culture flipping-stupid, but right idea

[MOHonor]

Originally posted by Coracle



Hey fanboy, better get your priorities straightened out. Worry about the utter nonsense that Culture Flipping is historically, and the braindead way it is implemented in the game, instead of cheerleading for Firaxis.

Originally posted by Coracle
As for the topic of this thread. . .

Hordes of immigrants, legal and illegal, are flooding America because America and their country of origin PERMIT it (unfortunately), AND because the U.S. is WHERE THE MONEY IS - not where the "culture" is.

Cities and borders do NOT "flip", nor has anyone "razed" a city totally since Carthage over two thousand years ago.

Originally posted by Coracle
Then CHANGE it Firaxis!

Just fix it.

Way to spew your usual garbage in 3 posts instead of 1. All in the span of 5 minutes no less. LOL! Looks like PCR time!

[miccofl]

There are only a few other things in the game more satisfying than building my culture up to the point where I can take over an entire civ without ever firing a shot. (Even if it is a weak civ and it costs me 20K gold.)

Is it historically realistic? Consider the fact that during the American Civil War, the mayor of Savannah, GA took a delegation to meet with Gen. Sherman and agreed to give him the city without ever firing a shot, if he would agree not to burn it down. Some would call this a conditional surrender, but since Gen. Pyro had not yet reached the city, it seems a bit preemptive. Did they flip? If not, that’s as close as history is going to get.

Are there better or other ways to effect this kind of population shift? Probably thousands, my guess is they could only pick one, or that was as much time as they could spend on it without adversely affecting the cost or profit margin of the game. Reality bites!

[Palleon]

Plenty of cities have been razed. Washington was all but wiped out in the war of 1812, in retaliation for the razing of...the name escapes me, but it was renamed into Toronto. The Americans blew up an ammo dump which simulated a blast comperable to a nuclear weapon in the city, which pretty much wiped it out. Yes, people came back, but the city was in shambles for a while, just like Washington was. There are plenty more examples in history.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Palleon
Plenty of cities have been razed. Washington was all but wiped out in the war of 1812, in retaliation for the razing of...the name escapes me, but it was renamed into Toronto. The Americans blew up an ammo dump which simulated a blast comperable to a nuclear weapon in the city, which pretty much wiped it out. Yes, people came back, but the city was in shambles for a while, just like Washington was. There are plenty more examples in history.

York.

Yes, you should be able to raze cities, but it should have severe diplomatic repercussions (like nukes, only not as severe).

[Iskandar Reza]

Originally posted by MOHonor
Way to spew your usual garbage in 3 posts instead of 1. All in the span of 5 minutes no less. LOL! Looks like PCR time!

Hey pity the guy. If he gets PCR, and then gets disillusioned and leave, we wouldn't have this much fun anymore.

Originally posted by Trip

York.

Yes, you should be able to raze cities, but it should have severe diplomatic repercussions (like nukes, only not as severe).

Doesn't it already have diplomatic repercussions?

[F18fett]

I use culture flipping to take annoying little AI cities. You know how they like to march through your territory, ignoring your orders for them to go away. And then they build a nice city right in the middle of a tundra. Or, they land on a small strip of coastline right next to my border and build a crappy city. Culture flipping gets me those useless cities, so I can at least try and improve them.

But a better idea would be for them to fix the AI's illogical settling patterns and culture flipping.

[Cyclotron]

It does have diplomatic consequesnces, but Trip is proposing (i think?) they be increased. I would agree.

I also agree that flipping is meant to re-inforce an idea that is true to history (and quite historical) in a game context that is not historical. It's a give and take, and I am happy where it is.

Terminology question: I fail to see how Flipping, like other point of the game some people take issue with, is treated like a bug rather than a feature they don't like. How is it that you can "fix" flipping? Is it broken?

[Palleon]

I think razing just has diplomatic penalties for the civ that had its city destroyed. It should probobly be a global thing, people don't take kindly to genocide.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
It does have diplomatic consequesnces, but Trip is proposing (i think?) they be increased. I would agree.

