Culture Flipping: Solutions Only

[Harlan]

Okay,
I know there are several other cultural flipping threads right now. Those have raging debates over whether culture flipping is a good thing or not. This thread is not for people who like flipping - go to one of those other threads to argue that it should not be changed. This thread is for people who think flipping is flawed, and want to discuss how to fix it. Let's not get these two separate discussions mixed together.

Personally, I love cultural flipping as an idea, but hate the implementation of that idea. People have suggested having an option to turn flipping off altogether. I'm always in favor of options. However, I would rather see flipping made to work instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Here my ideas. First off, don't have culture flipping come out of the blue. Right now, its all or nothing. How much cooler culture as a feature would be if INDIVIDUAL citizens in your city flipped!

Let's say you're Persian and have a city next to the Bablyonians - slowly more and more of your citizens are becoming Bablyonian. If you take steps to boost the culture of that city and your civ generally, some Bablyonian citizens become Persian instead. Even in neighboring Bablyonian cities, there are citizens in them that become Persian.

Bonus idea: if there are citizens of your civ in another civ's city, you can look into that city at any time to see what buildings and units are in there. Such people would be a fifth column.

Of course, the more foreign citizens in your city, the more likely the city will flip. Isn't it wierd that you could have a city where every single citizen is Persian, but then suddenly apparently they all decide at the same to become Bablyonian? Obviously some citizens should change civs before the whole city does! No city that is 100% Persian in this example should ever flip.

Given that, when a city does flip you shouldn't have all your units disappear into thin air. Let's say the dice roll so that one of your cities will flip. Now each individual unit should in of itself have a chance of flipping or not.

If most units stay loyal to you, the city doesn't flip, but a rebellion in the countryside breaks out. Numerous barbarian partisans appear in the same way they did in Civ2. In the absence of a partisan type unit (which would be a good thing!), these units would be the basic infantry unit of the era. There would be a chance that the same could happen to any city in your civ that goes into revolt through unhappiness.

If enough units flip, the city as a whole flips, and your units that remain loyal (if any) are deposited into a nearby city of yours.

Military experience should help determine if an individual unit flips or not. Elites would hardly ever flip, conscripts would do so often.

I would be against warning of a flip, because surprise is a key element in rebellions. However, you should be able to have a good general idea if a city is going to flip because individual citizens would be flipping, and perhaps the number of resisters could increase, not only decrease.

If the above were implemented, wouldn't that be cool? No sense of what a rip-off, where did my army go? The same strongly occupied but unhappy city could spawn numerous rebellions until you took steps to boost the culture there. This could allow Vietnam war or French WW2 resistance type situations in the game.

Anyone else have ideas not on deleting flipping, but figuring out how to fix it? In theory, I think its a great idea, it just needs work.

[notyoueither]

Excellent. I would say nothing else.

[Kryten]

Excellent ideas! . I for one would very much like to see something like this in the game.

However, let us be honest with ourselves; we all know that the more complicated the idea, then the less chance we have of pursuading Firaxis to make the changes. Therfore, may I suggest the following 'simple' changes as an alternative....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) 'Vanishing Garrisons': we all know that this is totally illogical and is the main cause of argument. So, in the event of a successful flip, could we please have some of the surviving units (say, 50%?) reappearing inside our borders (I would prefer to see them returned to their capital, as this discourages them from simply recapturing the offending city next turn. And as the minium turn is a year, that is more than enough time in the 'real-world' to transport troops from one side of the planet to the other). And would it be possible to have the city lose 1 population to show the civilian casulties due to the rebellion?

2) 'the name culture-flip': many people take the word 'culture' far too literally, and so you see frequent postings along the lines of "....this city has been part of my culture/nation/civilization for thousands of years, and has now 'flipped' to a totally different culture, even though my culture is bigger/better. This is unrealistic....". If we could simply change the name 'Culture' to something more bland, such as 'Social-Political Factors' for example, then people might accept that it covers a wide variety of things such as changing religious/political/ethnic/langauge factors. Then phrases such as "....this city has been part of my culture/nation/civilization fot thousands of years, and has now 'flipped' due to 'Social-Political Factors...." lose their meaning (I know that this is only a cosmetic name change, but it may help to reduce some of the arguments).

3) 'Popup Windows': if a city SUCCESSFULLY flips, could we have a message (with possibly the sound of battle) which says something like....
"Sire, the people of xxxx city have revolted and joined the yyyy empire! Our troops were not able to subdue the rebellion, and the War Council has decided to bring the surviving troops home."
While if a city UNSUCCESSFULLY flips (i.e. got within say 90% of the flipping threshold, but not over it), a message (again with the sound of battle) appears saying....
"Sire, there was an insurrection in the city of xxxxx!. Fortunately, our troops within the city managed to subdue the revolt with little loss of life."
This would be the ONLY indication that a player gets of potential flips, and shows that the local garrisons ARE doing their job (all it would take is two popup windows, not THAT much of a coding change).

