20-10-2001 20:17									#1
	Border Question Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If you have one city with say 1000 culture, and another with 10, will your borders be different at each city or will it be as far out as the total culture you have. What I'm saying, is that if it is total points, a strategy would be to build one city in the center of your empire (capital?) to get tons of culture and then use other cities to build a military

	20-10-2001 22:20									#2
	Support Apolyton

No, borders are specific to each city's culture. You have to have cutlure through out your entire civilization to be meaningful.

	20-10-2001 22:27									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Even considering that border is based in cities culture value (not global), the idea of having 1,2 or more cities aimed to develop, commerce and science, while your "minor cities" are building the cannon fodder to fed your war effort, is an old strategy for Civ2 warmonger-style players.
Now, with the rules of Civ3, this strategy becomes critical for those who want to play as conquerors, cause you need a "mainland" of cities to generate some "culture".

	20-10-2001 22:57									#4
	The fallacy of having cultureless, unit-producing cities Remove this text

• You are going to want your cities that are "on the frontier" to have culture so that they do not become assimilated by another civ's culture.
  
• The OLDER the culture producing improvements are, the more culture they generate per turn.
  

I have read of the theory to have a protecting ring of culture-producing cities surrounding a group of cities that major in producing units. Well, it ain't gonna work, people!. Not unless you set up a scenario with the cities already in place.
It will very rarely be practical.

Once your first city/cities become comfortable, THEY will be the ones that have the comfort zone to build your culture, and you want to start building culture as soon as you can. The only way that your "inner" cities will be producing units is if you passed over some decent ground, not building a city there, and you build the city there much later.

	21-10-2001 00:56									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't know if I like the idea of borders being determined only by culture. Real world borders are made when countries claim land. When a piece of land is in dispute, military conflict often ensues. That is the way I'd like civ3 to work. If I have my eye on a land square, I want to be able to take it from another civ by military force, or I'd like to be able to negotiate for it. Culture dependent borders just sound way too limiting and unrealistic. Being able to suck neighboring cities into your civilization via culture sounds unrealitic, as well.

	21-10-2001 01:28									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Agree 100%.
There are many people here that don't know if the culture and national borders are the same and if not if they can move the national borders.
Because if they are its WAY unrealistic in the middle till modern ages.

	21-10-2001 01:45									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by kaminwx I don't know if I like the idea of borders being determined only by culture. Real world borders are made when countries claim land. When a piece of land is in dispute, military conflict often ensues. That is the way I'd like civ3 to work. If I have my eye on a land square, I want to be able to take it from another civ by military force, or I'd like to be able to negotiate for it. Culture dependent borders just sound way too limiting and unrealistic. Being able to suck neighboring cities into your civilization via culture sounds unrealitic, as well.

In the real world though, the stability of these borders often depends on culture. Look at the mess known as Africa. Sure the Euros drew up borders as they left. But these borders got drawn up based on colonial occupation, not on ethnic or tribal identification. This lead to some fairly bloody conflicts (read Franz Fannon's Wretched of the Earth for some insights here) where set borders meant Jack to the people forced to live under them - they had no cututral reality so they had to be enforced by military might.

Consider also the "Prague Spring". Arguably, this could be read as the Czechs wanting to go western because of stronger culture and so the Soviets had to suppress this possible cultural revolt by rolling in the tanks.

Also think of this. If Bush suddenly signed Montana off to the Canadians, do you really think all of the libertarian, gun-toting, rednecks in Montana are suddenly going to say "thank God - we have Canadian health care now!" Nope, the people of Montana would not take too kindly to such a switch

My point is, treaties determine borders, but culture makes them stable. I think that is what cultural takeove is supposed to represent. Besides, didn't Firaxis say that the amount of garrison in a city effected the ease of cultural takeover? Well there you go, a Prague Spring-like case.

	21-10-2001 02:11									#8
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Excelent points, Templar!

Now, if I have been reading the notes correctly, a city generates culture (much like it generates food or production), and just as when food fills the box, the population expands, and when production fills the box, something is produced, when culture fills the box, the city's borders expand. I would imagine the box gets larger as the borders get larger, as well.

Now, theoretically (if I understand it right) a city sitting all alone in the wilderness could potentially expand it's borders infinately. If you have your lone city on the continent of Allbyourself, no other civs having cities, in time, your borders would extend to the end of the continent, just with the one city.

Now, when that border hits the border of another civ's city, the border will extend at the expense of the other city's border. However, when the other civ's city hits it's cultural point, their borders will extend back into your territory, and the cultural tug of war will continue ad infinitum.

If, however, one city's cultural production exceeds the other's signifigantly, and the borders manage to extend to the opposing city itself, that city would convert to the more culturally advanced civilization.

Now, if there are two cities competing for land, and one of them establishes a new city closer to the other city, within it's cultural borders, that new city wouldn't be in as great danger as you might think. The new city may not produce much culture, being new, but it is within the cultural borders of the old city, meaning that though it may engage in a bit of the tug of war with the opposing city, the founding city would be a greater factor in this tug... until the new city develops it's own culture. Rushbuild a wonder in this new city, and the opposing city is now in very real danger of being assimilated, though I imagine many of the local citizens wouldn't think of it as "Danger."

Imagine, for example, the combination of Austria and Germany during World War II. Many of the Austrians themselves aplauded the move, and actively worked toward it. There were others who opposed it, and likely fled the country when the issue was decided. Anybody ever seen "The Sound of Music?" (I wonder of a population drop - and/or culture drop would occur in the newly converted city? It would make a lot of sense.)