Attempting to rid culture from the game

[Barchan]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy 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)

You mean the game *doesn't* have pink civ-destroying elephants in it??? Ohh, boy. I'd better lay off the martinis while playing....

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by 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.
. . . And those of you claiming that this is possible to avoid can't be serious,

That is incorrect. It is very possible to control flipping in nearly all cases. In my latest game, "Cleopatra, Queen of Thebes," Cleopatra has cities close to three different capitals, and maintains those cities over hundreds of years. A sufficient garrison will always stop cultural reversion.

** WARNING ** CFC GOTM9 SPOILER **

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm.htm

In the game, "German Valor," Bismark loses a large city to flipping during a Panzer blitz. Frankly, he didn't have the forces available to secure the city and continue the blitz, so he left the city with a token garrison. By simply mopping up any remaining military resistance first, Bismark returns to the errant city and puts down the rebellion almost as an after-thought.

Two strategies: Cleopatra moves slowly and secures enemy cities one-by-one, using strong garrisons to prevent flips. Bismark moves quickly, destroys the enemy forces, leaves token garrisons, then quells any revolts afterwards.

[Rust]

Yes, that is another option that I will usually do. Just leave one unit in the city and one unit outside the city to immediately retake the city if it reverts.

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by Rust
Yes, that is another option that I will usually do. Just leave one unit in the city and one unit outside the city to immediately retake the city if it reverts.

Problem is, culturally annexing an enemy city isnt an act of war. So if one of my cities reverts after I have already signed the peace treaty with that civilization, then I have to re-declare war and risk a huge world wide war outbreak (since in the event of war, all the AI civs will declare war on me) just to recapture the city that was mine and recognized in the Peace Treaty.

Another thing that no one has responed to. There will be scenarios where turning off culture flipping will be absolutely A MUST! For example:

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. How is this supposed to be dealt with???

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy


Problem is, culturally annexing an enemy city isnt an act of war. So if one of my cities reverts after I have already signed the peace treaty with that civilization, then I have to re-declare war and risk a huge world wide war outbreak (since in the event of war, all the AI civs will declare war on me) just to recapture the city that was mine and recognized in the Peace Treaty.

Except... you don't. You don't "have" to declare war. A flip is only one city; I fail to see how war is mandatory after a single flip. If you don't want war, fight culture with culture.

Another thing that no one has responed to. There will be scenarios where turning off culture flipping will be absolutely A MUST! For example:

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. How is this supposed to be dealt with???

Easily. Either place enough units in the city to remove any chance of flipping, or lightly garrison the city and let D-Day forces re-take it if necessary. Is it really that hard? I apologize, but I just don't see the major problem in your scenario.

[whosurdaddy]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Easily. Either place enough units in the city to remove any chance of flipping, or lightly garrison the city and let D-Day forces re-take it if necessary. Is it really that hard? I apologize, but I just don't see the major problem in your scenario.

So its not the least bit silly that I'd have to heavily garrison or else RAZE the cities of France which I as the allies would supposed to be liberating in order to prevent them from culturally flipping to the GERMANS???

[Venger]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy

So its not the least bit silly that I'd have to heavily garrison or else RAZE the cities of France which I as the allies would supposed to be liberating in order to prevent them from culturally flipping to the GERMANS???

Of course it's silly. Dude the whole culture/border thing is a kludge of the old SMAC border engine. A proper implementation of cultural resistance/effect would involve resistance, reduced production, guerilla units, sabotage, defection and migration, etc. But no, we just get wholesale evacuation of entire cities, garrissoned heavily with elite troops.

Why? No good reason. They just wrote it that way. Never mind that you would like to make a more measured, reasoned approach to it...

A simple cultural reversion button or slider would suffice... allowing those who like playing with strange, arbitrary rules to keep it, and those looking for something grounded in reason, to ditch it.

When BR left, he seems to have taken the lifeforce of Civ and common sense with him...

Venger

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
So its not the least bit silly that I'd have to heavily garrison or else RAZE the cities of France which I as the allies would supposed to be liberating in order to prevent them from culturally flipping to the GERMANS???

