Unbelievable Culture flipping

[Theseus]

Hey Coracle, got any new observations?

When you're not ranting, I think you get the game pretty well.

[Tuberski]

I agree, Theseus, he does seem to have the game pretty well. The ranting all the time does grate though.

[Venger]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
I have only one thing to say about culture flipping: Hong Kong and the Panama Canal.

That's one of the more inane defenses of the ridiculous culture flipping of Civ3.

When the Germans took Paris, it didn't revert to Free French control a few weeks later because the Parisians 'admired the culture' of the Free French.

Yet you want to use the Panama canal as an example of a culture flip? Please! You have two situations where treatied lands were reverted back to geographical and natural territories. This isn't the natives overthrowing the local constabulary, this is nations deciding to revert control of colonial or territorial possessions.

Culture flipping is anathema to a quality Civ game.

Venger
P.S. And whoever the jackass is who said that Civ isn't a 'historical' game better read the f'in box...

[MosesPresley]

I think the man said it wasn't a "historical simulation". Your quote was definitely taken out of context.

Didn't East Germany "flip" back to West Germany? Didn't Hong Kong "flip" back to China? Didn't S. Vietnam "flip" back to N. Vietnam?

The game can't handle all of the complex ins and outs of international politics. The politics have been simplified to something the AI can understand. The programmers reduced these complexities to an abstract expression. This is of course, the culture flip.

Look at the USA civil war. Virginia seceded from the union. West Virginia "admired the culture" of the Union and stayed with them rather than secede. Virginia itself admired the southern culture and joined them. The game's mechanics simply cannot cope with these kinds of complexities. So the concept was implemented through the culture model. It is a distorted reflection of reality, but then so is the entire game.

I don't know, maybe we are talking about two different things here.

[Capt Dizle]

Good to see Coracle back, and in fine form too. Tubes, you make me laugh, isn't that about the 27th absolute last time you responded to Coracle?

I believe that the guys at Firaxis were sitting around trying to come up with something new to put in Civ3 and Briggs came up with the culture idea. And probably Sid said, thats the dumbest idea I ever heard.

Then they decided to put it in, just to see if they could sell such an idiotic concept to the public.

Thats my theory anyway.

[Venger]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
I think the man said it wasn't a "historical simulation". Your quote was definitely taken out of context.

Really? So what is it then? Read the f'in box.

Didn't East Germany "flip" back to West Germany?

Why didn't they 'flip' back in 1948? Of, that's right, because the Soviets wouldn't ALLOW it.

> Didn't Hong Kong "flip" back to China?

Uh, no, Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease from China to Britain. The lease expired and the island reverted to Chinese control. The Hong Kong citizenry didn't overthrow British empirical control of the island and overwhelm their armies - their freaking LEASE ran out.

Didn't S. Vietnam "flip" back to N. Vietnam?

God almighty, you can't be more than 18 years old. South Vietnam FLIPPED? Yeah, flipped under the crush of the NVA who rolled in with tanks. Culture flip? Yeah, that image of the last chopper leaving the U.S. Embassy in Saigon shows all those 'culture flipping' South Vietnamese trying to culture flip their ass to America and out of SE Asia. Perhaps you've run into some of those 'culture flippers' in Houston or San Francisco, where large local Vietnamese communities exist. They culture flipped all the way across the Pacific.

This has to be the lamest attempt to justify culture flipping around...

The game can't handle all of the complex ins and outs of international politics. The politics have been simplified to something the AI can understand. The programmers reduced these complexities to an abstract expression. This is of course, the culture flip.

Why not just reduce the game to a coin flip since we can't simulate all the 'complexities' of history? Freaking please. Culture flipping is something that worked fine at the margins of the Civs in the early game, when a size 1 outpost comes under the control of a nearby Civ, but it absolutely DOESN'T work when a blitzkrieging army disappears after a city is conquered and 'reverts'. Hell, it cost 2 armor to take the city but you lose 10 when it reverts. INDEFENSIBLE game design.

