 |
| |
|
|
Rasputin
|
 |
Brisbane
May 1999
time: 15:32
|
|
Introduction
Culture was a radical change to Civ 2 and has been hotly debated since its inception to Civ 3. The patches and subsequent Extension Packs modified the way culture flipping is hamdled and this has added to the interesting debate over this subject. Love it or hate it, it appears to be with us to stay. The following are suggestions of ways to improve the way it is handled in the game.
Summary
Appears many feel the Culture in Civ3 unbalanced the game for them , and was not strictly realistic. Others felt that whilst not realistic it added anothe feature to the game, rather than just straight conquests. What most people seem to want is some minor tweaks to the culture engine and to include other Culture impacts, such as capital losses etc.
The Ideas
1.0 Sacked Capital Causes Severe Problems
When a civ's capital is taken, there should be more ramifications. There should be a great chance that a city the civ owns that is close to culture flipping will do so on that turn. Also, if a civ completely conquered another civ, then the conquered civ can come back if the capital is sacked. So for example, if Rome is sacked, the outer territories they conquered like England and Egypt will become their own civ again, even if they were completely knocked out of the game.
2.Culture Groups
Europe, Africa, Middle East, Far East, America, Miscellaneous, Fantasy. Balance as much as possible. Have unique units to be shared within a Culture Group in addition to specific to individual Civs.
3.0 Fix culture!
Culture is a brilliant idea, but it was flawed in its implementation. Instead of being an absolute number, it should be a yearly production that compares with other countries. The basis number would be 0; if you are above average, your value will be more than 0, while if you are under average your cultural worth will be negative.
This way, we can avoid successful nations in the ancient age dominating for the rest of the game.
I mean, hieroglyphs were nice in the third millenium BC, Greek was neat at the time of Plato, French was à la mode and refined in the 19th century; but it took at most 75 years for English to overcome French as the most widespread international language. No culture has ever achieved the kind of perpetual supremacy that is possible in Civ3.
Wonders and cathedrals should produce lots of culture when they are built, and their influence should gradually decrease with time, not increase.
With a system like this, we could also link social engineering and culture. At any given time, values and morales supported by the most influential culture would slowly affect the views of other nations. This cultural intoxication would increase with the discovery of cinema, radio, TV, and computers. Dictatorships could also impose a cultural embargo against any nation... From now on, though, I'm leaving the rest to the game designers. The possibilities are endless.
4.0 Internal Cultural Variation
Let regions within an Empire develop their own cultural variations. Based on different landmasses, proximity to other civs, separation by isthmuses, or each city have its own cultural distinctiveness. Settlers give cities they build similar culture to city that built the settler. Possibility of regional differences rebelling to establish independence or join rival civ. Things to do to keep regions happy, keep them under control. Based on real groups or not. "Colonies" differ between each other more than homeland, differences increase with distance from capital.
5.0 Government impacts on culture
5.1 Nationalism Should impact culture ????
Conclusion
Thanks to the many differing opinions in the thread, I hope that many or at least some of our ideas are included. I beleive most are happy for culture to be left in game with an option for removing it from victory settings as is now. A few minor changes to adjust culture flipping and the game will be great. The biggest thing I think a lot didnt want to see continue, was the Culture as the Border. A more flexible system of agreeing borders with neighbours was suggested.
Respectfully Compiled -Rasputin
With special thanks to:
Last edited by Rasputin on 26-06-2004 at 03:15
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TechWins
|
 |
Arizona
Apr 2001
time: 22:32
|
|
quote:
1.0 Sacked Capital Causes Severe Problems |
I would say cause a 1-2 turn anarchy instead. However, in Anarchy you will not have any cultural value, so your cities will become very prone to flipping. It's an easier implementation, I think. Your idea might be harder to take care of. 
I like your idea of it not being an absolute number, instead being a yearly production. I like the idea of the cultural influence decreasing over a period of time. Although, there should be a balance to it. There could be a 1-10 scale with each improvement/wonder being put into the scale based on it's time. For example, The Pyramids could have 10 culture in 1 or 2 scale but by the time it got to time period 10 scale it might only have 4 culture. The Cathedral being built in 4 scale could have 6 culture but by 10 scale it might only have 1 or 2 culture. Basically each improvement/wonder could have a designated culture amount for what the time period is regardless of when it's built. For example, a Cathedral built in 200ad (4 scale maybe) could be giving off 6 culture, but when a new Cathedral in a new town is built into 1950ad (8-9 scale maybe) would be giving off 2 culture and so would the same cathedral built in 200ad.
The idea definitely needs some thinking, and I don't fully like the proposal I made for it. It doesn't give enough benefits to improvements/wonders built early on like it should. Cathedrals built in 900ad in real life are probably huge cultural landmarks in their respective place. As opposed to a more recent Cathedral being built. There needs to be a balance among the two. Possibly try to include two subset cultural value systems that are combined together for one yearly production value. One value system being the points for the actual time, and the other being based on the improvement/wonder's build time.
quote:
4.0 Internal Cultural Variation |
To do this you would certainly have to expand beyond a basic one value cultural system. It would be very complex.
quote:
5.0 Government impacts on culture |
Specific governments will allow for more culture than others. A Democracy would allow for the most, since the people are free to do as they wish. In return this is going to create a lot of cultural diversity. Whereas, a Facism or Communism is going to restrict an increase in culture for the most part. Although, each government has it's own sort of distinct culture, so saying a Communistic nation compared to a Democratic nation has less culture might not be true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
1.0 Sacked Capital Causes Severe Problems
Should cities close to flipping be certain to do so when its capital is taken?
