Make City Flipping an option

[jabroni154]

Personally, I think that such an option should be included. If you think about, the code change to this would probably be miniscule in comparison. Just a simple if statement to test if culture flipping is allowed and then to go from there. One of the goals that I have heard in the various Firaxis conversations is to keep the game fun and I think that would follow right along those lines. No score penalty or whatever, just an option. Keep the game fun.

Now, on a separate note, I do think that culture flipping should be fixed. Sure, I can buy the whole occasional flipping of cities but it is the loss of the units inside that drives me crazy. A simple solution would be to simply move all of the units to the nearest city that I own. Similar code is already there for the Get out of my territory AI order () so why not do that? Seems to be a simple fix as well that would take care of a lot of the griping (mine included).

[graeme]

Why should it make sense? I know that sounds like a flip response (pun intended), but seriously, why do all the game mechanics have to make realistic sense?

I think of civ as a game, not a simulation. As such the rules are there to create complex game situations that require strategy, not create detailed simulations of reality.

I go back again to the chess analogy. A castle moving doesn't make sense, but so what? its a game.

Your right it is only a game with some predifined rules and you can of course except it or find something else to play.

Which is the problem, I think people who are moaning about these features don't want to play something else we just want Civ III to be fun and to "reward" the player for the time and money invested in it. And if I lose xmins work to the roll of a dice that I am given little or no knowledge how to control this then I get annoyed.

Once you learn how to control it culture flipping isn't a major problem. But I can't forgot that it is there as a game mechanic that serves no useful purpose. Beacuse if I lose a city to Civ A I don't think wow he is culturally more advanced then me I'd better divert effort into building my culture, I just think Civ A needs pruning send in the troops

Graeme

[Miznia]

Are you naysayers (like star mouse and Stuie) saying it would make the game *easier* if there were no culture flipping? Wouldn't it be harder, and in a sense more honest, because you have to conquer all the cities you get?

I too want flipping to be shut off for the reason that it doesn't seem realistic. It seems to be a downright dumb thing to have to worry about. And I don't think it makes sense to say that the game was "balanced" according to any criteria...

Stuie said:
No, it should change your score to 0. That's right - ZERO. The game was built and balanced based on the various cultural aspects being included, and if they're able to be shut off, it should be just like going into cheat mode in Civ2 - you score nothing.

Miznia

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Miznia
Are you naysayers (like star mouse and Stuie) saying it would make the game *easier* if there were no culture flipping? Wouldn't it be harder, and in a sense more honest, because you have to conquer all the cities you get?

No. It would give the human even more of an advantage. The AI is built with the understanding that culture is important; turn it off, and you've altered the game in a way the AI may not understand. See cyclotron7's post several up for several good points. Personally, I'd rather Firaxis spent time and energy improving the existing game, not dumbing it down for people who would rather be playing Civ2.

Reminds me of US v. Microsoft - can't you just turn Internet Explorer off? No - it is integral to the way Windows works.

[Lucilla]

I agree with Stuie.
The introduction of culture in Civ3 is one of the core differences to Civ2. I liked playing Civ2, but I switched to Civ3 because of the culture idea.
Taking culture flipping away, would mean taking the whole idea of cultural expansion and borders away and you could as well play Civ2 again.

[Miznia]

Hmm... Well, fair enough. I have to imagine it would be pretty easy to make a switch for it, though. I bet they could completely disable it in under 10 minutes' modification, plus whatever time it takes to recompile.

[MarkG]

I bet they could completely disable it in under 10 minutes' modification, plus whatever time it takes to recompile.

and then they would have to re-adjust the entire AI again

[Miznia]

No, I'd be happy to take 0 points. Anyway, most of my games, I just sit and watch the AI...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Phat_Phal
The score doesn't have to go down to 0. In Civ 2 when you won on a scenario, on the hall of fame, next to your score, a SCENARIO passage was inserted next to the hall of fame entry showing that it wasn't a normal game. That could be applied in this case as well.

Yes, it could.

It won't eliminate culture. Culture expands your borders so it won't be totally ignored. It may be a main part of your game but in my game culture plays no major role. Its a change from the old and its a change I don't welcome. Although I have been waiting for the borders to come in for some time. I totally disagree with this peaceful culture flipping.