No, not at all. Especially considering the fact that Civilization simulates the rise and fall of nations over many years, not one decade... these short scenarios have always been clunky in my mind with the Civ series. When you use a long-term historical strategy game for a short-term strategic warfare simulation, there are bound to be conflicts.

[Venger]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

No, not at all.

???

Remember, when you replace a human, please put your empty alien pod out by the curb for disposal. Thanks.

Especially considering the fact that Civilization simulates the rise and fall of nations over many years, not one decade...

So why are the turns broken down into individual years?

these short scenarios have always been clunky in my mind with the Civ series. When you use a long-term historical strategy game for a short-term strategic warfare simulation, there are bound to be conflicts.

Giggle - a historical strategy game, and yet you dismiss the arguments showing how culture flipping is utterly inane and groundless historically. I think you mean to say that Civ3's culture system is a hysterical strategy game...

Venger

[Barchan]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
these short scenarios have always been clunky in my mind with the Civ series. When you use a long-term historical strategy game for a short-term strategic warfare simulation, there are bound to be conflicts.

Right, that's what I *meant* to say earlier regarding military battles. I mean, it's tough to take a game that, in its full form, covers thousands of years of time and use it to recreate an 8-10 week military campaign. You can, but there will be problems. After all (apologies to non-American readers...), you *can* play soccer with a football, but it's not going to be a very good game. I'm just saying there are better game engines to recreate individual military campaigns.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Venger
Remember, when you replace a human, please put your empty alien pod out by the curb for disposal. Thanks.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Venger
Giggle - a historical strategy game, and yet you dismiss the arguments showing how culture flipping is utterly inane and groundless historically. I think you mean to say that Civ3's culture system is a hysterical strategy game...

Please note that I used the term "historical strategy game," not "historical simulation." It should be obvious that Civ3 is based on history, but it should also be obvious that it is not a strictly realistic simulation of history.

[Keeper of Hell]

Originally posted by vondrack

Free Artistry prior to Democracy (Free Artistry allows you to build the Shakespeare's Theatre... the one that was built LONG before the very first democracy emerged!)

Actually, the first true democracy in recorded history can be found in ancient Athens, over 1,500 years before The Globe was constructed. If you're looking for something *really* ridiculous, just think about how any government based on the direct representation of all its citizens could possibly be viable in a nation of millions of people.

Edit: Well that's rather odd, this forum doesn't seem to organize threads well at all. You'd think that a direct reply to a certain post would be placed somewhere in the general vicinity of that post, rather than two pages later...

[RedBird]

Originally posted by Keeper of Hell
Well that's rather odd, this forum doesn't seem to organize threads well at all. You'd think that a direct reply to a certain post would be placed somewhere in the general vicinity of that post, rather than two pages later...

Chronological order.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by zulu9812
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

I have NEVER lost a city to culture flipping. That's right - never. Not under any patch. Gained plenty, but never lost any. People who ***** about culture flipping just don't know how to deal with it properly. If you don't like culture, go play a war game. This is a civilization game, and civilizations have culture. Deal with it.

I'm going to have to side with Zulu9812 I just never seem to have a problem with culture flipping. I've only lost one city and it was founded by me on an island in the middle of a huge foreign empire.

But after reading through the formula for culture flipping I can see why I've never lost a conquered city. When I attack an enemy civ I send in several units and destroy all the enemy units around the city before I attack the city.

I do this because its easier to kill them when they are not receiving the defensive bonus of the city and any potential city improvements. But according the formula, I am also shifting the culture flip stats to my favor by controlling occupying squares in the city's radius.

After I take the city I place all of my wounded units in it so they can recover for the next battle. I do this because I never send a unit into battle unless it is in the green area of hit points. Once again according to the formula I'm shifting it in my favor by garrisonning troops in the city. There are also no tiles under the opposing civs control as I secured the city's countyside before taking the city.

I always play on Diety level and have never lost a conquered city to Culture Flipping. (I lost some to Bullets Flying, but not Culture Flipping)