2 Culture groups
Add Mediterranean and maybe Ficticious separate from Fantasy.
4.0 Internal Cultural Variation
Would it be better if it worked different from cultural influence borders?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
I, too, really support the "floating Culture number: idea.
Regarding Culture Groups. FANTASY?!? What the heck? Agreed that unique units across cutlure groups is a really good idea, as well as unique art for identical units. European warriors should look different than native American ones, even if they do exactly the same thing. Not hugely important, but a nice touch.
Regarding flipping, and increased chances of flipping during capital seiges...
I don't think we should be talking about flipping. Instead, let city's that are influenced by neighbor cultures rebel!!!. Flipping is okay for extremely abstract ideas... but it was a pretty bad implementation in my opinion.
Remember the slave revolts of CtP? If the slaves got too upset they would form their own military units and duke it out with the city's garisson. I think "culture flips" should be the same way.
How about this:
Your city is in danger of flipping, and then one turn you get the message that it has, and wants to join the Romans. You have some options regarding the rebels:
*quell the resistors. Your garrisson fights them.
*concede the territory. You write it off. Your garrisson leaves and you lose the city.
If you choose to battle, and lose, you ahve some regarding the Romans:
*Take it, it's yours!
*It's my city, no matter who the people like. Take it and it's war!
Rome, meanwhile gets a few options, too.
*If you choose to fight, they get the message about the rebellion and can try to prop up the rebels. If discovered this is a big deal.
*If you lose the fight, they can choose to accept the new city or not. This may or may not violate your wishes or cause a war, but it's still their choice.
*If you let go of the territory they can accept the rebels or tell them to get lost.
If a city successfully rebels, but the new civ doesn't want it, it becomes a new Civ!
So there... that's what I want instead of culture flipping!
Cultural borders
Let them overlap. Let two nations with siginifigant culture in an area both lay claim to it. Also have default political borders (x squares from cities) that can be negotiated through diplomacy or war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Culture- specific technologies
Let culture groups have their own technology trees at first. Parts can be the same. Particularly each culture group can have its own tree for the Ancient age. American civs can't research writing until late in the Ancient age. Let different culture groups have different writing technologies: Glyphs, Hieroglyphs, Cuneiform, Pictographs, Syllabary, Alphabet. Civs can research tech trees of other culture groups when they come in contact. Maybe part of the tech tree for the Ancient age can be civ- specific.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:32
|
|
culture should be effected by geography and in-game decisions. no cookie cutter "mesopotamian culture". if i'm playing as the aztecs and i end up in greenland, i'm not going to have the same culture as them.
if i'm playing as the germans and i play peacefully, with no wars, i'm going to have a different culture than that typically represented in games.
i agree that culture should rise / fall over time.
when two cultures meet, things should be exchanged and oppurtunieis / porblems should arise. for example, if the peaceful french meet the warmongering vikings, the french populus should become frightened of the new peoples, and perhaps the viking people should be intrigued by the builder strategy.
people become attached to their culture, because it is their way of life. The french above would see the vikings as barbarians, and the vikings would see the french as honorless sissies. neither culture is "better".
there has to be some sort of formula / algorithm for cultures to "measure up", rather than a flat number.
MILITARISM IS A CULTURE. countless civilizations have their cultures centered on warfare, and the honor resulting from it. I don't see why i'm penalized for building archers rather than temples.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Why not your idea (which is good) and retain the cluture flipping with civil war... |
I think going with culture flipping again in any form is a poor idea, as the model is too simplistic and as so soundly hated (in implementations) in Civ 3 that they gave us the option to turn it off.
More sublte an understandable methds of simulating this are the way to go, and almost everything written in this thread is a much more solid proposal than maintiaining any semblance of the "flipping."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
anteos
|
|
I'd like the style of play to influence culture. You could have still have the various headings, like warfare, builder etc. And you style of play gains points under these headings. And when they reach a certain level, the whole civilisation benefits.
For example, if you like to macromange with worker units, then these units become more proficient as time goes by.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
Shogun: I don't know what consensus (if any) has been in this forum. But in the Civ 3 forums people have come down very critically on the idea of culture flipping.
Now, they could very well have been the minority, albeit a persuasive enough one to get the "optional culture flipping" added to expansion packs.
I agree with you that "flipping" is not necessarily exclusive with some other ideas, but I think that the current "flipping" model is clunky and too abstract to have a sense of fun.
And while the idea of people wanting to join other nations is not out of step with history, the complete inability for the leaders of those people to do anything at all to stop them is. Far more people have been prevented from such switches of allegiance than have ever successfully done so.
Culture was a great idea, and in the very broad strokes with which it was applied to Civ 3 it showed that much good can come out of a cultural model... but now it should be refined and removed from the almost total abstraction that led to such problems as culture bombing, flipping (as-is), and the ability to take land from a rival by building a city close to the border.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-12-2003 22:56
|