In defense of culture

[graeme]

?Let me ask you this , if the somehow the Germans managed to cross the atlantic during WW2 and took over Long Island New York, dont you think sooner or later the residents of Long Island would rebel ( Seeing as they are close to New York City , which would have one of each cultural buildings and at least a few wonders).

I don't understand the arguement, are you saying that (in this hypothetical situation) that the way to recapture Long Island New York would be to build catherdrals in New York? It is true that the residents would retain their original culutural ties, as with the French (modelled by resisting workers), but the idea that one day the whole of France would revert to its previous rule and take control of all of the occupying German army...

Don't misunderstand me I like culture as a way of controlling borders but losing cities and troops garisoned there is just not acceptable to me.

And also just because I couldn't think of any historic precedent didn't mean that I was saying there weren't any. I fact I've just thought of something roughly similar, West/East Germany. But leaving historic accuracy aside, I just think that culture flipping was thrown in to attempt to balance the miltraristic bias of the game. And I suppose my main problem is that there is sometimes little you can do to counter act it other than by modifying you game style to incorporate building up of culture.

Graeme

[ixnay]

Something interesting I found while dinking around in the editor - under general settings/culture, if you set the border factor at 1 then culture and borders become much less of a factor - once a city gets 1 culture point, it's borders expand to size 6. Very interesting; on a tiny map with several civs, most all the land is taken after the first turn. It definitely makes for an interesting game.

[dawidge]

Originally posted by graeme
And also just because I couldn't think of any historic precedent didn't mean that I was saying there weren't any. I fact I've just thought of something roughly similar, West/East Germany. But leaving historic accuracy aside, I just think that culture flipping was thrown in to attempt to balance the miltraristic bias of the game. And I suppose my main problem is that there is sometimes little you can do to counter act it other than by modifying you game style to incorporate building up of culture.
Graeme

If you want to consider a real life basis for this, consider Germany in the years leading up to WW2.

Part of the Treaty of Versailles granted the French control of the Saarland. In 1935, the people of the Saarland voted 90% in favor of reintegration with Germany

http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/facts/facts_about/01_15.html

This is modeled by occupied cities reverting to the former culture.

The Sudetenland portion of Czechoslovakia was not as clear cut (considering an entirely new country was created out of Bohemia, Moravia, and their borders with Germany), but represents how unhappiness (through massive unemployment at the time) causes border territories to flip. In the case of the Sudetenland, this was an ultimatum by Hitler (literally, "Give me the Sudetenland, or else!"). It would be fair to say that at least some portion of the Sudetenland wanted to join Germany (right up until the point that the tanks rolled in to occupy it).

Perhaps someone at Firaxis can tell me if culture influences unhappiness, at all. It would be nice to be able to click on the unhappy people and see "We think the XXXXXXX's are far more cultured than us." as a warning that the city is close to flipping.

I'm not sure about cultural assimilation where there wasn't a prior posession of territory. Would the Republic of Texas becoming a state of the US fall in this category?

The Kingdom of Hawaii (whatever it was before it became a state) becoming a state could be considered a model for peaceful flip

I'm not sure, but didn't the Roman empire begin with assimilation through the Etruscan culture (or was it conquer, conquer, conquer right from the start)?

Did any of the Greek city-states join Alexander's empire without a phalanx of hoplites bearing down on them? I know he conquered Athens, but I'm not sure whether the rest of what we now know of as Greece joined the new empire of their own volition.

Any of these might be considered examples of peaceful cultural assimilation.

Of course, as is being addressed on another thread, there isn't a good model for when countries become divided by civil war or simple secession.

[Chronus]

the fact that a library can move borders back more effectievly than a panzer division is crap.

Silly Civ player. Haven't you learned that "the pen is mightier than the sword"?

I believe some simply can't see the forest because of the trees: Flipping as a feature makes no sense to them, but they do not step back to examine the new importance of culture in Civ3. Firaxis wanted to incorporate a culture model that would make culture important, and I'm glad they stepped up to the plate and made culture significant instead of adding some minor "realistic" features that wouldn't have made anyone think twice about culture. Do these immigration models proposed above have power behind them representing the force of culture throughout history? The question to be asked is not how we can make culture flipping more realistic, but how a "more appropriate" model of culture's effects can be added that makes realistic sense to those who disapprove of flipping, but still gives culture the power and significance it is due in the context that Civ3 tries to make an enjoyable game out of.

Very well said.

I see the break up of the Soviet Union as an example of this sort of thing. One of the problems is, in Civ 3, you can only have so many civs in existence. A Soviet Union breakup in Civ 3 couldn't have all the different republics (states?, whatever) spring up as new civs so, instead, they become part of an existing civ.

NYE: Your sig cracks me up. How much are you chargin'?

[Jethro83]

I love the concept of culture. However, I do believe that it shouldn't be the ONLY way you can hold a border.

As UberKruX said, its nonsense that a regiment of your strongest units is beaten by a library in a nearby enemy city in holding land.

