Culture Flipping:

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by DeepO
Thanks Kull, both for the compliment and the answer to Coracle. It is hard to keep giving answers to his arguments or (personal) attacks.

Then it's time to add him to your ignore list. If somebody refuses to listen or always beats the same drum, let it go.

[DeepO]

yeah, I know. But than you sometimes miss where the thread is going. I prefer to (manually) ignore him for the most part, and only answer when there is something new to be said. I liked the screenshots he gave here, it was an opportunity to show him that he was still thinking wrongly about the issue, or was deliberately abusing an example to fit his own needs.

DeepO

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by DeepO
yeah, I know. But than you sometimes miss where the thread is going. I prefer to (manually) ignore him for the most part, and only answer when there is something new to be said. I liked the screenshots he gave here, it was an opportunity to show him that he was still thinking wrongly about the issue, or was deliberately abusing an example to fit his own needs.

DeepO

Yeah, the one's you want to ignore are usually the one's that drive the direction of the discussion......

[Ming]

[dunk]

I think culture flipping is a good thing. It encourages you to have a sufficient force to take more than one city of your opponent within a few turns. You better move quickly through the Babylonian territory or else the population will revolt against your occupation. Seems fine to me.

Sometimes I putz through a conquest (waiting for a nifty new weapon like tanks or infantry and artillery) and a city flips. Oh well, I just conquer it again in the next few turns.

I agree that an option should be implemented to de-activate culture flipping. Scenarios will definately suffer if it can't be eliminated from a game.

[GhengisFarb™]

Re: Culture Flipping:

Originally posted by miccofl
Not looking to start another discussion here, I just thought that with all the discussion on the subject it might be interesting to get a head count.

That's the very first post, and while I apologize for getting COMPLETELY off the Thread's title (I did, I admit it, wasn't intentional, just got carried away making wise cracks...), I don't think the creator considered this thread all that sacred.

But I do want to go on record that I LIKE CULTURE FLIPPING. The first time it happened (I lost a city to Ghandi), I went into shock, fell on the floor LMAO, and immediately went after the traitors!

Seriously, all these people that are complaining about losing their garrison of 9 units when a city flips and now they can't win the game have bigger issues.

Namely, how the heck were you going to conquer the world with only 9 units?

[miccofl]

That's the very first post, and while I apologize for getting COMPLETELY off the Thread's title (I did, I admit it, wasn't intentional, just got carried away making wise cracks...), I don't think the creator considered this thread all that sacred.

Sacred?

When I started this thing I knew it was going to stir up some defecation, but I really didn’t expect the defecation to impact the rotary oscillator in such grand fashion. However, if we just disregard all the statements pro and con, all the arguments, rants, raves, flames, whines and miscellaneous BS then just look at the vote, the message is clear. 20 days left...

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by miccofl
. 20 days left...

Till the end of the poll?

There certainly are a lot more people who LOVE it, rather than hate it. That suprised me, the people who hate it really get there point across....

and across....

and across....

[miccofl]

Till the end of the poll?

There certainly are a lot more people who LOVE it, rather than hate it. That suprised me, the people who hate it really get there point across....

and across....

and across....

Yeah, I shouldn’t have chosen such a long time period… Oooooooopppps!

The choice I found to be the most fascinating, was number three – the clear majority – who believe the game imitates life; you take what it gives you, you deal with it or use it to your advantage and then you move on. In retrospect I should have named the poll “Electronic Darwinism” (but then I also think Ming’s avatar should emit a running sound clip from the movie after it loads. )

[Zylka]

Now more then ever, I'm NOT a fan

[Martinus Magnificus]

I find the idea of CF interesting, but I don't like the way this concept is implemented in the game. I think it's ridiculous that it is possible to lose any garrison over 5 units. Can sombody please explain to me how citizens armed with no more than rifles at best can kill a much better armed occupying army? (now, don't bring up the Stalingrad thing again, that's only applicable to tanks). A city occupied by a reasonable force (2-6 units in game terms) should not ever be able to CF, it is simply impossible. If so, then what the heck is the idea of martial law? Wasn't that supposed to represent the power of armed forces presence?

Therefore I'm looking for a way to turn this feature off, or tone it down at least. Can someone tell me how to do that? I read something about changing the 'resistance' numbers in the editor, but I'm not sure.

If only they had made this feature optional...

[Kull]

One critical element missing from the poll is context. For example, if the poll was titled "Culture Flipping in the Basic Game" my answer would be one thing. However, if the poll asked "Culture Flipping: Should it be moddable in Scenarios" than you'd get a completely different opinion.

As I've said before, Culture Flipping is - if anything - understated in terms of it's true historical power. So I love it's inclusion in the game. But as a scenario developer, there are times it may be necessary to do away with it altogether - and it would be nice to have that option.

[Switch]

Originally posted by Coracle
"Part of the game"? Whatever crap Soren serves up is OK, huh? No sale. If a realtor sold me a house with termites I wouldn't say "it's part of the house". It is a BUG; even if Soren planned for it it is a bug because it screws up the game mechanics, is the opposite of realism, and is intenesely irritating.

I went into Editor, the Culture section, and changed every resistance rating down to nothing. Perhaps that will have an effect on this nonsense. We shall see. If not, EU2 here I come.

