Culture flip to be an option!

[zulu9812]

it does seem odd that Firaxis have given us the option to disable culture flipping but not actually made culture flipping itself any better. I'm sure that even the people who are against culture flipping would like the general idea if only, for example, they got a warning when the city was about to flip. Or if not all the garrisoned troops were eliminated, etc, etc.

[zulu9812]

"If you're a major cultural power with a lot of libraries or wonders, things that generate a lot of cultures, next to a culturally weak civ, that civ might 'flip' to your side and defect."

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jeff Morris saying that whole civs will flip, rather than just individual cities? That does seem a wierd concept.

[candybo]

Way back when, I was unsure of CF'ing, I thought it would be a smoother over-time type proccess. After all these months, I've more or less figured out how it works, and integrate it into my gameplan. I think it could have been done better, but that's why it's a "game", right?
I guess we know which camp I'm in, and I think that it's a dead issue, the debates about whether it's "historically accurate" being academic and largely semantic. Move on.

[Robert]

Coracle, read what candybo says! He makes a point.
I actually like this quote most:

After all these months, I've more or less figured out how it works

you didn't figure it out yet huh, did you? hehehehe.
you're a civ3 rookie! AND YOU'RE PROUD ABOUT IT!

Markos, give him the "Civ3 rookie" title next to his avator ! He deserves it

[snuggs]

I happen to like culture flipping, but why's everyone riding Coracle's arse? Even if he is exaggerating he has a point and it doesn't do to be malicious.

-

yeah, that's what uproaring civilians they usually do with enemy garrisons. They kill them. Is that so strange?

-

Well the concept of a town of 1000 souls taking on several large enemy formations and massacring them to the last man without said units getting the chance even to defend themselves does seem a bit, well, strange.

-

Then you must be a double civ3 newbie,
since everybody knows that you should NOT put more than 3 units in a city near the body that could switch. For sure not after you conquered it.

-

Well is that historical? That was his point. Why should you be forced to AVOID fully garrisonning your cities because, of all things, the population might revolt?

-

And 2nd, a size-one city should, after you conquered it, be filled with much cultural improvements, like temples.

-

Not necessarily. It's very likely to be a complete wasteland and you would need a fortune to pull it round. At any rate this would take several turns.

-

yeah, sure. That's what uproaring civilians usually do, they go to the major of the city and say "Hey, we're going to overtrow you tomorrow 8 pm. Be there!"

-

Nor do rebellions come out of nowhere! X thousand people do not simultaneously get out of bed and think 'yes, lovely morning, I fancy having a revolt'. There'd be nothing amiss if your cultural/military advisor at least drew your attention to the possibility of a flip if you had a city that was approaching critical mass.

-

that's right, Paris, to name just a city, didn't flip at all, did it? Did you EVER read any historical books about ww2?

-

That's just bollocks. It was attacked and largely occupied by Allied ground forces and the population only began to rise once the German retreat was a fait accompli. Even if Paris had 'flipped' - and due to culture of all things - the same process would surely see half the Eastern Front slip back into the Soviet fold without the Russians ever having to fight a battle.

-

Conclusion, culture is another concept you must be able to control in this game. If you can't, you're most obviously a total civ3 rookie. I'm playing huge emperor 16 player maps, and it doesn't bother me at all.

-

Good for you. I believe his problem though was it was HISTORICALLY INACCURATE and should be OPTIONAL. What's wrong with that?

-

Coracle, learn to play the game. Your complains make no sence at all. It just shows how worse you can play it.

-

Jesus. Is there something I don't know about Coracle - is he a child rapist or something? Why's everyone being so rude?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by CyberShy
yeah, that's what uproaring civilians they usually do with enemy garrisons. They kill them. Is that so strange?

I'll never use this option but it's nice that they included it for the Coracles of the world. As for the uproaring civilians, well, if that is what they are trying to simulate then wouldn't it have been better to do it like they did in CTP2? In that game when a city revolted there were reble units that attacked your garrison. If you beat the rebals then you kept the city while if you lost to the rebels...

[Coracle]

Yea sure.

The unarmed civilians in a town of '1' or '2' can "kill" a garrison of many VETERAN ARMED SOLDIERS (who vanish)... without even losing so much as a single population point or even putting the town in disorder. I had nine military disappear in a town of '1' once.

Here's a secret. You know one of the main reasons why this irritates me the most? It proves History IS NOT TAUGHT anymore in our lousy public schools. It's a scary thought. If people are gullible enough to believe in vanishing garrisons - and cities that can be instantly razed - it truly is scary.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by snuggs
Jesus. Is there something I don't know about Coracle - is he a child rapist or something? Why's everyone being so rude?

Snuggs, indeed you don't know a few things about Coracle, it seems. The rudeness is mostly a reaction to him, because he has no other means of expressing himself. He wants to be a troll, and acts quite immature. I tried to help him with his culture flipping problems several times, and tried to debate with him with reasonable arguments, but he has no interest in that, he just likes to whine and repeat arguments that have been discussed to death. As a result, you fall into the same pattern as he does -- even if I'd love to avoid it -- but it seems personal attacks and name calling is about the only thing he is sensitive to. And most of the board is upset with his behaviour, more then one thread got jacked by him and turned into a no-yes-nono-yesyes-nonono contest.