> Look at the USA civil war. Virginia seceded from the union. West Virginia "admired the culture" of the Union and stayed with them rather than secede.

Oh my f'ing God, and I thought the Vietnam example was a steaming pile... Virginia culture flipped to the South? Are you CRACKED?

> Virginia itself admired the southern culture and joined them. The game's mechanics simply cannot cope with these kinds of complexities.

It doesn't have to. You've been busy trying to support the flawed theories while ignoring the in game facts - culture flipping doesn't reflect the U.S. Civil War, it in no way tries to. The South didn't join France, it seceded to become it's OWN nation. Mind you, in Civ2, if your capital fell, this could happen to you. They seemed to be able to figure it out in Civ2 without culture flipping...

So the concept was implemented through the culture model. It is a distorted reflection of reality, but then so is the entire game.

A granary is a distorted reflection of reality. Culture flipping is a horrendously failed attempt to make sure people go to all the trouble to build universities and cathedrals. Mind you, they couldn't find any other way than this NONSENSICAL culture flipping. I stopped playing a 1.21 game after taking a city on my enemies southern coast, establishing a beachhead, only to have it revert back destroying my armies within. And no, I shouldn't need 12 armored divisions to hold a city it took 2 divisions to take.

I don't know, maybe we are talking about two different things here.

I'll say...

Venger

[MosesPresley]

Venger, you are now ignored. You obviously can't read and you are needlessly rude to boot.

[notyoueither]

He's po'ed about a game feature that drives him to distraction and being told 'there, there your displeasure has no basis in reality.'

In other words, it's a hot topic. If you dismiss the positions of the people you disagree with on a heated issue, expect the flames to rise.

Tell me Moses, when did any major army just up and disappear with out a trace? The real issue to me is not the flip. It's the 1st SS Panzer Corps getting blottoed by a bunch of brick throwing peasants with no survivors from the military. I know I can prevent it. But I don't like the measures I have to use to do so. I would much rather leave liberated populations alone and have a portion my units retreat when a flip occurs. I think many of the 'complainers' would be quite happy with that. I could be wrong though.

[Zachriel]

Re: Unbelievable Culture flipping

Originally posted by YuMMz
I really like Civ3 but someone really has to come up with a way to improve the serious annoyances of culture flipping. I am attaching a save game that really proves my point. I am Rome and am currently the games main superpower, and am on the verge of overtaking the world. Yet Egypt who has ONE 1pop city left somehow manages to culture flip one of my cities with 7-8 military units in it..... . . . Thanks for reading my rant!

Thanks for posting the game. First, you have 5000 gold and haven't rushed the temples. There are nine egyptian natives in New York and they outnumber your garrison. They get some idea in their heads that they are going to restore the Egyptian monarchy, and one night burn a bunch of buildings down. What's the big deal? You have tanks in nearby Seattle and can easily retake New York.

Basically, you are complaining because you lose an inconsequential city, of no strategic value, with a small garrison, losing 8 units out of an army of 276 infantry and 45 tanks. Meanwhile, your allies, the Chinese, have sent a huge army to take out the Egyptian capital (which you can see after you hit the end turn). I wouldn't sweat a bunch of would-be revolutionaries. They are the last gasp of an old regime.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by notyoueither
He's po'ed about a game feature that drives him to distraction and being told 'there, there your displeasure has no basis in reality.'

In other words, it's a hot topic. If you dismiss the positions of the people you disagree with on a heated issue, expect the flames to rise.

Tell me Moses, when did any major army just up and disappear with out a trace? The real issue to me is not the flip. It's the 1st SS Panzer Corps getting blottoed by a bunch of brick throwing peasants with no survivors from the military. I know I can prevent it. But I don't like the measures I have to use to do so. I would much rather leave liberated populations alone and have a portion my units retreat when a flip occurs. I think many of the 'complainers' would be quite happy with that. I could be wrong though.