I also agree that flipping is meant to re-inforce an idea that is true to history (and quite historical) in a game context that is not historical. It's a give and take, and I am happy where it is.

Terminology question: I fail to see how Flipping, like other point of the game some people take issue with, is treated like a bug rather than a feature they don't like. How is it that you can "fix" flipping? Is it broken?

Firaxis has a great technique in marketing Civ 3: they take what in any other game would be an obvious BUG and call it a "feature" or a "concept" or an "idea".

There is NOTHING historical about this braindead crap Soren dreamed up. Hey Soren, how many university History credits DO you have??

EXAMPLES:

When a border flips over my garrisoned fortress, mine, and resource with road three tiles from my town and I am insulted and ORDERED to get off or be known FOREVER as a warmonger, it is a load of GARBAGE.

When you have NINE military units in a just conquered town of only '1' and it STILL FLIPS, the entire garrison vanishing into thin air, it is so ludicrous I am insulted by it. You don't think that happened?? Here is the link for proof on the CFF: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showth...threadid=26738

I wouldn't take PTW for free as long as this idiocy exists, something no Civ 2 player ever asked for in over five years of discussing a proposed Civ 3 on the forums.

[Palleon]

Edit : Nevermind

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Palleon
I think razing just has diplomatic penalties for the civ that had its city destroyed. It should probobly be a global thing, people don't take kindly to genocide.

I thought it was global... but whatever it is, it does seem too minor. I would like to have the effect greatly increased, especially for destroying a large city.

[Bambul]

One of the problems lies with the fundamental assumption used in Civ3 that higher food production leads to higher population and vice-versa.

Whilst it is true that a lack of food causes a fall in the general population (ie. famine), the converse is not necessarily true. In fact, currently most western nations overproduce agricultural goods and yet the greatest increases in population is in Africa/Asia, not Europe/North America.

Fix this and immigration (which is partly represented by flipping) can be implemented. However this is very difficult to do and I would not expect Firaxis to be able to do this before Civ4, 5 or maybe even 6. (Hell, how many Final Fantasy games have there been??!!)

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Coracle
nor has anyone "razed" a city totally since Carthage over two thousand years ago.

Actually, that's not true.

June 10, 1942 - The Czech city of Lidice is completely razed by the Nazis as a reprisal for the execution of SS Leader Reinhard Heydrich, who was killed by Czech partisans. The Nazis killed every male over the age of 16 and sent the remaining women and children to concentration camps. The city was then razed, building by building, until it was completely destroyed. The area of the town was then plowed over and planted with grain. The name of the town was also removed from all Nazi maps.

[Palleon]

Originally posted by Bambul
(Hell, how many Final Fantasy games have there been??!!)

10 or 11 I think.

But getting to what you said about overproducing food, I think you have a point. Generally, as a civilization gets more and more advanced, they have less children. Most families in America will have 2-3 children, where in Africa, they'll have 5-6, mainly because life expectancy is so low that they need to have 6 children because only 2 will survive to become adults. But I don't know if that would be fair to make in a game, the stronger you get, the less population grows? No one would be able to establish a lead for very long. Of course, the countries still grow quickly due to immigration and the fact that people do live 72-75 years opposed to 30.

[Dan Severn]

Originally posted by miccofl

Is it historically realistic? Consider the fact that during the American Civil War, the mayor of Savannah, GA took a delegation to meet with Gen. Sherman and agreed to give him the city without ever firing a shot, if he would agree not to burn it down. Some would call this a conditional surrender, but since Gen. Pyro had not yet reached the city, it seems a bit preemptive. Did they flip? If not, that’s as close as history is going to get.

Hmm... Conditional surrender would be an interesting option if you cannot protect a city you think you can retake. Better than when I leave my coastal capital unguarded, and I don't notice the english warrior, who walks in and destroys a size 27 city.


General pyro.

We are the pyro-maniacs...

heh heh heh

dem kiddies won' know wot 'it 'em.