Flipping is the core part of culture. Saying it should be removed, but culture will be okay because of borders makes about as much sense as taking somebody's brain out and saying "that's okay, he's still got the heart."

On closer inspection of that metaphor, it's one of the craziest ones I've made so far... but you get the point.

Obviously from the posts on these forums many people agree that culture flipping shouldn't be in the game.

You are making some pretty big assumptions here. "Many" is a very subjective word... if there are 100 posters who disagree with it out of 10,000, that might me many, but it's not squat compared to the people who like it. In addition, I think so far more people have voiced support than opposition... and finally, Apolyton is not even close to a representative sample of the people who play Civ3.

By saying its not fair, I mean that its totally unrealistic that the populace of a recently overthrown city would openly revolt and make the occupying enemy armies disappear. Wouldn't they be converted if the entire city was to convert back to its original race. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

It represents the armed revolt of the citizens during occupation. I have no idea why you think that wouldn't make sense. Would you like how it is civ 2, where there was absolutely no kind of armed rebellion against your occupation? Now that doesn't make sense.

If the civ3 AI is based around culture flipping I'll smash my copy of civ 3 into tiny pieces and burn the box. If the AI is based around one of the biggest problems in this game then there is no hope. * Goes back to civ 2 *

Culture flipping is not a problem, it's a feature you don't like. I don't think it's a problem, and others don't think it's a problem. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it intrinsically bad.

And, before you burn it, send it to me so I can get a friend addicted...

Its eliminating a problem or making that problem optional. The point is I should have a choice. EVERYONE should have a choice. If there are bigger problems than fixing culture flipping I'd like to hear them.

Again, it's not a problem, it's your opinion. What choice would you like? A choice to cripple the game and the AI? Because that is exactly what removing culture flipping, without completely re-working the AI, would be.

I have some bigger ideas for Firaxis: Improve the AI so it uses all units optimally, and fix the editor bugs. IMO, those are much more important than culture flipping. But, I don't think this will happen, so I am enjoying what I believe to be a good game in its own right... and waiting for PTW.

[Jaybe]

The core difference between Civ2 and Civ3 is borders which are not based solely on the city radius. Firaxis used the concept of culture to determine borders.

Culture flippin' is the "uncontrollable" factor which dictates changes of borders that we don't have direct control over. It gives the suspense in the later game that we had in the ancient age when we didn't know the lay of the land or where anybody was. It has been toned down so much that I rarely get any cities anymore (last game, just ONE city!!). When I lose a city, it's an UNpleasant surprise and I hope I didn't leave too many air units in it!!

The point is, to come out ahead on culture flipping, Build More Culture.

JB

[Phat_Phal]

Where to start ....

Lucilla: I am playing civilization 2.

MarkG: If the entire AI is based around culture flipping the civ3 team have made a bigger mistake than I thought.

Wrylachlan: Why don't they put giant sharp tooth tomatos in. It doesn't make sense. Civ, I thought, was meant to be a depiction of the current world and let the player remake history and have alot of fun doing it. I find it unfair to compare chess to civ 3, but if your going to compare these 2 games, and make references from one game to make no sense or relevance to the other why don't I take a shot at it. Eg If you were to apply culture flipping to chess you would have a queen take over pawn because the Queen is better. Make sense ? NO.

Stuie: Dumbing it down ? Of course to put an option in like this would require alterations in the way the AI would react in the game. But your assumptions are entirely based around this idea that the AI wouldn't be adjusted at all so your arguement is baseless. Have you waged a war against someone, or have you just maxed out your cities culture and "peacefully" taken over enemy cities ? I believe culture flipping is a cheap unrealistic method of taking cities and ultimately, an annoying nuisance.

Sure they've built up this game wonderful for those passive players who love to build up their cities and play the game in a peaceful way. Without ever showing aggression to anyone because they can take over their enemies with this culture flipping.

What about the people who loved the war aspect of the game. Why weren't the aggressive players of civ given an opportunity to play the game without incurring countless more troubles and hassles.

I'll have to continue this rant and replies later. I've got work to do ...