I suppose my original post was too flip, which naturally prompts the wrong kind of reaction. You are correct, no army just ups and disappears, everyone knows that.

The point I was trying to make is that the game is an extremely dumbed down version of history. The game designers had to make certain concessions in the making of the game. It appears, and I certainly don't know this for certain, that they were trying to mimic such historical events as Hong Kong going back to the Chinese e.g.

This issue is obviously never going to be resolved.

Over and out.

[notyoueither]

You are right that the game is an extremely abstract version of history. The thing that offends many on this issue is the effect on game play of the disappearing armies (I believe). No problem with abstract from me, as long as it plays well.

As far as resolution goes... various Firaxians have said that a very large number of ideas from boards like these are implemented in the game. So maybe in the end we will all be happy.

Think happy thoughts.

[YuMMz]

Zachriel: If you noticed I rushed every temple but New York (which just went out of revolt this turn), and that was due to the fact that I had saved and lost the city and on the reload didn't rush it since it was a waste of my 300gold. What I am getting at with this post is the unreasonable nature of culture flipping at times. I am using this savegame as a example, since I don't have any saves from earlier when the culture flipping actually drastically effected my war efforts. Also losing this unimportant, unstrategic city is just damn annoying. This is not the first city I lost this game, as it so happens I lost 3 cities in the war with the Germans, 2 Babylonian cities, and 2 Egyptian cities (including this one). I hate the have to save every turn because I consider it cheating but I will be damned if I will lose a war because I move my main assualt force into a city and it flip and I lose every unit in the city without warning. This just happened to be the last straw. In earlier times losing 8-10 units can be pretty devastating to a civ and delay a war by quite a few turns. And any war delay will most likely result in 1 or 2 more cities culture flipping back (ugh!). They need to either allow you to disable culture flipping (if there is a way now please tell me) or change its effects and give you some kind of warning. There is no way those New York citizens would kill EVERY single unit stationed in their city in a revolt. Give me 75% of my force back or something! I love how a previously spearman/rifleman garrisoned city killed numerous tanks and infantryman.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by YuMMz
Zachriel: There is no way those New York citizens would kill EVERY single unit stationed in their city in a revolt. Give me 75% of my force back or something! I love how a previously spearman/rifleman garrisoned city killed numerous tanks and infantryman.

That is incorrect. Thousands of Somalis can indeed do a lot of damage to an occupying force. Better to keep your forces stationed out of the city. That way when they overrun any troops in the town, you can rescue them with forces stationed out of town.

More generally, you just need to develop a sense of when your troops are in a dangerous situation. If they are, and you decide to proceed anyway, then that is just the breaks. Flip mechanics are a quite playable aspect of the game. In a recent game, I stationed 30 stealth bombers in a newly conquered city. Of course, I had plenty of garrison, about 30 units in a city of 10. In another city, I lost 8 mechs in a city of 24. I knew it was chancy, but wanted to hold the railhead there without committing a lot of troops. It didn't work. In any case, I retook the city and ended the war within a couple of turns.

"Tell high command that the town is pacified."
"But sir, there are strange whispers in the night."
"We will not let this town stand in the way of our glorious advance. The town is pacified. Look at the happy people. They always smile when they see me."
"Yes sir. But those smiles are exactly what makes me nervous."

[Capt Dizle]

I am supremely confident Firaxis will have this awful problem fixed for PTW. The hue and outcry heard regarding the flippin flip so far would be magnified by a factor of 10 if allowed to go multiplayer.

No one in their right mind would invest time in a MP game only to see it decided not by player skill but by the arcane and inane vagarities of some barely comprehensible, illogical mathematical goobledeegook.

Military units do not go poof.

[Solver]

Jimmy, let me ask you this:

1. What do you say to that it's players' skills who determine can they build much culture, while also attending to other needs?
2. Would it be all right if the military units also flipped to the owner, with the city.