation of enemy cities: When the sphere of influence increases and borders expand to a point that they're encroaching on enemy territory, a number of factors come into play that determine how the border cities react to the presence of a new culture. If a border city of the opposing culture has very few cultural points, there's a strong chance that it will be assimilated into the dominant culture as the game progresses, eliminating the need for a military force to move in and conquer it.

Every population point that gets built in Civilization III has a nationality. If you're France, every person that's born in one of your cities is French, and they have cultural ties to France.

i think in civ3 that a strong culture will convert citizens from one nationality to another, so lets say you i build a base on the edge of your borders beside one of your large cities, my little one population base (especially if it is outside of the rest of my borders) will undergo a total conversion...my one citizen will change nationality and will revolt and become part of your empire...whereas if my city had of had a stronger culture and you conquered it then it could present occupation headaches for you

recurve

i don't exactly understand what you mean

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!

can you please explain what you mean in greater detail?

One More Turn!

i don't think the citizens will make demands upon you, besides keeping them happy...that sounds more like something found in tropico (its a great game you should try it if you haven't already) but i don't think it will fit in civ

my point is that with the information currently available, culture doesn't sound like it will be an active strategy that you pursue and devote resources too...it sounds if you follow the perfectionist strategy of building up happiness building and science building that this will take care of culture for you, so if you are trying to go for a quick victory by flying to alpha centauri culture is just an added benefit for you

what i am suggesting is that since culture is so potentially powerful that it shouldn't just be an added bonus to the quick research strategy...i feel that for your civ to be the best at it should have to devote resources to culture...culture should have an oppertunity cost in civ3, and with current information it sounds like it doesn't...that is what i would like to see, that you have to actively pursue a culture strategy

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Just FYI, there really *is* an opportunity cost involved in persuing a "cultural" strategy. A lot of city improvements don't contribute anything to your culture -- granaries, barracks, city walls, and so on. The palace and the temple are the first two city buildings that contribute to culture. If you decide to go after a cultural strategy you have to make some sacrifices, and don't forget the earlier you invest in culture-producing buildings, the more culture you reap from them each turn. This gives you some interesting choices to make.

In the early stages of the game, for example, should you build a barracks first, or go for the temple? Without a temple, your culture will be based solely on the age of your palace, and you get very little from the palace. So if you go for the temple, you are taking a chance that you can defend yourself with whatever less skilled defenders you have. If you go for the barracks, you miss out on a bunch of turns' worth of culture that a temple could be generating for you.

I've played games where I employed cultural tactics and was able to assimilate some enemy border cities by spending a lot of shields putting wonders and culture-producing buildings into cities, but as a result I had a relatively weak military and had to resort to diplomacy to keep me out of war situations. This often meant I had to submit to tribute demands from civs that were militarily more powerful. I've also played games where I eschewed culture in favor of military stockpiling, but as a result my borders rarely expanded very far, and as a result I couldn't reach resources I needed. I subsequently had to rely on colonies to help me reach resources, which is always a riskier strategy than keeping your resources inside your borders.

And to answer your next question the new Civ site is almost done.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

[yin26]

[yin26]

Dan's post reminds me somewhat of some of the decisions you have to make in AoK regarding particular upgrades, econ or military. Those were some of the nicest details to master in the game, and though we don't have a complete picture here, it sounds promising.

I wonder, though, how good that AI is? So much hangs on that...

[korn469]

and don't forget the earlier you invest in culture-producing buildings, the more culture you reap from them each turn. This gives you some interesting choices to make.

Dan thanks for taking the time to respond! i really appreciate it...that little bit of insider information makes things clearer...so instead of following normal preculture build orders you have to bring certian structures up in your build to really get a massive cultural benefit right? how much extra culture do you get per turn? with a temple would it be like this (1+1+1...) or is it ((1+1)+(2+1)+(3+1)...)?

however i it sounds like some of the most valuable buildings (ie the ones you are going to build first anyways) are the buildings associated with culture

In the early stages of the game, for example, should you build a barracks first, or go for the temple?

if you are playing on deity then not even taking culture into account in virtually all circumstances you are going to build the temple first, add in culture and it's not even a contest...now if barracks gave you culture and temples didn't then that would be really interesting

though i guess you would have to decide if you were going to build the temple first or expand, so that is a choice you would have to carefully consider

actually my next question is this...when you assimilate an enemy border city is it a total conversion? do those citizens switch to your nationality or do they remain the other civ's nationality?

you also confirmed some conclusions on colonies that grumbold and i came to...here is another question...when another civ's borders overtake one of your colonies does it disappear like when your borders expand to include your colony?

one last question...what does the team think of poets (cultural specialist)? any chance you might add them to civ3? if not can i bring it up again in the civ3 expansion wishlist?

i can't wait to check out the site!! i hope it comes out this week

[Warm Beer]

Nice thread...

