Attempting to rid culture from the game

[Venger]

Originally posted by DrFell

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.

Bingo. Give me a couple Firaxis programmers, the Civ2 and SMAC source code, and six months, and I'll give you the game we all want...

Venger

[Venger]

Re: re: vondrack and his 10 points

Originally posted by GI Josh
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.

Huh? Why? You should be playing Reversi or Othello, not Civ.

Venger

[Theseus]

Vondrack is hilarious.

Vondrack is also correct... this is a game we're talking about, with rules that you can either figure out and go ahead and play, or, if you don;t like the rules, then don;t play.

I mean c'mon: Who ever saw a knight take two hops forward and then one to the left? And how the hell do you move a castle?

[GI Josh]

Re: Re: re: vondrack and his 10 points

Originally posted by Venger


Huh? Why? You should be playing Reversi or Othello, not Civ.

Venger

Because Civ should not be a straight military conquest game. It's about building a civilization that "will stand the test of time" - no civilization survives long that doesn't maintain enough military to protect itself. But military alone is not enough to prosper. The game abstracts history in a simplified way, requiring the player to balance military, economic, cultural, diplomatic, and other factors. In general, I think that the game rewards war too much and the other aspects not enough. Moreover, while there are other victory conditions other than military conquest, cultural victory (bcs it rewards having many cities with some culture rather than a few cultural superstars) for example is not robust enough. I enjoy playing straight combat simulations (though to be honest I'd rather get a good paintball game going) - I play Civ bcs I enjoy being challenged along several different dimensions. That's why I like Civ3 so much - I'll play the same starting position in several different styles, sometimes builder-style, sometimes warmonger. I wish there were *more* ways to approach building a civ and less emphasis on warring. Civ's military aspects are too simplified to be satisfying if military prowess dominates the game.

Bottom-line, there are two competing visions of where the Civ series should be going: (i) more along the lines of SimCiv, replicating on a simplified and abstract level the political, economic, and other challenges of running a country, with what would appear to be a military emphasis (that's only from a modern perspective, imo); or (ii) more of a war-oriented game, but with the considerations of production limitation and with a longer-term perspective, thus encompassing diplomacy.

In other words, should Civ be a simulation of civilization with an emphasis on military, or should Civ be a wargame with some other considerations? I vote for SimCiv - I like the way Civ3 has evolved and I would like for it to be pushed further in that direction. I also would enjoy beefing up the strategic/operational level of the military aspects to the game, but I don't want the other aspects de-emphasized.

[Coracle]

Is someone straining themselves trying to find some logical or historical justification for this Culture Flipping CRAP?

Let me summarize.

1. Culture is important in building a civilization. But that does not mean Culture Flipping borders and towns has any validity. It has none.

2. Culture Flipping as implemented in the game mechanics is even worse. When large garrisons vanish into thin air based on some braindead formula Soren dreamed up we have NONSENSE. Same with when borders flip over my garrisoned fortress and resource (even iron) and I am expected to just. leave.

3. Culture historically has been important for maintaining strong civilizations through the centuries, along with infrastructure, government, etc. But civilizations expanded through military strength and terror. The Mongols were among many that slaughtered people in huge numbers to terrorize other cities into surrendering (not "Flipping") - not reflected in the game.

So Culture Flipping is a crock, and the same goes for its stupid cousin "razing".

How to get rid of it??

In the Editor, Culture, this might work: Set success = 0%, resistanace = 100%.
In theory this should produce ZERO culture flips.

If not, I waste no moire time on Civ 3, not after I had nine military vanish in a Flipping town of '1' early this morning.

[MarkG]

But that does not mean Culture Flipping borders and towns has any validity. It has none.

so what? it's a game

When large garrisons vanish into thin air based on some braindead formula Soren dreamed up we have NONSENSE.

as nonsense as is building units without any population loss in your cities

The Mongols were among many that slaughtered people in huge numbers to terrorize other cities into surrendering (not "Flipping") - not reflected in the game.

did you see a "if an aspect of history is not reflected and simulated accurately in this game, feel free to sue us" sticker on the box??

[Dom Pedro II]

*Shrugs*

Maybe it's the difficulty level, but on Regent, I never really have culture flipping when I invade. I remember one game, I had two cities flip, and that was the most I ever had. Normally, I start at the border cities and work my way in, and I never have a problem.

In fact, I'm even playing a game where I've invaded a country with a poor cultural standing compared to my magnificent civilization on the other side of the world. No culture flipping.

A run of bad luck for you fellas then? I do not know.

[Dom Pedro II]

After reading through this thread... I would also like to say that it seems to me that some of these whiners (if they want something so historically accurate) should have saved themselves the $50 for the game and should've invested it in their time machines instead...

if you hate the game THAT much, WHY even bother to post here??

I hate CtP, you don't see me going into the Call to Power forums scolding the creators...

