28-01-2002 23:17									#1
	Culture Flipping BORDERS are a CROCK Get a bigger avatar today!

Civ III really should have been called "Culture" it is that different from Civ II.

I am the Iroquois, circa 300 AD, and I have built a road, mine, and fortress near my border within the boundaries of a large town. The road is at a junction connecting several cities with the rest of my civ; it is also a great invasion route into my civ what with all the hills and mountains nearby. The fortress has been there, garrisoned, for well over a century at least.

The Aztec then, with the always land-grabbing AI settlers, build a town near that border. They must have rush built a load of culture improvements, or maybe the damn AI just was acting weird again - or cheating (as usual).

Despite the fact that I led the Aztec in power, culture, and overall score, the border there FLIPS, moves, and my important road, mine, and garrisoned fortress are now in Aztec territory!

It gets worse.

I am not leaving. The AI wants a war, so be it. I am told by the AI that "my recent movements of troops. . ." will casue a war I will get blamed for!

Yes, the Aztec has the nerve to tell me that I will get blamed for any war. That is even DUMBER as I am superior militarily to the Aztecs.

The Aztec Diplomatic AI borders on the suicidal and will not make peace until it has one town left despite my efforts to end the war - my envoys were not seen, or were insulted. I had a huge army near his capital, and I would have made peace for one little town near my border. No deal! He is losing badly but will only accept a stratight peace treaty! No chance. Next turn he lost his capital and second-biggest city. Smart guy.

Worse still, every time I captured an Aztec capital it moved elsewhere free of charge. (No civil war, of course). This didn't occur in Civ II, thankfully. Having a capital is a big help, but the stupid Aztecs were too far gone for help.

It gets even worse. Five hundred years later I've made contact with the Egyptians on another continent - who never heard of the Aztecs until ten years before I contacted them - and they won't even deal with me, saying, "Not after the deal you broke with the Aztecs"!

I broke no "deal"; there was no "deal". The Egyptians shouldn't even know about it (or care); and no one would hold a grudge for over five hundred years and counting. It likely lasted the whole game - or would have if I didn't end the nonsense then having had enough of the stupid AI.

Firaxis, Culture flipping stinks, cities or borders, and your AI advisors are idiots.

Culture borders should never flip over someone else's improvements, especially a garrisoned fortress!

In reality, a civ's borders are determined by POLITICS, DIPLOMACY, and WARAFRE - not so much "culture". If borders were detrmined by "culture". . . most of Canada would be part of the U.S.


Firaxcis, we need ANOTHER patch.

	29-01-2002 00:51									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

should have just built more cultural improvements and taken the square back.

unless they built the city on the square next to your guys (which they don't normally do), in which case they automatically get the square.

i rather like the culture system. as a builder, it works well for me

	29-01-2002 12:33									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The german also never surrended in WW2, until every city was conquered. Why are you expecting this from the Aztecs?

	29-01-2002 13:17									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Yell loudly and scream about it at every opportunity. This will increase the chances of your concerns being addressed in a patch/expansion.

Salve

	29-01-2002 15:21									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

In a few threads I've been having a go at culture flipping with regards to cities. I don't dislike culture or flipping. It adds a nice new element to the game in my opinion. I object to silly flips. Cities well within your borders flipping to a smaller and weaker civ because their palace is nearer, it has their civilians in the city and a lot of history with that civ. The respective general strength (culturaly and militarily) and prospects of the city under both administrations should count for more than it currently does.

Robert

	30-01-2002 03:45									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by comstar70 The german also never surrended in WW2, until every city was conquered. Why are you expecting this from the Aztecs?

When Hitler committed suicide in his bunker in Berlin, Admiral Karl Doenitz (sp?) became Furhrer. The first thing he did was surrender to the Soviet Union. The second thing he did was surrender to the western (Britain, France, and the US). A number of German cities were unoccupied by the Allies, yet the Germans still surrendered.
Hitler was also a madman, a lunatic, so determined to win that he would destroy himself and his country. The AI should not be so devoted to a lost cause.

Steele

	30-01-2002 03:54									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: so determined to win that he would destroy himself and his country. The AI should not be so devoted to a lost cause.

nothing ventured, nothing gained.

	30-01-2002 08:51									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by steelehc The AI should not be so devoted to a lost cause.

I don't know about that. So far I think the AI has handled these situations quite well in the games I've played. On one occasion I've been able to get the Japanese (I think it was) to agree on an outrageously harsh peace treaty, giving me three of their remaining four cities. That time the AI was really being much too generous, making it much easier for me to complete my conquest of Japan.

Let's keep in mind that the AI probably should be a little bit too stubborn for its own good, since human players that seriously outnumber the AI in military units probably have no intention of letting the AI off the hook anyway. Seriously, can the AI really trust us?

In my opinion the only thing that the AI should be willing to give up for a peace treaty is gold. Maybe tech if the situation is dire, but only if it can conclude that the human is trustworthy (i e the human player has behaved in the past). Giving up cities and the territory around them should be out of the question, unless the cities involved are quite useless to the AI civ, regarding production, resources and territory/defence.

[edited for completely unacceptable spelling]