Who else is dissapointed that there'll be a culture flipping option?

[Coracle]

Civilizations did not and do not expand and secure territory based primarily on their number of libraries, colosseums, or having Shakespeare's Theater giving them something Firaxis arbitrarily calls "culture points".

That's not history or reality. Nor a simulation of it. Nor a game in the tradition of Civ 1 or Civ 2. It is a DIFFERENT game, and one nobody asked for in over five years of forum discussions about an upcoming Civ 3 after Civ 2 came out.

But if people are gullible enough to believe in cities that can be instantly "razed", and big garrisons of armed veteran soldiers disappearing when some civilians revolt (or something), well, can I sell you some stock in Imclone, Worldcom, or Enron??

[Mr. President]

but hey, I know, history is wrong!

Have you been reading revisionist documents again? Tsk, tsk . . .

[Level]

Originally posted by Coracle
and one nobody asked for in over five years of forum discussions about an upcoming Civ 3 after Civ 2 came out.

Ever read The List?
It's amazing what was asked for.

[Robert]

- you blame Firaxis for culture because nobody asked it
- you blame Firaxis for putting the raze the city functionality in the game
- the raze the city functionality was requested by millions
- your logic sucks

And about culture,
if you live in a city with no temple, no library, no church, no colloseum, nothing nothing nothing, and over the border there's that cool city with all that fancy stuff. Then you think "I was I was a civilian of that great country next door"

And the farmers around the city will be attrackted to those cities. That's why the radius grows when the cultural points grow.

It does make sence. Of course, it's a game (repeat x100)
if you want the game to reflect the world, there are not enough shortcut combinations!

oh whatever,
your comments suck hard.

newbie rookie.
I'll ask Firaxis to put a "Total complete nitwit rookie" mode in the game, for those who can't beat the Chief level.

That should have cool options like:
- press control-k and all enemie units are vanished.
- press shift-123456 to reveal the world
- press control-a to win the game.

for now I have one suggestion: format c: and the game won't bother you anymore.

[Coracle]

Check it out

http://64.246.32.51/~admin1/forums/showthread.php?threadid=58421

BTW, for all your CF fans out there, be sure to check out the ridiculous Flip cited by 'alexman' in his thread in the Strategy forum. Then tell him how much sense it made!

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Coracle
nobody asked for in over five years of forum discussions about an upcoming Civ 3 after Civ 2 came out.

two months later i'm replying to the same argument by you

let's see if you try to reply this time

/me turns back time to June 4th 2002

in over five years of debate about Civ 3 after Civ 2 came out NO ONE ever asked for Culture Flipping.

beyond the fact that you must be the only man on earth to have participated in ever civ-related discussion in every possible way(forums, usenet, mailing lists) the last 5 years, check out the following

ethnicity model

http://apolyton.net/civ3/suggestions/thelist/radical.shtml

suggestions for rebeling cities due to unhappiness or religious reasons by Jonathan Cedrum and Mieke Meijlink

http://apolyton.net/civ3/suggestions/tfc3h/c_conc04.shtml

btw, in addition to being stuck to the same answered arguments, you also seem to be stuck to using the ip address to access the forums. please do so from this url

http://apolyton.net/forums

[Harovan]

I like the culture in Civ3 as a glue that holds a civilization together, I can live with culture flipping, but I don't really like it. It is the awkwardly implemented try to address the immigration factor in the game.

Culture should attract foreign citizens and let the border cities of the other civilization lose population in favor of the cities of the civ with the bigger culture, but it should not let entire cities flip and vanish big garrisons.

Culture also could be a factor to "integrate" foreign citizens in own cities and make them take the citizenship of their hosts. I should not be a risk of flipping to add foreign workers, but they should increase the risk of civil disorders. I would appreciate, when foreign workers would cost upkeep, to make it attractive to add them to cities, at least later in the game. There should be no slave labor in Democracies, but it should take place in other forms of government.

Would add a tad bit more fun and even realism in the game, without much work, IMHO.