[Cyclotron]

I just think it's funny how a thread entirely not about whether culture flipping is good or bad turned into yet another wasted culture-bickering thread. It also strikes me as a waste that so many points that could actually be valid are completely mangled by baseless insults, hollow attacks, and in a completely unproductive manner. Is there any point? Has there ever been any?

Leave the fighting threads to the fighters.

[Rust]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Does it really make sense that a warrior unit can capture a city of 1e6 people?

Yes but that warrior is Conan himself.

These ppl freak about losing one or two cities in an entire game due to culture. We can only wonder how much of their property they would destroy if their civilization was completely razed by military units.

[ruskiyparen]

There is a way to stop culture flipping(or lower it dramatically) in the editor.

[Ludwig]

I notice a number of posters seem to feel that overgarrisoning - having a number of units higher than the number of citizens in resistance - will somehow prevent a city from culture-flipping.

Actually, in my experience, a city is much more likely to flip after it comes out of resistance. So I don't see how it can be directly related to resister status. Leaving additional units in it is just giving away more of your units.

I almost never take a city intact. I always raze it. Unless I take an entire opposing civ over during a single war lasting only a few turns, it just isn't worth it to try to rehabilitate their cities. If I need multiple wars to take a civ out, they will get at least one of their cities to flip during at least one of the wars. And those of you claiming that this is possible to avoid can't be serious, or have experienced amazing statistical anomalies - I have no qualms about going into the autosaves [or even further into the past] to try to get ahead of a culture flip, with garrisons, culture improvements, destroying improved paths to the enemy capital, etc. - and it doesn't work. You can go back in time 5 or 6 turns, and fate cannot be avoided. You can occasionally prevent or delay the flip, but as often as not the AI is awarded a DIFFERENT city, instead, if you try to change the outcome. Sometimes the random number is just plain old too bad to be overcome. In addition, if you get an enemy AI down to one city on Deity, you better take that city the first turn out - to keep the AI going, perfectly pacified cities you've had for 100 years and have grown back up from a bombarded size 4 or 5 will defect immediately, in large numbers.

As long as I can still burn the cities down and disband all the workers [$%&^ those guys - I've got enough workers] this is not the end of the world. It would be nice to be able to capture a civ intact once in a while, though.

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by ruskiyparen
There is a way to stop culture flipping(or lower it dramatically) in the editor.

HOOOWWW!!??? This is exactly the purpose of why I started this thread (not really to bicker about how good or bad this concept is, since i'm starting from the assumption that its bad anyway . Perhaps you know some ways this can be done?

Something I just recently tried in the editor to lower the chance of culture flipping is I set the assymlation rates to 90% for each government type, but even after 20 or 30 turns, enemy citizens in cities which i have conquered from the AI are still retaining their old nationality, and this is even after the resistance has ended. With these settings, shouldnt the enemy citizens in my recently conquered cities be assymlating into my culture in 1 or 2 turns at the most? If anyone knows how to help, please say something.

[Ludwig]

I notice a number of posters seem to feel that overgarrisoning - having a number of units higher than the number of citizens in resistance - will somehow prevent a city from culture-flipping.

Actually, in my experience, a city is much more likely to flip after it comes out of resistance. So I don't see how it can be directly related to resister status. Leaving additional units in it is just giving away more of your units.

I almost never take a city intact. I always raze it. Unless I take an entire opposing civ over during a single war lasting only a few turns, it just isn't worth it to try to rehabilitate their cities. If I need multiple wars to take a civ out, they will get at least one of their cities to flip during at least one of the wars. And those of you claiming that this is possible to avoid can't be serious, or have experienced amazing statistical anomalies - I have no qualms about going into the autosaves [or even further into the past] to try to get ahead of a culture flip, with garrisons, culture improvements, destroying improved paths to the enemy capital, etc. - and it doesn't work. You can go back in time 5 or 6 turns, and fate cannot be avoided. You can occasionally prevent or delay the flip, but as often as not the AI is awarded a DIFFERENT city, instead, if you try to change the outcome. Sometimes the random number is just plain old too bad to be overcome. In addition, if you get an enemy AI down to one city on Deity, you better take that city the first turn out - to keep the AI going, perfectly pacified cities you've had for 100 years and have grown back up from a bombarded size 4 or 5 will defect immediately, in large numbers.

As long as I can still burn the cities down and disband all the workers [$%&^ those guys - I've got enough workers] this is not the end of the world. It would be nice to be able to capture a civ intact once in a while, though.

[whosurdaddy]

And shouldnt culturally absorbing a city be an act of war!? You should not be able to annex swaths of other country's territory without any repercussions.

And yes, i do build up my own culture in my own games, its just since i consider flipping to be such a horrible concept, even when AI cities decide to defect to my culture, I TURN THEM DOWN.