A new take on culture

[Stefu]

BTW, about cultures, I have one question. Let's say that Barbarians, for instance Vandals, take one of my cities (and indeed I hope that unlike the pitiful little pipsqueaks of Civ2 the Barbarians will be able to take over cities.) and hold it for some amount of turns. Will this city develop a 'Vandal' culture? When I take it back, will it still be Vandal? Can it rebel because of it's Vandal identity?

[Blaupanzer]

If cities convert based on cultural effects, then it will be much harder to take and hold the cities of a stronger culture. They will riot more readily, convert back if they can (taking your occupying trops with them), etc. This is the Chinese method of resistance, absorb your enemies and reemerge as an independent state.

[Mahdimael]

I'm really seeing culture as almost a "half-concept" in terms of gameplay. What I mean is that culture seems to be the side effect of normal growth. For instance, if someone builds a temple, they'll be doing it to appease the populace rather than to expand their cultural dominance. Yet an increase in culture will result. It will be interesting to see if there are "culture-only" buildings or if all culture will be derived from structures which give other benefits.

In any case, it's intruiging

[Sabre2th]

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.

Even if culture is just a result of growth, it has a profound effect on how you play the game and the choices you make.

[tniem]

Dan has certainly made me a lot more interested in the way culture is going to work with trade offs. It also answers the question I posed about colonies in a seperate thread, being what is their worth.

The thing that is important to figure out is whether nationality of pop points is going to be the same thing as their culture. And can I have my culture influence pop points in nations that I trade with, even if I don't share a border?

[Taliseian]

From what I've seen, it seems that the "Culture Strategy" is well thought out.

I am curious tho about the taking over of cities via culture.

Does the city fully change, or is it partial and subject to take over again if the loser builds a stronger culture.

Also, are there enough culture only (or culture limited) building to support working on culture as a Primary Strategy, or is it just an add-on to working Peaceful Tech?


Talisieian



BTW....get that damn site up, already!!!

[Sabre2th]

I think the aim with culture is to add a whole new depth to the game. Instead of playing the same old thing again, players will have to find their own ways to integrate culture into their strategies.

[Sabre2th]

BTW....get that damn site up, already!!!

I second this.

[jsw363]

I wonder if what was said on the civfanatics site "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," is true?

If so this would profoundly impact the way in which cities convert. If a French city was built on the German border and the Germans has a much higher cultural rating would that mean that the citizens created in the French city would be "born German"? Then would the city become part of the German nation when the Germans in the city outnumber the French? Or are citizens created in a city always born into the owner civilization? I guess this all boils down to whether it's possible to convert citizens or whther they stay one nationality forever.

Opinions? Anyone who can clarify this issue?

[lockstep]

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.

LaRusso: Looking at the 'Cultural Advisor' screenshot (https://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/...s/7-7-2225.jpg), I guess that there is a rather straightforward connection between the culture value of a given city (resulting from certain improvements and wonders) and the border size of that city. Therefore, besides from generally pursuing a "cultural strategy", it should be possible to expand your borders in a particular direction.

[Kevin Ar18]

Originally posted by yin26
I wonder, though, how good that AI is? So much hangs on that...

I agree.... I wish so much that Civ3 will have a superior AI that can handle things like culture and resources well -- not to mention that can actually make a decent siege to conquer cities.

[The Andy-Man]

culture should be ascociated with hapiness. so as to engourage more luxuries. i eman, under a monarchy which had little unhappiness, i would never ruyn any luxury rate. same with fundy. there needs to be more encourgagemnt

[Sabre2th]

Does anyone else find Andy's description a little strange/disturbing?

Warlord of Men who want to be attractive ladies and indulge on lesbian sex

[Fidel]

Originally posted by lockstep


LaRusso: Looking at the 'Cultural Advisor' screenshot (https://www.civfanatics.com/cgi-bin/...s/7-7-2225.jpg), I guess that there is a rather straightforward connection between the culture value of a given city (resulting from certain improvements and wonders) and the border size of that city. Therefore, besides from generally pursuing a "cultural strategy", it should be possible to expand your borders in a particular direction.

exactly. however, still, a city projects a zone of say 3 cultural influence squares whatever in every direction. you cannot control THAT, i guess...whereas you can stock your armies and attack at precisely the point you want.
say you have a cultural metropolis you may involuntarily encroach culturally on you ally's border city as well as on your enemie's....

[The Andy-Man]

sorry. i made a typo, its ment to say indulg IN lesbian sex