4) 'the OFF switch': even with the above suggestions, there will still be people who think that 'changes-of-political-control-due-to-unforseen-circumstances' should not happen, and that sufficent military might is enough to solve all political problems and stop flipping (even though this did not work for Napoleon in Spain, the Americans in Vietnam and the Russians in Afghanistan).
So these people should have the RIGHT to switch it off if they want! After all, it is hypocritical to say "I like flips, so I don't think that there should be an 'OFF' switch". Everyone should be allowed to play the game the way they want....that's the whole idea of the editor!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm no computer programer, and none of us knows the source code for CivIII, but I think that these fairly simple changes MIGHT have a chance of pursuading Firaxis to make some improvements.

[Jethro83]

Great ideas there.

To add to it, I'd say that the Cultural advisor should be given a bigger role. Rather than wasting my time saying "We should build libraries and watch people flock to us", she should be able to point out areas that are at risk of culture flipping. Though it would be obvious to you if the above ideas were to be implemented, you can't be everywhere in the empire at once (especially on huge maps).

Once she points out the problem areas, she could then suggest possible ways you could rectify the situation, based on the shield production of the city, money in the treasury, the population of the city (especially in the case of being despotism/communism). For example, the city may have poor production, and a population of 2. You do however have huge amounts of cash floating around. The temple and library already built there aren't enough to keep the people in check, so she could then say something in the lines of "We should hurry a university in $city to prevent the nearby $civ culture from overwhelming our people."

Another city with good production, a large population and you lack funds, she could then say "May I suggest we divert our production in $city to build a University? The culture of nearby $enemycity is starting to find its way towards our people."

[Harovan]

Harlan: I'm in awe of your culture!

Great ideas . Unfortunately, I don't see them implemented by Firaxis . May be in PTW? Firaxis, please, prove me to be wrong...

[Firebird]

Hi,

I think you are right Kryten. I don't mind cultureflipping, and I'd rather have it like it is today than have it switched off, but your ideas might make culture-flipping a bit more realistic, without to much programming and testing.

It is hard to judge wether Firaxis could make Harlans ideas work, but to my knowledge they do use the individual citizens in the calculations for culture-flipping, so the idea of flipping citizens might not be totally unpractical to implement. It would be a nice addition to the culture-building part of Civ3.

[DeepO]

I like 'the garrison troops do not vanish completely, but some(<50% chance) have a chance of retreating' idea. However, to prevent from using them the same turn, I wouldn't let them travel to the capital, but I'd damage them up to 1 hitpoint. If you want to risk attacking a city with troops with only one hitpoint, be my guest.

And, not traveling to the capital, but leaving them in the open, in enemy territory further limits their uses, as you'll have to get them back to your own ground to heal. In the capital, most likely there will be a barracks, and next turn all units can be used again. That's too soon.

Could I point out that the title of this thread was a bit confusing? I thought you were posting solutions to prevent cities from culture flipping...

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Firebird
...but to my knowledge they do use the individual citizens in the calculations for culture-flipping...

individual citizens? I'm not sure what you meant by that, but right now, the culture flipping does not even take into account whether there are only foreign citizens, or also your own in a city (i.e. a size 20 with 3 foreigners has the same chance of flipping than a size 3 with 3 foreigners). It is logical, from one point of view.
I doubt that Soren will change the formula so radically, it is a balanced, and well thought out chance-algorithm. What we could ask for is additions / changes in what the effects are, more is not a realistic desire. (e.g. what to do with the troops, killing of some villagers when the city flips,...)

look at the Culture Flip Formula thread for more info on how it is calculated, and what you can do about it.

DeepO

[player1]

My idea:

If city is low in troops (2-4 units, depeding from cities popluation), city should flip like it is now.

If city has more troops, then city should lose 2-4 units in that turn and still STAY in your empire (but will be in rebellion).

In that case city should lose more units EVERY turn, until you:
1) move more troops IN and thus quell rebellion OR
2) move all your troops out, effecively surrendering the city
In 2nd case, city should automaticly get some free "militia" defenders (depending from population) to prevent "move out, move in stategy"

[Cyclotron]

Unfortunately, I disagree wntirely with Harlan's ideas for flipping. It is altogether too easy, through draft, starvation, or settler building, to get rid of population points. IMO, your ideas essentially neuter a perfectly healthy system by letting people use population control methods to remove the chance of a flip entirely.

Similarly, I disagree with your system because it apparently makes military the bigest factor whether a city will flip. When a city rebels but the units don't flip, military is still the biggest factor because flipping becomes a military battle between the partisans and your units.

I can't possibly agree with your system. Sorry. IMO, culture flipping needs some reforms in regards to units, but besides that is a perfectly fine system.

[FrantzX]

I just would like a window telling me the chances of flipping in the next 1, 10 and 25 turns.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Personally I would prefer some usefulness out of the esponiage system. Must be some way to tie in all your covert operatives to prevent a rebellion/coup.

[Harlan]

Hi,
Thanks for the mostly positive comments and feedback. Indeed you're right Kryten that this is probably too complicated for Firaxis since they've commented that they're loathe to add anything unless necessary since some of their patches had problems. I hope the XP provides a new opportunity.