Another thought on culture and nationality: say you are playing the culturally strong French I am an playing the culturally weak Germans (for the sake of arguement) and we find ourselves with a common border. As a result of your higher culture rating, you convert a small border city or two earlier in the game. If those citizens of those aquired cities remain German, that could make an interesting situation in the future of the game.

Let's suppose I am not disposed at attacking you for one reason or another (your high culture may bring added diplo-benefits, so you have a good alliance and I have none...) so, I decide to get in to a "culture war" with you. I build a coulpa more wonders than you and get those temples up.

Now an interesting thing could happen- those cities you took earlier in the game are still "German" and still have some cultural ties to me, they see the improved culture and think "Wine and cheeze is getting old, hear the Germans have some great beer, now-a-days" or whatever. While I still can't rival your culture, your French cities are staying French, but those old German ones may want to rejoin the Fatherland.

Of course, if they become French as a result of the "cultural conversion" all this is a moot point (besides, that does make sense), but if they remain German ...

Which brings up another question: If you have a city of another nationality and it grows under your dominion, are those new citizens (let's use the same example) German or French?

[TINOMan]

well, culture should have a very important role in civ3, because it'll add a new dimension to the civ series. However, if it's gonna be done right and work properly to the point where it influences how people play the game, I have some ideas on how this can be done.

You can't set amounts of culture gained from certain buildings.

The amount of culture that a building adds/decreases should be decided on:
- The relationship between the building and your civilization
- The relationship with the time
- The relationship with the current culture (what's their take on the building?)
- The relationship to how you (the player) has been playing the game. Depending on what you've done in the past, it should change.

[TechWins]

Thanks for posting here Dan. You should do it more often. In doing that you would take away a lot of pessimism that is going on here. Maybe that might influence you to post here more, no I doubt it.

The palace and the temple are the first two city buildings that contribute to culture.

Doesn't that mean your capital will start off with some cultural borders? If so this will then decrease the importance of colonies. If not then I am really confused.

Did anybody notice the wink in Dan's last sentence? I don't like that one bit. I'm sure it doesn't mean anything but you never know.

[Fidel]

cmon, he even anticipated the next question to appear on the thread. he'll put up a civ3.com only to be crippled by code red. that's our luck

[Solver]

Thanks Dan for your comments. I think culture is really going to bring more interest in the game. As far as I understand, you can still decide to ignore culture, then you can just create military units and conquer nearby civilizations, but you will do that for the cost of having almost none culture.
I believe this will make the game much more enjoyable.

[Provost Harrison]

As you can tell, in terms of culture, the earlier you get started the better in terms of expanding your culture. But conversely, landgrab seems to be important in grabbing those resources and building up military power. So again, you do have a balancing act. Which is a good thing. Opportunity cost.

[Grumbold]

So culture can gobble cities? Interesting. If you know your population is about to defect, what happens if you pull all your garrisons out 1 tile and reoccupy the minute they switch? Could be a good way to reset this cultural oppression and maybe steal some techs How can new cities even get started if they are on the border with another culturally strong empire?

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
As you can tell, in terms of culture, the earlier you get started the better in terms of expanding your culture. But conversely, landgrab seems to be important in grabbing those resources and building up military power. So again, you do have a balancing act. Which is a good thing. Opportunity cost.

The balance in this thing seems to be that the landgrab is not doing you much good if you can't get the resources you need. You can still get them, but at the cost of building workers, and when you're using colonies to get your resources, you always run the risk of your colonies being swallowed by some culturally enlightened civ.
I guess you can always go to war with them, but then have to reestablish your colony and other headaches.

I wonder if they will implement the idea I had that culture dictates how often leaders will show up to help you. low culture, less leaders, less stacked armies. get trounced by the stacked armies of the cultural elite.

I personally disagree with the idea of buildings that only produce culture. I think it should just be an added incentive to certain already existent buildings. personally.

Korn-
is that a picture of Al in between the t and e in your avatar?

[Fidel]

hm
it seems to me that, as presented, cultural option might be less 'controllable' than a military one. that is, the more culture, the bigger empire, even without my control, unless i want to stagnate. that is, i cannot 'project' culture towards someone, it just evenly spreads. whereas, i can direct my military attacks with precision.
this would make cultural expansion much less attractive if it could seriously impair diplo relations. unless, of course, there is something we do not know.

[One More Turn!]

Glad to see a more active involvement from Firaxis

Given what Dan, and others in this thread have said. It would seem that culture could be used as more a defensive strategy than offensive. Strong culture keeps your borders strong, and expanding (even if slowly), and makes it harder for your enemies to subvert your cities.