Attempting to rid culture from the game

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by MarkG
he is venting for the last 9 months and he's got plenty more

[Barchan]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
Of course the cities of France in ww2 had French nationals in them in real life!!! The problem is when we make scenarios, if we start the scenario off after the german conquest of France, we are going to have to place the French cities as German cities, with german nationals (you cannot place german controlled cities with french citizens in them in the editor), so when the allies take normandy as a foothold, and do not immediately conquer everything else, IT WILL FLIP TO THE GERMANS taking the d-day invasion force with it. That was just an example of how culture flipping will break down many a scenario.

Ah, now I see. Your previous post didn't have the scenario creation background info in it and I, not being a scenario creator, missed it. But I do see your point. OTOH, is CivIII really the best platform to try to recreate military campaigns? I could rattle off a whole host of reasons it isn't, and culture flipping wouldn't be at the top of the list....

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Coracle

No fan of Civ 2 ever asked for this in five years of forum discussions after Civ 2 came out. But we sure got it anyway.

How can you say this when from first appearance, you have only been around since Feb.?

Back in 2000 and primarily, 2001, a number of Apolytoners put together a very substantial list of desires for Civ3 (actually two documents, both of which can be found here - one is called The List, the other is EC3 List). Culture was very prominent.

Actually, if you read The List, you would see many hairbrained ideas that makes the current implementation of culture seem very miniscule in its effect. The main problem with Civ3 is that Firaxis DID listen to many of 'our' ideas, most of which had no business being in a Civilization game (esp. the next iteration after Civ2). Thus Civ3 becomes too many disparate parts that do not work together well.

Those of us that wanted Civ2.5 was shouted down. Now, if you have read many of suggestions since last November, civers want to bring back some of the elements from Civ2. Firaxis should have made Civ2.5, which could include some form of culture and resources, but in a way that they don't dictate how the game should be played or force you to play a certain way.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Venger


Of course you garrison them, it's the only way to bring the city into order. However, I shouldn't have to garrison 12 units in a size 11 city when it took only 3 units to conquer it. Additionally, I shouldn't lose my entire army when it occurs.

Well no wonder your frustrated, you obviously you don't know how to work it properly. There's no way in hell a force of 3 units should be able to hold a city that size. That would be like saying a bus load of Canadian hockey fans could go to New York and capture the city. Soren himself said you need at least 2 units for every citizen. Then you just starve out the resident population until it's down to size 1 so you can continue your campaign. Or else raze the city.

[Jawn Henry]

Originally posted by Coracle
Speaking of vanishing troops, I saw an example of NINE military units disappearing when a town oif '1' flipped. That is absurd. It also would simply end a game in defeat for the victim. More time wasted.

I've never had this happen to me, as i'm still playing on the easier levels. But i do agree it would be a darn pain in the butt, losing units to a re-flip. Maybe in the next Civ, they ought to simply kick the garrison out of the city, say, maybe 2 hexes away - it would give a chance for the AI to build a defender. And maybe add some code that says if a city is conquered 2 by the same civ in a given amount of turns, it cannot flip back to the original owner...

Thoughts?

JH

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by Barchan


Ah, now I see. Your previous post didn't have the scenario creation background info in it and I, not being a scenario creator, missed it. But I do see your point. OTOH, is CivIII really the best platform to try to recreate military campaigns? I could rattle off a whole host of reasons it isn't, and culture flipping wouldn't be at the top of the list....

recreating military history was a time honored tradition with civ2 (just look at the thousands of scenarios that were created), but now u yourself have even admit that doing such things is damn near impossible in civ3 as it is now.

And please dont anyone say, if you love civ2 so much why dont u go back and play it. I played 50 dollars for civ3. Is it too much to ask that it do everything civ2 was capable of, plus perhaps a little more?

[Willem]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy

And please dont anyone say, if you love civ2 so much why dont u go back and play it. I played 50 dollars for civ3. Is it too much to ask that it do everything civ2 was capable of, plus perhaps a little more?

Is it to much to ask that people accept that things change, and that Civ III should no longer be compared to Civ II? Learn how the new rules work, instead of getting nostalgic! You might find the new challenges a bit more entertaining that way.

[DrFell]

Originally posted by Steve Clark Back in 2000 and primarily, 2001, a number of Apolytoners put together a very substantial list of desires for Civ3 (actually two documents, both of which can be found here - one is called The List, the other is EC3 List). Culture was very prominent.

Actually, if you read The List, you would see many hairbrained ideas that makes the current implementation of culture seem very miniscule in its effect. The main problem with Civ3 is that Firaxis DID listen to many of 'our' ideas, most of which had no business being in a Civilization game (esp. the next iteration after Civ2). Thus Civ3 becomes too many disparate parts that do not work together well.

Those of us that wanted Civ2.5 was shouted down. Now, if you have read many of suggestions since last November, civers want to bring back some of the elements from Civ2. Firaxis should have made Civ2.5, which could include some form of culture and resources, but in a way that they don't dictate how the game should be played or force you to play a certain way.

You're so right.