Regarding calling it a BUG: wrong: a bug is an unintended problem, not an intented game device (or probelm if you wish. It was still intended).

Regarding EU2: Will this mean you'll stop repetitively ranting about crap?

As to the vote, I chose the "It's in the game, deal with it." Not because I don't like it but deal with it, but merely becasue I could really care less. It's in, so I try to get high culture and flip enemy cities. If it was out, then I wouldn't. :me shrugs:

[Coracle]

Originally posted by SwitchMoO


Regarding calling it a BUG: wrong: a bug is an unintended problem, not an intented game device (or probelm if you wish. It was still intended).

Regarding EU2: Will this mean you'll stop repetitively ranting about crap?

As to the vote, I chose the "It's in the game, deal with it." Not because I don't like it but deal with it, but merely becasue I could really care less. It's in, so I try to get high culture and flip enemy cities. If it was out, then I wouldn't. :me shrugs:

OK, technically it is not a "bug". How about calliig it a "SCREW UP" or a "MISTAKE" the result of a flawed concept and poor playtesting?

"Ranting about crap". Glad you concede Flipping IS "crap". I agree. I wouldn't have to comment on it at all IF FIRAXIS listened and merely gave us some viable options - as they DID with corruption rates and crazy AI trading.

As for not caring, I guess I had higher expectations and am more discriminating regarding the quality of products I buy. Or maybe it's just that some of us care about reality in a game that supposedly is NOT a Fantasy game.

Oh well. Let me fire up EU2 for the evening. Back later. . .

[Catt]

Originally posted by Coracle



OK, technically it is not a "bug". How about calliig it a "SCREW UP" or a "MISTAKE" the result of a flawed concept and poor playtesting?

It's a design decision. It is not a "screw up" or a "mistake" (why all the yelling?), and it is not the product of "poor playtesting." Your opinion would come across better if you adhered to reasonable and widely acceptable norms of discussion and debate (regardless of what you may see in other posts), instead of labeling everything with which you disagree as "STUPID," "BRAINDEAD," a "MISTAKE" or the product of __________ Firaxis (insert one of the aforementioned perjoritives as an adjective).

Calling it a flawed concept is fair criticism - its fair because you're entitled to your opinion, not because it is objectively "fair" criticism of the game. However, making a blanket statement that the concept is flawed isn't a discussion or an argument - it's a statement. Feel free to explain why you think it's flawed, preferably without CAPS on every emotive term.

As for not caring, I guess I had higher expectations and am more discriminating regarding the quality of products I buy.

Asserting a deficiency in taste of those who disagree with you is rarely a helpful discussion tactic. I think it's fair to assume that many users who actually like the implementation of culture and culture flipping may be even more discriminating than you in many regards.

Or maybe it's just that some of us care about reality in a game that supposedly is NOT a Fantasy game.

This borders on a real argument, if only obliquely, in that rather than discussing a specific feature of the game, you choose to discuss the whole premise upon which the game is based. But, as I and others have argued before, this is one of the greatest "straw man" arguments out there. The game designers have stated, on more than one occasion, that gameplay trumps realism in the game's design. They designed the game to deliberately deviate from a more "realistic" feature or function in an effort to produce a more entertaining and engaging game. I like the game's abstacted "realism" because it is easier to become immersed in the game -- but I strongly favor more engaging gameplay over closer adherence to realism.

You may as well argue that an apple makes a really poor orange. Or you might just as well pillory the designer of a bumper pool table as a complete idiot who has no knowledge relevant to billiard table design because the bumper pool table makes a poor competition billiards table.

Back On-Topic:

I like culture flipping. It adds complexity and strategic depth to decision making. War time decision making - whether to garrison a captured city or station troops outside the city - is a tactical consideration, and a fairly straightforward one at that - I tend to have very little sympathy for complaints about war-time flips of recently conquered cities. Peace-time decision making, however, becomes more strategic with the knowledge that culture flipping is a possibility, and becomes nail-biting on the higher difficulty levels where culture flipping is a more likely event due to early AI culture leads. With AI opponents on the higher difficulty levels starting with a large number of additional units and enjoying significant production bonuses, I sense (from these boards) that the general attitude among players during the early game is to build exclusively: (1) military units; (2) settlers; and (3) the occasional worker. Temples or early libraries are not given much attention ("too costly," "a waste while a despot," "I need to reach military parity right away . . . and then superiority," etc.). But, through the implementaion of culture and culture flipping, doing so comes at a significant cost -- no cultural improvements = low civ culture (bad) and no expanding city borders (bad). Without the threat of future culture flips, why wouldn't I put off cultural improvements in favor of military and expansion units?

The decisions on whether to build culture producing city improvements or military units (especially early in the game), and the decisions as to how one conducts a war, have long-term consequences. All of these decisions play a role in culture flipping, and I suspect that because an episode of city flipping is more or less impossible to trace to one or even a few discrete decisions, but the consequences of that flip are there in one neat package for the eye to see in one instant, the cumulative effects of player decisions regarding cultural strategy are lost in the anger and shock of losing a city.

Culture flipping imposes a penalty, often severe, on those who neglect culture. Culture flipping, IMHO, adds to the balance of culture / science / militarism within the game -- without it, again IMHO, the game would favor militarism to such a degree as to end its replayable life far too quickly.

Catt