What I think is that when a unit of yours occupies a fortress, it should create a border that cultural influence can't encroach on until you no longer have units in the fortress. If you fortify a unit in a non-fortress square, there should be some borders redrawn temporarily.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I love the concept of culture. However, I do believe that it shouldn't be the ONLY way you can hold a border.

As UberKruX said, its nonsense that a regiment of your strongest units is beaten by a library in a nearby enemy city in holding land.

What I think is that when a unit of yours occupies a fortress, it should create a border that cultural influence can't encroach on until you no longer have units in the fortress. If you fortify a unit in a non-fortress square, there should be some borders redrawn temporarily.

Exactly.

The English historically didn't expand their Empire because of Shakespeare's sonnets and plays; it was done by political and economic MUSCLE, and brute military force.

Changing borders based on the differetial of civs' treasuries makes more sense than culture borders.

Culture borders flipping over garrisoned fortresses and resource tiles - and then expecting the victim to meekly leave - is absurd.
Just as is the entire mechanism of Culture Flipping which depends mostly on the proximity of an enemy capital. Capitals themselves are dumb as they automatically appear in different towns/cities if you conquer their original capital, and then subsequent capitals.

Cities in history "flipped" to the Mongols (more accurately Begged For Mercy!) or Alexander or others as they were terrified of their military - not because they were impressed by their university system.

Cultural Influence is in concept acceptable. In game execution, Firaxis messed up.

[Cyclotron]

As this, your latest post, actually has real substance as opposed to your often baseless ridicule, I am pleased to say that I won't have to respond with my usual sarcasm.

Originally posted by Coracle The English historically didn't expand their Empire because of Shakespeare's sonnets and plays; it was done by political and economic MUSCLE, and brute military force.

Changing borders based on the differetial of civs' treasuries makes more sense than culture borders.

The problem of the England metaphor is that England does not have a whole lot of "overlap," and the civs in closest proximity to it (France, Low Countries) are pretty powerful on the culture themselves.

Culture borders flipping over garrisoned fortresses and resource tiles - and then expecting the victim to meekly leave - is absurd.

You don't really ahve to meekly leave: If a city flips over your resource or fort, you declare war and take the city. Military force is always an option; culture does not eliminate that.

Just as is the entire mechanism of Culture Flipping which depends mostly on the proximity of an enemy capital. Capitals themselves are dumb as they automatically appear in different towns/cities if you conquer their original capital, and then subsequent capitals.

It makes sense that culture is weaker further from the capital in historical terms; that's why America, India, and other British colonies broke off. The idea is that you can't place a tiny city in the middle of an opponen't continent and have his giant cities start flipping to you... the capital distance factor makes practical sense.

As for capital changing, I can tell you many times in history where a government continues to operate after fleeing the capital. The war of 1812 and the German invasion of Norway in WW2 are examples of a government continuing to function (well, not really "function" in Norway's case... but they still existed). The capital is really not a building so much as where your government is located and operates from. It's natural that wherever your gov't is, corruption probably is less rampant.

Cities in history "flipped" to the Mongols (more accurately Begged For Mercy!) or Alexander or others as they were terrified of their military - not because they were impressed by their university system.

The mongol invasion was a military campaign. Culture flipping represents changes in long term demographics and the movements of people over many years. The Mongols hardly fit this description.

Cultural Influence is in concept acceptable. In game execution, Firaxis messed up.

Although I don't believe the system is as broken as you think, I'm glad we come to some agreement on the idea of culture. In my above post on this thread I tried to point out the overall impact of culture on the game: Maybe flipping is not historically accurate in its implemented form, but it does give more significance to culture and its impact on civilization... and that may be the saving grace of flipping.

[nato]

I like your post cyclotron, it is well done.

I am more on Coracle's side of this issue. I still do not like losing military units to culture flips, especially during wartime. I think this should be changed.

However, after reading posts like yours (and like Zachriel's, who used to talk about Marc Antony when I used to bring culture flips up), I feel less terrible about it. Maybe it is not so terrible in the context of the game.

I still don't like it, and think it could be improved! But nice post, it argues well for it.

edit: I'm talking about both of the ones of yours on this page, especially the first one.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
You don't really ahve to meekly leave: If a city flips over your resource or fort, you declare war and take the city. Military force is always an option; culture does not eliminate that.

No, but diplomacy does. You attack them and then you end up taking a hit. Even a warmonger like myself needs to maintain good relations with neutral third party nations in any conflict. Still, it helps in the diplomatic arena to have a strong culture.

The mongol invasion was a military campaign. Culture flipping represents changes in long term demographics and the movements of people over many years. The Mongols hardly fit this description.

That's exactly right. The Mongols are a terrible example. After Genghis died, and his empire fell apart, you could say the Mongol people "flipped" to the Chinese, Turks, etc.



Like I said previously, I believe that both military AND culture need to be established in relative balance to maintain a strong grip on your borders.