When you boil it down though, its really not so complicated, only three ideas:

1. You shouldn't have your entire army disappear into thin air when a city flips. This seems to be the main complaint, and the must fix to do, if they're listening to people on these forums at all. I don't care about the details of how its done just so long as something is done about this.

2. Have individual citizens flip prior to the whole city flipping. This isn't really adding anything, just completing an idea that the game already has. Individual citizens of another culture can convert to your culture over time, so why can't it work the other way? There would be no need to even add any new rules or explanations for this - it should be obvious that such a thing could happen both ways. And to have only cities with some foreign population be eligible for flipping, that should be obvious too. The greater the number of foreigners in your town the more the chance the whole town will flip - that also should be much more intuitive than the current system with its total surprise.

3. The final idea is the return of partisan warfare. This is the biggest change. But the game is screaming for it in a number of ways. First off, it was a popular feature in Civ2 that most people would be familiar with anyways. Second, with the hidden nationality flag added for the Privateer unit, plus the invisible flag, the idea to have a "land pirate" is obvious. It would greatly improve the value of a high culture. A highly cultured civ would spawn more partisans after its cities were taken - greatly boosting the value of culture in a very logical way. Having your own cities in revolt from unhappiness spawn partisans would be a natural, also adding more to that feature. Plus, you could build your own Partisan units late in the game, and use them like Privateers.

So you would not only fix the culture flipping problem, but you'd also have a nice new feature you could boast about on the box of the XP. I can read the reviews already: "Partisan warfare from Civ2 is back and, interacting with Civ3's culture concept, better than ever!"

Yet another point: presumably they are changing things for the XP to make the game more scenario friendly. The current flipping system is very unfriendly to scenarios. Imagine I have a scenario about the rise of Islam and the Arabic conquests. You have the Arabs with only a few small cities and presumably little culture conquering big cultured Byzantine and Persian cities. In such a scenario, cities would be flipping all over against the Arabs. That wouldn't be a bad thing as far as city populations being upset with their new foreign rulers (so I wouldn't just want to turn flipping off altogether), but the Arabic conquering armies, fervent in their new religion, should not be flipping and disappearing as well! Many scenarios just wouldn't be workable without fixing this problem, and putting a good amount of energy into a thorough fix could really improve the scenario capability of the game.

Anyways, a guy can dream .

[Harlan]

Cyclotron7,
As you probably saw in another thread, I'm very against the mass starvation or too much drafting of your own people as well. That is another must fix, and both of them work together and reinforce each other. For instance, push a city too much with pop rushing, draft, starvation, etc, and it won't just be unhappy or go into revolt (oh no! - sarcasm), it will spawn a partisan revolt or even be taken over by barbarians or a neighbor. Both fixes are also necessary to make decent scenarios.

I'll post my thoughts from that other thread here:


This also brings up a larger question, the issue of ethnic cleansing and self-genocide. Its wierd - I saw Mike B from Firaxis on another thread intimating that the game didn't have things like a Fundamentalist or Fascist gvmt because it wanted to remain a family game, yet at the same time you can kill off your own people far worse than Hitler or Stalin ever did, without much penalty at all. Wiping out millions of innocent people is actually the smart thing to do much of the time.

Of course having the options to turn off abandoning and razing is good, but not enough. Even if abandoning and razing were turned off, one could just slowly starve a city to death. You get some unhappiness as a result, but not enough in my opinion. In reality, any city that was being that rapidly starved would certainly rebel and break off from your rule. In the game, the Communist gvmt is seriously broken because the AI will regularly pop rush and/or draft huge cities literally down to population of 1.

This makes for poor play for both the AI and the human player. The AI who essentially kills itself through pop rushing and the draft, and the human who doesn't have to make tough management choices cos its easier just to completely kill off citizens or cities you don't like. Some starvation, drafting and pop rushing is good, but please, increase the penalty the more you do it, and teach the AI to have some restraint! And it should be even more costly to do under certain gvmts. Allow us also to be able to set the diplomatic penalty level for using nukes and razing/ abandoning cities - these are set far too low.

What we're left with now is both bad gameplay, and encouraging immoral action far worse than the worst leaders in history, with almost no penalty.

----


Regarding your point that the military is the biggest factor in my system, actually it could even be completely independent of the military. The urge to rebel could be independent of military presence, and based soley on culture strengths and types of citizens in the city. Then what form that rebellion takes would be determined by the military presence. If you have a strong one, the rebels know they can't win immediately, and take to the hills in partisan warfare. If the military presence is weak, you lose the city. That's as it should be - it makes logical sense. There should NEVER be a case of a tiny presumably untrained citizen partisan army completely wiping out a huge military presence without a fight!


Lots of other good ideas here. I especially like Ogie's idea of using espionage to reduce your city flipping chances.

[DeepO]

I thought that when I pop-rushed something, I didn't kill anyone, they just leave because I made them work so hard

DeepO