When I first saw the list I was just praying most of the ideas put in there would not be included in the game. Many of them were just ridiculous and seemed to have been thought up by people with no concept of playability or of how they would fit into the game. Everyone had a different idea of what they wanted 'civ3' to be like, and the majority of these ideas were just completely unfeasible. It must have been a bit of a nightmare for Firaxis to go through the whole list, considering the sheer amount which needed to be rejected.

I was always one of the people who hoped for a civ2.5. After all, civ2 was civ1.5 and it was one hell of a game. There was SO much that could have been tweaked in civ2 and only minor additions were needed to make a great game. But too much was changed in the wrong ways, and only now is civ3 becoming the civ3 I was looking for.

[whosurdaddy]

So just cause I want a game that makes some semblance of sense, you guys are saying I want Civ2.5 and not Civ3. Absolutely not. A game can be different but better (civ3 is different than civ2, but many of the additions such as culture flipping are silly). Just because a game IS different does not necessarily make it better.

You guys say, "Oh you just dont know how to play the game, you should get used to playing with culture flipping then u'd have no problem."
Listen, I could design the game to have pink elephants that randomly appear in the game that can destroy whole cities, and sure ... I could prolly learn how to play the game and deal with these pink elephants so that they dont destroy my civ, but that doesnt mean having pink elephants in the game is fun or that it even makes any sense! (I hope you guys like my analogy)

[Proserpine]

I haven't seen this commented on anywhere else, so here looks like a good place

Wasn't there a version of some kind of "culture flipping" in SMAC? Occasionally a city would "revolt" and join another faction. Usually, in my games, it seemed to be my cities joining their faction. I don't recall whether the chance of this happening was affected by the presence of military units. It was RARE, however, and in my view not unreasonable. Anyone remember how it worked?

[SpencerH]

Heres another suggestion. How about if we toss out the concept that a single military unit can instantly capture a metropolis. Does it really make sense that a warrior unit can capture a city of 1e6 people? It makes more sense that the unit enters the city but does not capture it. The city is lost for production by its owner and becomes "neutral" until pacified by sufficient invading units and joins capturing civ or is recaptured by its original owner.

[GI Josh]

re: vondrack and his 10 points

vondrack - you owe me drycleaning money, i laughed so hard that i soiled myself.

culture in general and flipping specifically are both great concepts. in general, culture is not rewarded enough - flipping during peacetime should happen more easily and more often. right now the game still favors the warmongerer too much and the cultural player doesn't get enough for his efforts. also, cultural rating should be somehow averaged or affected by number of cities, i.e. a few cities with high cultural values should not be swamped by a lot of cities all with minimal cultural values.

as far as flipping is concerned, there are two problems: (i) it happens without warning, swallowing huge garrisons in a seemingly arbitrary fashion; (ii) the garrisons required to prevent culture-flipping seem to be too much. Proposed solution [note to Zouave, "solution" is in the dictionary and is generally considered acceptable to use in polite company]: (i) cities go into civil disorder first before flipping; (ii) each turn that a city is in resistance, for each resister there is a chance that a garrisoning unit will be destroyed, or a partisan unit produced, or nothing; (iii) lower somewhat the required number of units to keep a city controlled.

overall, culture needs to be *strengthened*, not weakened. the game needs to provide greater rewards and opportunities to the civ that focuses on economics or culture (i.e. building a civilization worthy of emulation) - right now the rewards are oriented primarily around territory, which is primarily a function of warmongering.

[GI Josh]

"Garrisons should never vanish.

Razing cities must be drastically curtailed.

Borders should never flip over garrisoned fortresses, resources, improvements, or colonies. "

Coracle, these comments of yours from another thread are actually well-taken. If you limited yourself to discrete observations such as these, especially when coupled with how the *mechanics* should be changed, and you'd be far more persuasive and far less annoying. You're right - garrisons shouldn't just "disappear"; fortresses should have some effect on borders, and so should colonies. Now add some constructive suggestions as to how the mechanics should be changed, without reducing the game to a one-dimensional warmongering game.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by DrFell


No there wasn't Bribing was the closest you could get, but that correlates as civ3 'propoganda'.

But there was in civ1... although it almost never happened. In many many games over a few years I only had it happen once... all of a sudden a Russian city right in the middle of their empire decided to rebel. Of course it was virtually no use to me. Never saw it happen again.

Sorry, you are correct, I was thinking of Civ1.

I had the same experience.... it only happened once, and I will never forget it.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Willem

Well no wonder your frustrated, you obviously you don't know how to work it properly.

Horse ****, I just finished a 1.29 game on Monarch, Large Map, and conquered everyone. I *DO* know how to work it, I do not like HOW it works.

There's no way in hell a force of 3 units should be able to hold a city that size.

Really? What holds the city of Houston in order? Surely not 3 armored battallions. Far less does.

Why should I need 25 motor rifle batallions to garrison a size 12 city against a CULTURE flip? Dude FREAKING PLEASE.

That would be like saying a bus load of Canadian hockey fans could go to New York and capture the city. Soren himself said you need at least 2 units for every citizen.

I beleive this has been reduced in later patches - I beleive it's down to city size +1 - because too many people wretched about it.

Then you just starve out the resident population until it's down to size 1 so you can continue your campaign. Or else raze the city.

Back to the genocidal maniac theory. When I take Paris, I take it because I WANT PARIS, not a grassy weedpatch growing on a bulldozed city.

Venger