 |
| |
|
|
Inverse Icarus
|
 |
flying too low to the ground
May 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
FIRST AND FOREMOST, DO AWAY WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
there are 2 ways i can see culture effectign border cities, but actually FLIPPING a city is just insane. i've never seen part of a country break off and join another because of their libraries.
1. IMMIGRATION
if you have a low-culture city on the border of a high-culture civ, population points will leave the uncultured city and join the nearest enemy city. this would reflect the desire of the people to join the other civ, but wouldnt have the same gut-wrenching effect as the current flip system.
2. UNHAPPINESS
this is probably the most realistic way to do this. if you have a low-culture, low-luxury city on the border of a high-culture or high-luxury civ, people in that city should get more and more unhappy. first of all, i play on monarch, and i NEVER have problems with happiness as the game stands, this would be much more interesting.
It's probably more sane to do it this way too. If a city lacks a temple or a library, and the people across the river have one, they should get mad, or immigrate. this could even be done inter-civilizationally, to make up a word. people within your own empire could immigrate to other cities based on cultural differences.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jethro83
|
|
Newcastle, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:19
|
|
Immigration is definitely a better culture-flipping model. And not just between cities from two civs. I'm talking about two cities from the same civ.
And when there's only one pop point, there's no culture flipping as long as a unit is fortified there (it can't be that hard managing a small population and preventing them from defecting). Otherwise, the town is simply abandoned, if its people want to defect and join another civ, but won't be abandoned at all if its only neighbours are friendly cities.
Just what I think would be a better system than the ridiculous one that is in place at the moment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Random Passerby
|
|
I think a simplified immigration model would be best: have individual citizens flip (but still stay in the cities where they're at, in contrast to the original suggestion), rather than an all-or-nothing city flip. So long as they've got this interesting system of tracking individual populations' ethnicity, they might as well really get some use out of it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Random Passerby
|
|
Well, yes, but the immigration concept does pose the question as to what would happen with single-population cities; would the entire city be disbanded if its only citizen emigrated, or would they simply be forced to stay put? I'm not too fond of the result either way. My main complaint against culture flipping is that it's too sudden; the all-or-nothing aspect of whole cities suddenly changing cultures is what makes the concept (which would otherwise fit reasonably well given the high level of abstraction inherent in the game) so ridiculous. If it were gradual and could be directly combated more effectively I'd be fine with it.
Last edited by Random Passerby on 27-05-2002 at 10:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
campmajor!
|
 |
Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Oct 2000
time: 06:19
|
|
The original idea of culture-flipping is supposed to be for the peaceful builders. In general civ3 ought to be more for that group.
I used to be one of those peaceful builders, but since civ3 I realized that only war will get you where you want: Victory.
There are a few reasons for this change:
1. If your army is not big enough, especially in the beginning, the AI will either demand tribute or declare war, or declare war rightaway. So if you want to survive, you need to build a large army....
2. The concept of cultureflipping works out for me that AI cities never flip to me, not even when surrounded by my cities with high culture. But my cities flip to them. Especially conquered cities, which I now raze. It is a painful decision, but it is the only way to win, so it has to be done.
3. The AI expands way faster than I do. So to be able to gather a large territory the only solution is to take it from them. There are no pieces of land left that is not occupied...
So I would say that civ3 is more for the Warmongerers than for the Builders.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
I'm gonna go out on a limb here - I kind of like culture flipping. It makes the game more interesting for me since I am a builder. And Since defensive wars are easier to fight, it does not matter to me that culture flipping tends to provoke war since I win those wars by simply not attacking, and letting the enemy break himself on my armies in my cities.
Is culture flipping realistic? Not really. Is civ supposed to be realistic? Totally realistic?
Is it an interesting game mechanic? Definitely. It forces you to balance your war machine with your cultural building. It makes you make choices and trade-offs. Too many military units not enough culture and your city defects.