As to the other points you make: I'm not going to discuss those (again), you are partially right, but most of these are just a question of different opinions.

Even if I like the concept of culture flipping, the reason why I'm becoming more and more extreme in my opinion on CF is that I think it is a game concept, and if you don't like it, you either learn to work with it, or stop playing Civ III. I never have problems with CF, and I'm sure most who do the trouble of understanding it have none either, but I'm getting sick of reading the same 'Culture Flipping is a bug, a game flaw thought up by evil Soren' arguments over and over again without any trouble on Coracle's part to try to play with it, instead of just whining against it.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Coracle
I had nine military disappear in a town of '1' once.

Snuggs, you see what I mean? I replied to this a few posts above, saying that Coracle should stop repeating false arguments, bending the thruth. He posted the screenshots in another thread, and again I tried to help, pointing out that the size 1 town had 7 foreign tiles in its radius so you can hardly call it a size 1 town (well it was, but that lone citizen was not what was causing the flip). Further, of his 9 troops, one was a catapult, and everybody knows that catapults do not prevent flips, as it is just a piece of equipment. But does Coracle care? No sir, he just repeats himself again, even in the same thread if necessary. So tell me Snuggs, how do you react to this?

DeepO

[player1]

it would be much better, that in case of garrioson of more them 3 units, that flip acts differently.
(like killing just those 3 units, not all units)

[Robert]

it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game

I showed that:
1. culture flipping did happen in 'the real world'
2. it is possible to control it

And of course I will admit that:
1. it doesn't reflect 100% reality, but that's because:

it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game
it's a game it's a game it's a gam it's a game it's a game

[b]In THIS game you shouldn't put more than 3 units in a conquered city. That's because it makes the game more ballanced.

You know what, the real world is NOT a game.
War is not fun in the real world.

And about Coracle,
I absolutely can't stand people who say they dislike the game, and didn't play it for weeks /months, but keep trolling around how much they hate it.

I'm not visiting the QUAKE forums everyday to tell them how much I spit on QUAKE III. How immature can one be?

CyberShy

[Martinus Magnificus]

Constructive posting: lesson 1

Coracle, although I agree with you most of the time, I do not appreciate the way you are spamming the forums with pure frustration. That is in no way constructive. Let me show you what I mean.

Personally, I find the idea of culture in Civ III interesting, but I blame Firaxis for the way they implemented it in the game. For instance, borders are mainly established by military force or diplomacy and therefore one should be able to control a resource by military force alone. Also, a city should not lose all cultural buildings when captured. That makes no sense at all. And even more disturbing: a garrison of over five units vanishes in thin air during a culture flip.

Here's the constructive part (Coracle, watch this!): possible solutions
- As far as borders are concerned: put in an option for negotiating borders or temporarely extending borders by miltary force (i.e. as long as you've got a garrison there, you control the tile)
- about losing cultural city improvements: when capturing a city, only a few randomly picked improvements are destroyed, not only cultural ones. I never understood why the borders around a city shrink when the city is captured. It makes no sense to me. A city's cultural influence should remain roughly the same, although it may shrink somewhat.
- about culture flipping: a city garrisoned with five units or more should never flip. Units inside the side get damaged every turn the city wants to flip though. Cities with weaker garrisons should be able to flip, but the units do not vanish into thin air, but are damaged and driven out of the city.

Get it?

[snuggs]

OK, fair enough, and I won't get further involved. It is, after all, par excellence a matter of opinion.

[Palaiologos]

In 1944 the citizens of German-occupied Warsaw, excited by the aproachment of Bolshevik troops rebeled.The German garrison although heavily outnumbered at first,managed to hold out and keep the city under German control, albeit for a short time.

In Civ3 there is no chance of this happening.If the citizens decide to rise and drive out the occupation forces they do this automatically and is possible that many veteran troops perish without the chance of fighting back.

Therefore the best sollution would be that when the "culture fliping" conditions are met enemy units emerge and assault the city, thus putting the garrisson under siege.Their number would depend on the size of the city, as in civ2.The new guerrila fighter unit would be ideal.

[TexasPride]

Personnally I think all of you (coracle AS WELL as EVERYONE else) is incredibly rude and disrespectful. Whether coracle is liekthat or not people should never treat ppl like how yall have treated him. One might think he was Hitler or sumthin the way yall act. As for coracle, yes yall are right, He is incredibly immature and disrespectful in the way he does things. !!!NO OFFENCE TO ANYONE!!! With that aside.........

I agree with Palaiologos with a twist of my own. The garrison should have a chance to defend. furthermore the nation its tryin to flip to should have an oppertunity to assist the rebels and give military assistance. Better than simply having the city flip if the garrison looses have the city fall into a civ of its own until the war with the owner is completed and NEGOTIATED to peace under any terms. At this peace the city may be either ceded to the cultured nation, the city may become a nation of itself with an option to be annexxed after the other peace expires on thier request or the offer of the culturally rich nation, or it may be givin back to the owner nation.This would be a much more historically accurate way of doing things. If you dont believe me think of the history of Texas and you'll see im right. As for the control of borders and resources. I agree, i think it should be possible to negotiate for individual tiles and resource squares. This would be a diplo-stupidity by firaxis though and out of place in this thread.

Don't Mess With Texas!!!!!!