 |
|
Dida
|
|
The German culture were at least in par with the Soviets, and Berlin isn't that much father away from Stalingrad. In that case, Stalingrad had very slim chance of flipping back to the Soviets.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
Faded Glory:
you may not be aware that there are numerous threads dealing with how to prevent cultural flipping. And with the most recent patch, it is possible to remove the possibility of reversion entirely
Don't refer to a game as a piece of **** when you don't understand how the mechanics of the game work, or if you do understand the game, but refuse to adapt, don't blame the game.
With regards to this being an unlikely event in reality, while that may be true, what in the game IS based in reality? eh? the names of the units I suppose. Maybe some other things, but not much. Does any Civ-type game simulate reality? Any game at all?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
IMHO, and speaking with a voice dipped in civility, I can say that the whole culture concept is plumb awful. I am not going to blame Firaxis for it anymore cause I understand that the fans here asked for it.
I have been blaming the wrong idiots.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Have you played SMAC. I just played a bit and everytime I switch from Civ3 to SMAC I am truely stunned.
SMAC makes Civ3 look like a student project. I'll admit there are flaws with SMAC and the AI sucks, but it is still a world class game.
One example.
"don't leave..the drones need you.. they look up to you.."
Classic line from a classic game, delivered delightfully. If haven't played the game by all means get it at any cost and treat yourself.
If there were some way to just eliminate culture and then start adding tons of stuff to Civ3 if could be a good game.
Culture as a major gameplay component still has me shaking my head.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bolleck
|
|
Düsseldorf, Germany
Mar 2002
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Civ III 1.17f. The one this part of Apolyton is for. The game you don't know how to play. I have no idea why you have to raze entire civs to the ground. I just take them over. Use their cities for my designs. Its not the game that is lame if I can do it and you can't. |
Hmm? You cant take over a captured empire in 1.17f! If, please tell me how. Unless you mean size 1 towns with taxmen in it.
The enemy drafts like hell and the captured town is unuseabele for 40-120 turns.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
'Civ III 1.17f. The one this part of Apolyton is for. The game you don't know how to play. I have no idea why you have to raze entire civs to the ground. I just take them over. Use their cities for my designs. Its not the game that is lame if I can do it and you can't.'
I have to raze almost all the large cities too. Sure, not ALL of them revolt, just 80%, and of course somehow I lose ALL 20 of my elite knights to a size 8 city full of peasant farmers (this is on deity level, on levels monarch and below, the AIs culture is generally pretty pathetic so it is easier to take over cities). How exactly these elite knights could have slaughtered the population and razed the city to the ground when attacking the city, but when garrisoned in the city get butchered by the native peasants in their little cultural revolts is beyond me. Sure there may be examples of civs adopting the culture of the conquered, but culture is nothing when you have a strong army backing you up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Hmm? You cant take over a captured empire in 1.17f! If, please tell me how. Unless you mean size 1 towns with taxmen in it. |
Speak for yourself. I can do that. True some of the cities may be down to one but even those can be used.
For one thing a city rarely is down to one if you take it fast. The cities shrink as the AI drafts and then sends the troops to another city. Kind of like armed refugees. That did happen a few times in my last game. Didn't exactly break me up when the Egyptians did that to their capital. I took their replacement capital faster though and it still had five or six pop.
That first city was Thebes. It was in the exact perfect spot for a new capital. So I used the leader I gained with my cavalry at that time to transfer my capital to the former capital of Egypt. There was an added incentive for making something of the city as it had both the Newton and Copernicus Wonders.
It did take a while, a long while, to make it whole again but by the Modern Era it had the most science of any of my cities and only my former capital had more production.
Now if Firaxis cuts the time for unrest back to 20 turns that would definitly be an improvement. 40 turns is excessive but I managed to deal with it anyway in a savagely abused city that went from over twelve to one during the seige. I made all the rest of Egypts cities functional as well. Some took much less time as they were not under seige as long as Thebes was.
I don't think the unrest should last that long nor do I think the the player should pay for the AI's actions, at least not to that degree, but it is definitly something that can be handled to a far greater degree than you seem think it can be.