[Bautou]

I don't know about the claim that removing culture flipping will cripple the AI, the AI has shown itself (to me at least) to be remarkably adaptable to some pretty big changes that I have made in the editor. I have never really noticed the AI building "culture bombs" or settling in such a way that could be directly construed as a prelude to a flip (other than maybe the one circle of tiles around the city square).(Personnally, I that the peace-time culture flipping rules are quite good; I just think that the war-time rules could use a bit of work.)

In any case, I don't see why people are in such opposition to the simple option of having the *possibility* of being able to disable culture flipping, and simply allocating culturally claimed land on a first come, first serve basis. I think that the AI is quite good at REXing and would not be unduly harmed by such an option.

Similarly, I don't see why it is so important that people -must- play the culture game in an edited Civ3. You can already totally gut the military game by simply lowering the attack values and skyrocketing the defense values or by giving your favoured Civ an uber-unit to run amok with, or the diplomacy game by deleting the UN and pushing the trading values sky high, or the domination game by making certain terrain types uninhabitable and editing away corruption.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why there is such resistance to simply adding a checkbox in the editor that says Disable Cultural Flipping. The end result is no different than using the editor to substaintially change any other portion of the game for you and yourself only.

It is quite easy to cheat on scoring as it is, heck, you could simply post a totally made up score if you wanted to, or use a save game editor to artificially boost a score up. Frankly, there are much easier ways to cheat at scoring than playing a game with culture flipping disabled, even with the tools already available in the editor.

I personally like culture flipping and would not turn it off even if I had the option. However, I think the option should be there to disable, as it would simply allow the player more customizability to work with and to help find that "optimal" rule set for that one person. I think the ability to customize is one of the cardinal virtues of the Civ series, and I simply don't think that it is necessary or even wise to force culture on the player, especially when most everything else is customizable.

[darthx86]

What's wrong with putting in an option to disable ? All those arguing that it turns Civ 3 into a war game are overlooking a simple fact: Military conflict is a viable aspect of the game... so much so that it is one of the victory conditions and has been for every iteration of Civ for the last ten years. If the game wasn't meant to be tweaked to taste, then why include an editor? Why make the graphic files so easy to edit?

Personally, I've been burned by some ridiculous flips in the past, but that was before the 1.21 patch. I just reinstalled the game earlier this week and am still playing my first game since March, and there was a culture flip of a Russian city to me (Persians). In this case, the Russian city was around size 6, low in culture, and was on my island, while Moscow was on the neighboring land mass. If this is how the culture flip works with the new patch, I can certainly live with it. I just don't see why so many are up in arms about an option.

[Phat_Phal]

cyclotron7 : I don't think I'm the only person to say that culture flipping is not preferred. I don't want it eliminated from the game, because that would be unfair to people who want it in, like yourself. But I do want an option before the game starts saying that if I want to disable culture flipping I should click here.

Keep that in mind when your replying. The reason why I mentioned the borders because I consider the borders to be one of the best features about culture. No more enemy civs wondering through your land and building cities 2 spaces away from a main city of mine.

Culture flipping to me, is unrealistic, random, no sense nonsense that should be takn out. Who are you to tell other people what not to suggest when your arguement is based around a decision to totally eliminate culture flipping when in reality its just about an option.

[Travathian]

If I remember correctly, Firaxis staff stated that having double a city's population in garrisoned troops prevented flipping 100%.

Secondly, if you think CivII is so great, feel free to continue playing it.

Cultural flipping is a good check and balance for builders and warmongers. The warmonger who conquers too quickly without any infrastructure, faces the possibility of losing a city to culture. Likewise a builder who turtles away on his/her continent developing infrastructure but never building a significant army, faces a warmonger with vastly superior numbers.
In the end culture flipping helps to provide some balance.

And your whole argument can be countered by saying that I as a builder dont want Armies in the game. Its lame that some warmonger can instantly build the Hoover Dam with a Great Leader, when I busted my hump building infrastructure and devloping my land and spent 40 years to do the same thing.

Once again, its about balance.

Frankly I think culture flipping was toned down too much in 1.21f, which is sad, because it wasnt done to balance the game, it was done to appease all the whining warmongers who dont feel like playing the game it was designed to be played.