That said, do I think the mechanism could be improved? Sure. I like the idea of the citizens in your city changing nationality one at a time untill when the last one changes the city flips. This would give you the ability to judge how you are doing in the "culture war".
Another possibility would be that cities only flip when the civ is in anarchy, but they flip more easily in anarchy. This would make it supremely important to keep your civ from going into anarchy if every time if happened you were almost guaranteed to loose a city or two to culture flipping.
Here's another idea: a cities defensive bonus is cut down if citizens in the city are of another nationality. So you build up your culture on the border then, march across and take the enemy cities easily since their city bonus is very low. For all those people who are sticklers for reality, you could think of this penalty as a "resistance movement".
The bottom line for me is that I don't want it taken out of the game, but I wouldn't be unhappy with a few changes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
if you must keep culture flipping in the game, at least give us some kind of warning. some sort fo "assimilation bar" in our city screen or something for christs sake.
maybe the population could slowly turn to the enemy civ... when you notice half your population is now french you should start to worry. |
Nationalities do not change that way in reality. Cities that have been, say, Roman, for 5,000 years do not suddenly decide to join a nearby civ.
Culture Flipping is B.O.A. - Braindead on Arrival.
You want to include culture as a factor in a Power score, or it somehow strengthens Diplomacy, OK. Culture can equal more Happiness. But Flipping doesn't historically happen, and neither do vanishing garrisons, razed metropolises, resources and fortresses lost due to a flipping, and other nonsense.
Cities in History do not Flip, and certainly not due to Culture. Some cities have been COWED into surrendering by a brutal military - such as the Mongols had, but not due to "Culture".
So whatever PC fantasies Soren had notwithstanding, THEY ARE WRONG.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Thrawn05
|
 |
All Your Posts Are Belong To Ming
Dec 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
FIRST AND FOREMOST, DO AWAY WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM.
there are 2 ways i can see culture effectign border cities, but actually FLIPPING a city is just insane. i've never seen part of a country break off and join another because of their libraries.
1. IMMIGRATION
if you have a low-culture city on the border of a high-culture civ, population points will leave the uncultured city and join the nearest enemy city. this would reflect the desire of the people to join the other civ, but wouldnt have the same gut-wrenching effect as the current flip system.
2. UNHAPPINESS
this is probably the most realistic way to do this. if you have a low-culture, low-luxury city on the border of a high-culture or high-luxury civ, people in that city should get more and more unhappy. first of all, i play on monarch, and i NEVER have problems with happiness as the game stands, this would be much more interesting.
It's probably more sane to do it this way too. If a city lacks a temple or a library, and the people across the river have one, they should get mad, or immigrate. this could even be done inter-civilizationally, to make up a word. people within your own empire could immigrate to other cities based on cultural differences. |
One word: WOW. I've been looking into this too, but I guess I'm not as smart. Good job.
I like to see a combination of the three.
First, comes unhappiness. Then, if you don't deal with it in a given amount of turns, they migrate to a rival enemy city. If it gets to the point that the population is like down to 1,2, or 3, then there is a chance of rioting, and eventual fliping.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by moominparatrooper
Ah, yes. Unending anarchy due to that patetic Civ on another continent stubbonly refusing to sign a peace treaty isn't nearly infuriating enough. We need to make sure the democratic player loses a city or two each turn too.
|
You're confusing the issue. The way war weariness works is not perfect either, but it is a separate issue from culture flipping.
Cities already do flip, which people find infuriating as well. And since Anarchy usually means unhappiness, there is already a higher chance for a flip during anarchy than any other time. All I was suggesting was to consolidate ALL the games flips into the anarchy period. -
If in a normal game 10 cities flip on average (this is a number I am picking out of my @ss for the purpose of this illustration), then you do away with all flipping except in anarchy and increase the percentage chance of flipping then so that the average game still has 10 flips. Same total amount of "infuriation" as before, only you have a little more control over it by being careful not to go into anarchy.
