How cultural flipping should have been implemented

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
You let enemies camp outside your cities? Why?

put the boot on the other foot. I do sometimes camp outside enemy cities either in preparation for invasion or for pillaging.

anyway if you think about it the troops could be 2 squares away on the other side of the cultural border. I often line my borders with infantry in the industrial age. A convert settler would be able to reach this infantry line.

[TacticalGrace]

(1) culture->corruption

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Doesn't seem powerful enough. I'm open to ideas, but I want to preserve the importance of culture and thus CF.

it's more powerful if you allow ideas (1), (2), (3) AND (4) to be active.

Besides, in cities with the most cultural problems (newly conquered) you aren't going to have any useful shields and gold anyway.

If you capture a large city you will see that the production of the city is often quite large. Problem is that all but one of the shields/gold is wasted/corrupted. I'm suggesting that the cause of the waste/corruption is culture and instead of vanishing they go across the border.

culture->convert settlers

Too weak, IMO. Besides, during wartime flips it would just generate free workers that I could add back on to the city next turn.

how would you do that if:
(a) the settler could appear 2 squares away from you r city AND
(b) it didn't appear on your go?

culture->damages units

IMO, insufficiently powerful. I would just garrison cities more heavily and be done with it.

which is quite realistic really.
It could be configured to be quite powerful. If every foreign pop point could do one damage point then that's 12 damage for a size 12 city. enough to knock out 4 or 5 war wearied veteran invaders.

Remember that enemy bombardment can have a big effect once people start using artillery. A big bombardment could knock the occupying forces down to 1 or 2 HP. A size 12 city could revolt against 8 or 9 such units.

[Tattila the Hun]

So just bomb them to oblivion...?

[georges bonbon]

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen


Now how do we bent Firaxis' ear to impliment your excellent ideas, without having to mod a Civ4 ?

Do you really think Firaxis is going to change the basics of the game?

If there is ever a Civ4, all major contributions of this and other boards will be realised in Civ4.

[bongo]

I read somwhere that there will be no more patches to civ3. What wasn't fixed with 1.29f will never be. PTW is a different matter though.

[Cyclotron]

First, a note on warning: It is, IMO, a very bad idea. First off, you could just activate WLTKD and heavily garrison the city after the age of railroads... no flips. Second, you could just move or remove a single garrison unit and reset the random seed, making a flip unlikely. Third, it is my personal opinion that the flip sould be unexpected, a sudden rebellion.

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
If you capture a large city you will see that the production of the city is often quite large. Problem is that all but one of the shields/gold is wasted/corrupted. I'm suggesting that the cause of the waste/corruption is culture and instead of vanishing they go across the border.

That effect would be too small to register past the ancient age. Besides, CF usually happens on borders, where corruption and waste is rampant on both sides, so the enemy wouldn't even get anything out of it.

how would you do that if:
(a) the settler could appear 2 squares away from you r city AND
(b) it didn't appear on your go?

Well, the settler would be appearing inside my city radius... easy pickings with any mobile units. It seems pretty easy to just pick the sucker off. Besides, my main argument that the effect is too insiginificant still stands. What are they going to do with a settler, anyway, especially after the middle ages?

which is quite realistic really.
It could be configured to be quite powerful. If every foreign pop point could do one damage point then that's 12 damage for a size 12 city. enough to knock out 4 or 5 war wearied veteran invaders.

If this was the case, all it would do would immediately prompt me to starve the city to nothing. Instead of solving the "genocide problem" with CF, that would make it worse. There would be almost no reason to keep an enemy city if it damaged your units on a regular basis like that.

Would you care to comment on my system in my last post?

[cinattra]

Cultural flip is cool as it is. Culture is the overall best thing they've added to Civ and to change CF would in my opinion screw over the peace loving societies that get pounded on by the military muscle head societies!

Revolution is not pretty and that is what CF attempts to reproduce. Only if when you rebuffed the rebels they would start a Civ on their own could it be better.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

My ideal improvement to CF (even though I love it as is) would be how it is now, but when the flip happened:

- A few units would be converted, and stay as garrison.
- All other units would be expelled 1 to 2 tiles away form the city, and they would take a few hit points of damage (possibly enough to kill some units in some cases).

I didn't comment on your idea because it is so similar to the current system.
but since you insist, I think it is an improvement on the current system, and it is the kind of thing that Firaxis should release as a patch. It would solve the biggest gripe that people have which is that they lose all their units in a flip, which
(a) doesn't make sense and
(b) makes the game less fun

your suggestion solves (b) but still suffers a little from (a).

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
That effect would be too small to register past the ancient age. Besides, CF usually happens on borders, where corruption and waste is rampant on both sides, so the enemy wouldn't even get anything out of it.

what about when you invade enemy cities? this is one of the main CF problem areas for people. Under these conditions corruption and waste is NOT rampant on the side of the enemy and is is on the side of the invader.