So since you ask, here is what I do to mitigate the unrest as much as I can:
Rush a temple AND DON'T pop rush it. That just makes things worse. I used to wage war as a Democracy but now I go for Republic and stick with that till the end unless I am playing a religious civ. That game I was a Republic till the end. Won by Space Race.
Get either a Coliseum or a Cathedral next. Depending on whether you are a religious civ or not.
Then get the other.
Take some time if you don't have the cash. The city will still be there. If its late in the game and you are taking cities left and right why do you need the city to do much anyway. In that case you only need a barracks to rest your troops for one turn before you take some more cities. Your core cities should be able to produce all you need to prosecute the war.
It helps to have the Sistine Chappel as I did in that game. Thats why I built the Chappel second instead of the Coliseum even though I was playing as America and was not religious.
Each unit of population you can make content helps speed using up the resevoir of unhappiness. Luxuries help along with those buildings. If I had figured that all out before I took Thebes I could have got it fully functional faster than I did. I had made a mistake crimping its growth as much as I did. If I had let it grow a bit more than I did it would have used up its unhappiness faster.
Even when the people were still affected I was able to use it with those buildings. Those and the luxuries allowed me to have twelve content people even before all the unhappiness was gone.
quote:
The enemy drafts like hell and the captured town is unuseabele for 40-120 turns. |
Yes they draft like hell. Not completely unusable though even for the first 40 turns if you put in some happiness improvements. You are simply not patient or stubborn enough. Do you want the win handed to you? Then play on Chieftain. That game was on Monarch. I don't know if I can do that on Emperor. I am only on my second game on Emperor and my first was hopless due to my isolated start on a medium small island.
I have my doubts about my second game so far as well. This the first time I have had to deal with Hoplites so soon. On top of it I am not a warmonger type player so its not going to be easy as a builder-opportunist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrFell
I have to raze almost all the large cities too. Sure, not ALL of them revolt, just 80%, |
Maybe its because you insist on playing (and bragging) on deity.
That AI's large discount for improvements on deity are definitly going to make it harder to develop culture but then you seem to revel in being a warmonger anyway. So what do you care about razing cities? Could that possibly be why you raze so many?
I have played most of my games on Monarch. I only razed cities that were very badly placed OR if I was in a rush to take a lot of ground quickly and that is rare. I have had very few cities flip from me but I have had many flip to me. The odds have clearly favored me in culture flipping. I keep OVER 80% of the cities I take. Less than ten percent revolt. Only once did I have even two captured cities revolt in a game. Thats when I decided that world did not really need the Aztecs anymore. Even the other civs had a city or two flip back to the vile Aztecs in that game.
I had more cities quit my allies to join me than I lost back to the Aztecs for the few turns it took to take them back. Sure was obliging of the Zulu to build so many cities for me. Made suprisingly good allies.
quote:
and of course somehow I lose ALL 20 of my elite knights to a size 8 city full of peasant farmers (this is on deity level, on levels monarch and below, the AIs culture is generally pretty pathetic so it is easier to take over cities). |
Perhaps they were all students of The Seven Samurai. The AI can indeed create a decent level of culture on Monarch. Only the religious civs are able to be overwhelming in that regard though. I still manage to handle them as well. Rush a temple or a library and in five turns the city is fairly stable. In twenty with a library and a temple the city will almost never flip.
quote:
How exactly these elite knights could have slaughtered the population and razed the city to the ground when attacking the city, but when garrisoned in the city get butchered by the native peasants in their little cultural revolts is beyond me. Sure there may be examples of civs adopting the culture of the conquered, but culture is nothing when you have a strong army backing you up. |
I don't pretend to understand it. I just learn how to deal with it so it won't happen to me more often than it happens FOR me. Its part of the game and if you use the right techniques it can be dealt with. Clearly YOU are dealing with it if you are winning on Deity and I know I am dealing with it on Monarch as a builder. May even mangage it on Emperor that way but I know that Deity is much more difficult for builders than warmongers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
It's not particularly that I have problems handling it, I don't, only very rarely does a city I keep revolt (about one in 20), because of careful razing. But just because I can handle it doesn't mean I have to like it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aeson
|
 |
orangesoda
Nov 2001
time: 22:18
|
|
If military units took population points to build I think there would be a valid argument against cultural flipping the way it is. If you need validation for why culture flipping can happen look at it this way...