[player1]

The ONLY, and I say ONLY, probelm with culture fliping is a POSSIBILITY of losing 10 units division to flip.


And it could be easiliy fixed (if someone, who can, actualy cares to do so).

VERY SIMPLE MODEL:

When flip starts you lose 3-4 units immediatly (number of units dependent from city size).

If city has no more units, it fliped.
(then city gets some free units depending from cities popultaion)

If city still has more units, you keep the city, but chance for fliping next turn will be much more higher.

This chance should be more easily lowered by high militray presence.

[frostycreep]

Culture flipping is an integral part of civilisation 3. The game is based around culture. If you dont like culture flipping then you dont like civ 3.Should it be an option? no. Can it be improved?yes. The best idea yet is that you will be able to keep a number of units after a city flips. If this was implemented the problem would be solved, although personally i dont see it as a problem anyway.

[XarXo]

I like culture flipping, and I think that shouldn't be an option. Why not put options to: Wars, Alliances, etc... ?
Simply Not.

The people that play the game and don't build temples or similar is that only thinks in units and more units. After I build a city the first thing that I made is a unit, a temple, a barracks and 3 units (disbanding the previous), finally I start to make workers and settlers. That's all!

[brianshapiro]

Possible Solutions?

Evicting units might be as silly as having them destroyed; how would they be evicted. A good solution might be that instead of automatic flipping, at the time the city would flip, instead it takes half hitpoints away from a unit, then the next turn its targeted, destroys it with the message '[Unit] injured in rioting by resisters'. It would also be interesting to see units injured by local culture riots in civil disorder in addition to what we have now in the destruction of civic buildings. Also, at turns maybe during the resistance or civil disorder, depending on some check, a unit can 'massacre civilians' and lower the population in the city by one.

[brianshapiro]

Possible Solutions? continued

Oh yes--and this is just an idea, but maybe in resisting cities and possibily cities in civil disorder, units cant heal their injuries or cant heal as fast, leaving them more vulnerable to both attacks and rioting,

[Your.Master]

Evicting Units

In war, I figure that units should be evicted to an unoccupied square adjacent to the rebelling city, more likely on the more defensible terrain, among other factors, to choose between the 8 squares.

This way the units are right there, ready to reconquer the city. They just fled from wide revolts, and I imagine that some weak partisan unit would be defending the city, as well as possibly some captured military units (I got your panzer! *holding thumb between the first two fingers).

In peacetime, a democratic civ should just cede over the city and have it's units shipped back, but other govs may take to war.

I know it's not the way of the Civ engine and couldn't happen in this game, but I would imagine that a culture flipping city that wants to join another should cause a chain of events like this:

|city secedes from civilization-

-civilization lets them go, city joins another civilization, ships military units back home (or to their borders, or something), the end|
OR
-civilization is insulted and declared immediate WAR with diplomatic consequences (Help! Help! I'm being repressed!), continue-

-city appeals for aid from another civilization-

-is turned down, they are on their own and in trouble, units are evicted as per my war idea, the end|
OR
-other civilization accepts, city joins them, the two countries engage in war, units are evicted as per my war idea, the end|

As for historical basis, the real problem here is that it is extremely rare *BUT NOT UNKNOWN* for a single city to switch allegiances for no apparent reason. This tends to happen over a spread of similarly treated cities with similar background in a similar geographical spread. That is to say, occupied World War II France forms a resistance, the cities don't work perfectly despite overwhelming German occupation, and guerrillas fight to help retake the cities. Alternately, all 13 colonies rebel from Britain, not just one of them. There is a gameplay problem in this, however. Having a massive section of your empire conduct a successful rebellion could prove enormously frustrating, far moreso than a single city changing sides.

Anybody ever have one of those stunning civ2 moments, back when you were new to harder difficulty levels, where you won a war only because you got the capital and the empire split?

[MarkG]

and of course coracle is nowhere around to answer back....

[Robert]

and of course coracle is nowhere around to answer back....

wanna bet how long it takes untill he comes with the same thing back, ignoring your answer?

I say 24 days.