Well, the settler would be appearing inside my city radius... easy pickings with any mobile units. It seems pretty easy to just pick the sucker off.

It appears in your terratory and moves immediately across the border. Even the AI would figure out that it would need to move an infantry unit on top of it once that has happened. So your mobile unit would get to "pick off" an infantry. You might get your citizens back but then you've still got to do the reverse yourself...

Besides, my main argument that the effect is too insiginificant still stands. What are they going to do with a settler, anyway, especially after the middle ages?

perhaps. before the middle ages it would be very useful. By industrial you'd want to use them to join a city.

If this was the case, all it would do would immediately prompt me to starve the city to nothing. Instead of solving the "genocide problem" with CF, that would make it worse. There would be almost no reason to keep an enemy city if it damaged your units on a regular basis like that.

It would be pretty annoying but that's the idea. It is meant to tie up troops. It would give you better feedback as to how much national unrest there was. This is more realistic than the current system and allows you to send more troops to put down the unrest.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
There would be almost no reason to keep an enemy city if it damaged your units on a regular basis like that.

Tell that to the Russians in Chechnya.

I really like the idea of units taking damage, and having to move in fresh troops to quell the potential flip. It would create a realistic drag on your economy, and perhaps should contribute to war weariness as well.

Hmm...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
but since you insist, I think it is an improvement on the current system, and it is the kind of thing that Firaxis should release as a patch.

That's ridiculous. Firaxis "should" release nothing as a patch except bug fixes. Why should Firaxis specifically change their game to implement your alteration that, to many people, is not even needed? Why Firaxis obligated to change the game to match your opinion on an issue?

It would solve the biggest gripe that people have which is that they lose all their units in a flip, which
(a) doesn't make sense and
(b) makes the game less fun

your suggestion solves (b) but still suffers a little from (a).

Most people who gripe about CF say they like it except for the dissapearing units. If we solve that, it seems like it makes perfect sense. I see no reason to change it further. As for fun, I don't pretend to know what other people find fun.

what about when you invade enemy cities? this is one of the main CF problem areas for people. Under these conditions corruption and waste is NOT rampant on the side of the enemy and is is on the side of the invader.

But CF does not just occur in wartime. Your corruption idea, while interesting in wartime, is toothless in peacetime for the reasons I stated. Besdies, production in captured cities is already removed by resistors and high unhappiness. The conquerer really wouldn't be losing anything.

It appears in your terratory and moves immediately across the border. Even the AI would figure out that it would need to move an infantry unit on top of it once that has happened. So your mobile unit would get to "pick off" an infantry. You might get your citizens back but then you've still got to do the reverse yourself...

Well, I would have to kill the infantry anyway if it was that close to my cities... only this time, I would get free workers. I don't see the point. Besides, getting the workers back would not be hard as I would have the advantage of controlling the roads/rails around my new city... or, like the AI does, I could just disband the workers.

perhaps. before the middle ages it would be very useful. By industrial you'd want to use them to join a city.

True, but I almost never get CFs before the industrial age because borders have not grown a lot yet. As for joining a city, by the industrial age another 2 pop is a drop in the bucket.

It would be pretty annoying but that's the idea. It is meant to tie up troops. It would give you better feedback as to how much national unrest there was. This is more realistic than the current system and allows you to send more troops to put down the unrest.

In what way does a "pretty annoying" feature solve your own aforementioned goal of making the game more fun?

Anyway, my point still stands that I would simply raze the city if my units kept getting killed regularly.

Stuie:

Tell that to the Russians in Chechnya.

I don't care about real life examples of annoyance; I don't care for that in a game. Gameplay > realism.

Besides, the Russians have an interest in keeping it for other reasons, including oil. It's not just a dinky border city. I'm sure the Russians would raze Chechnya too and re-settle it with Russians if they could.

[brianshapiro]

a while back i suggested something similar to 4:

rebellions or massacres, where either your unit is damaged or civilians are lost . so it would be like a regular battle but btween your units and civilians

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


That's ridiculous. Firaxis "should" release nothing as a patch except bug fixes. Why should Firaxis specifically change their game to implement your alteration that, to many people, is not even needed? Why Firaxis obligated to change the game to match your opinion on an issue?

Actually I was talking about your suggestion at that point, not mine. And you got the wrong emphasis. I was suggesting that your idea (if it was to be implemented) should be released as a patch (as opposed to something that would have to wait for a later version or even an add-on pack [son of PTW])

[star mouse]

Originally posted by player1
I think that slight modification of exsisting system could be OK.

Then city is about to flip, you lose SEVERAL units, but not all of them. Of course, if you have just one or two units, city flips, in other cases it does not.

My idea:
Half the population of the city temporarily turns into conscript military units, and fight against the garrison. If the garrison lose the city flips. If the garrison wins, the population of the city drops by several points.

[bongo]

Sounds good

I'm not sure if it will be powerful enough. What if resisting citizens could spawn two conscripts? Citizens of a different nationality should not take part in a revolt.