We'll use the 20 Knights in a size 8 city example. Just how many Knights comprise a unit of Knights is anyones guess. If you had 200 actual Knights (assuming 10 making up each of 20 units) trying to supress a city of 360,000 (size 8) then it's pretty easy to see how the population can overrun the military units. If it's 100 per unit that still leaves the odds at 180:1 in favor of the city's population. The exact number that makes up a unit isn't the point, just that most situations can be explained in a realistic manner. No game will ever be able to conform to everyone's preconceived ideas of "reality".
If you look at the invasions into Russia by Napoleon and Hitler, both show how military that isn't properly supported can be defeated in other ways than on the battle feild. In a properly run Civ3 military campaign there doesn't have to be any chance for cultural reversion or drafting on the AI's part. You just have to strike quickly and decisively. A campaign which isn't quick and decisive will end up pitted against a "fight to the last man" or "scorched earth" type mentality.
In WWII you can look at the initial German offensive and see how giving the opposition little time to build up resistance works well, just as in Civ3. Then look at the composition of the German military near the end of the war, drafting is quite realistic in how the Civ3 AI uses it. Other examples of these two principals can be found in almost any war. The happiness penalties might seem severe, but they population isn't unhappy at you their liberator, just at their condition. The war may end, but people rarely forget oppression.
I'd just like to say that I find the cultural aspect of Civ3 one of the best additions to any of the Civ series of games. It usually works against me (I tend to be a brutal warmonger), but it's nice to see that a handful of military units are no longer enough to conquer and hold the entire world. Along with corruption it gives a better challenge to overcome if conquering the world than in previous Civ games. There is a reason why no one has every conquered the world IRL, it shouldn't be easy in the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
'We'll use the 20 Knights in a size 8 city example. Just how many Knights comprise a unit of Knights is anyones guess. If you had 200 actual Knights (assuming 10 making up each of 20 units) trying to supress a city of 360,000 (size 8) then it's pretty easy to see how the population can overrun the military units. If it's 100 per unit that still leaves the odds at 180:1 in favor of the city's population.'
I'd think of it as more like 1000, regardless, it still begs the question - how can they raze a city with such a low number, if they can't hold it? Furthermore you'd expect them to be fortified in the city.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mikel
|
|
Scotland
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Culture as a game concept has its merits and flaws. I don't believe it has really achieved the goals the designers originally aimed for so we may see changes to it in future patches or expansions. Because or despite of it I still enjoy the game but like everyone else will be glad to see any improvements.
As for the historical events the cultural flips try to represent, it is not IMHO supposed to simulate a revolution as in some of the examples that have been given in this thread. A better analogy would be the Mongol invasions of the Muslim territories. They fought a merciless war and were known to execute many of the citizens in the cities they captures and create a mountain of corpses as a very real symbol of their authority. There are many examples of these ruthless warriors turning to the Muslim beliefs and within 20 years they had turned their efforts to building grand temples instead. The cities where again a part of the Muslim culture without any bloody rebellion and despite of all the original invaders remaining in the city.
As I said I am not attacking or defending the game mechanics, and I doubt this will make anyone feel any better when they lose a city and a large part of their invasion force to a culture flip. Just thought we could all use a different point of view.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DrFell
It's not particularly that I have problems handling it, I don't, only very rarely does a city I keep revolt (about one in 20), because of careful razing. But just because I can handle it doesn't mean I have to like it. |
Previous statement
quote:
Sure, not ALL of them revolt, just 80%, |
Can you understand my statement now. I believed you. Sorry I will keep it in mind in the future that you can't be trusted with numbers.
One in twenty vs. eight out of ten is quite a difference. Is either of those statement true? They cannot both be true. They can both be very wrong. I find the five percent claim fits the results I have seen so perhaps your second claim is far closer to reality then what you first claimed which was extraordinarily different from the second.
That sort of nonsense you posted the first time is one the reasons these discusions degenerate. There is simply no sense trying to have a reasonable discusion with someone that exagerates to such extremes merely to browbeat the unwary.
Please try to stick to real numbers Dr. Fell and leave the Imaginary ones for Dr. Hawkings.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-03-2002 04:33
!
|