You could go even further and say that cities only flip during anarchy and only if the cultural "pressure" comes from a civ you are currently at war with. So if you go to war with a neighbor, end up in anarchy, and that neighbor has high culture, you may loose a couple cities which defect. But if you are at war with a civ on another continent and go into anarchy your cities won't flip to a neutral civ.
my $0.02
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
Although I actually like the culture system as a whole, I certainly feel that it could do with some "Tweaks", such as:
1) Although borders should still be linked to "culture", the borders should be sensibly delineated by the terrain!
2) "Culture" should be broadened out to apply to other, non-cultural improvements!
EDIT: Actually, I'm thinking that which improvements produce the most culture should depend on the Civs characteristics! ie: militaristic civs should get bonus "culture" from military improvements, wheras commercial Civs might get the bonus from banks and marketplaces (just look at Switzerland!)
3) Colonies and Fortresses should have a "culture" value for the purposes of producing borders!
4) Culture flipping should not exist by itself, but be part of an integral "civil unrest", Civil war model.
i.e.: Chance of Civil Unrest is based on several factors:
- Unhappiness
- Corruption
- # of units in garrison and avg. strength of garrison (as, hp and experience).
- Distance to capital and distance to nearest "enemy" capital.
- Strength of neighbouring culture
- Government Type
- # of foreign nationals
During Upkeep phase, cities are checked for unrest. If unrest occurs, then garrison units suffer damage (based on city size). Unrest continues for x turns, at which time the city becomes independant (civil war!). If the city lies close to the border of a high culture civ, then it might "flip".
5) Borders should be negotiable within the diplomacy screen (and land should be able to be bought, sold or traded!)
Oh, and I can honestly say that I LOVE Uberkrux's idea on immigration!
Anyway, it's just a thought and, in my eyes, could be done without radical changes to the game engine! Lets just hope they have it in the XP!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
Last edited by The_Aussie_Lurker on 29-05-2002 at 08:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetteroX
|
|
New York,NY USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:19
|
|
On many things, I think opinions should be respected, but I dont see how any rational person can think culture flipping is ok. First, as Uber siad, no time in history has a city flipped to another because of culture. Also, its idiotic how it works. I mostly play on monach, and most often ill have high, if not the highest culture. I'll have a captured city that has been under my rule for many turns, and now even has more of my peoples race in it then the old race. Then suddenly: "terrible news, sire. City X has deposed are govener and gone to country X" its insane. I would really, really have loved to have heard the conversation when they were making Civ 3 when someone said: "I have a great idea. Lets do culture flipping, where the player can have 15 tanks in a a city, and then, EVEN IF that players country has high culture, the captured city can still flip back to the original country, AND all thoes 15 tanks can just dissappear! doesnt that sound fun?"
It drives me crazy that I have the most culture points, my dumb adviser says "people X are impressed by our culture" I have 10 units in the city, and then bam! it flips. I mean who thought this up?
Its just complete stupidity. Where do these units go? they just vanish into thin air? I think the best change would be either Ubers idea of immigration or unhappiness, or if we absolutely must live with stupid culture flipping, AT LEAST dont make my units dissappear, they could be pushed out of the cities boarders, and be injured so you couldnt take it back with the same units next turn. So the messege would be "Terrible news, sir. The citizens of City X rose up and took our armies by surprise! they have pushed them out of City X and deposed our govener!" Also, culture flip should be impossible if a) your culture is the same or better, no matter how far the city is from your capital and b) if you have more of your own people in the city then theirs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Tacticus, good point.
VetteroX, you are spot on. Just be careful. Its okay to propose lame revisions to this lame concept in this lame game; but if you come out and just say "its lame", then Mark will declare Vendetta on you. The definition of troll here has been changed to "any word or combination of words uttered by jimmytick"
It makes me sick. Still, since service to the community is important, I will continue to post and suffer the abuse.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-05-2002 08:48
|