 |
| |
|
|
FrantzX
|
|
http://www.gamespy.com/previews/aug...tw/index2.shtml
quote:
As we continued looking at the editor, Morris touched on the ability to flip civs to your side via your civ's cultural status. "We really thought that was a neglected aspect of these Civilization-type games, was the non-military, non-commercial functions," says Morris. "If you're a major cultural power with a lot of libraries or wonders, things that generate a lot of cultures, next to a culturally weak civ, that civ might 'flip' to your side and defect." However, Morris added that fans tend to either love or hate this feature, so you'll be able to enable or disable it in the scenario editor. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
frostycreep
|
|
Devon, England
May 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
Without culture flipping there will be no need for a warmonger to build anything other than millitay units. Thanks to culture flipping a warmonger has to have a half decent culture in order to stop everything he captures revolting back, and thats the way it should be. Culture flippin is a very important thing in civ 3 as its there to make sure warmongering isnt to easy. It should never be taken out.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
No one ever said "Eliiminate Culture" from the game. I have suggested many ways to keep it important in the development of a civilization.
The issue has always been the unrealistic, absurd, non-historical, and profoundly annoying way borders flip (over improvements and resources) and the way towns and cities flip (even with disappearing large garrisons).
I haven't played a complete game since I lost NINE military when a town of '1' flipped. Absurd. We have asked for a Flip Warning, but no, we get some arcane and arbitrary "formula" to figure out, as if the game isn't tedious enough.
With "historical" scenarios, Flipping must be turned off TOTALLY - unless in a WW II game you want to see half of your tanks vanish.
The WAY culture has been treated in the game is a joke.
You want to make it a FANTASY game then just say so; but don't call it Civ 3, though.
"Warmongers"?? As I said, culture can and should play a part. But historically CONQUEST, and military intimidation, have been prime movers. But I suppose the PC types at Firaxis wanted some "non-war" concept in the game to push a "peaceful" approach. No thanks.
If I can't control Flipping, and turn it off totally in scenarios, I don't buy PTW, and won't even play it at all.
Last edited by Coracle on 12-08-2002 at 04:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
http://www.gamespy.com/previews/aug...tw/index2.shtml
quote:
. . . "If you're a major cultural power with a lot of libraries or wonders, things that generate a lot of cultures, next to a culturally weak civ, that civ might 'flip' to your side and defect." However, Morris added that fans tend to either love or hate this feature, so you'll be able to enable or disable it in the scenario editor. |
In otherwords, someone at Firaxis JUST DREAMED UP this Flipping nonsense without any regard for history, and no playtesting before implementing it.
Yep. Just as I always said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JtheJackal
|
|
It says its in the editor, no indication for normal game. Its to prevent culture flipping in things like WW2.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Gee... I hope they make it a game option for MP games It would make things a lot easier to deal with. |
nah, if I want a mp game to be easier dealt with, I know more options we can take out of it.
quote:
and the way towns and cities flip (even with disappearing large garrisons). |
yeah, that's what uproaring civilians they usually do with enemy garrisons. They kill them. Is that so strange?
quote:
I haven't played a complete game since I lost NINE military when a town of '1' flipped. |
Then you must be a double civ3 newbie,
since everybody knows that you should NOT put more than 3 units in a city near the body that could switch. For sure not after you conquered it.
And 2nd, a size-one city should, after you conquered it, be filled with much cultural improvements, like temples.
3rd, if you have build that city yourself, you shouldn't have build it near the border, or you shouldn't have waited that long building a temple.
quote:
We have asked for a Flip Warning |
yeah, sure. That's what uproaring civilians usually do, they go to the major of the city and say "Hey, we're going to overtrow you tomorrow 8 pm. Be there!"
quote:
With "historical" scenarios, Flipping must be turned off TOTALLY - unless in a WW II game you want to see half of your tanks vanish. |
that's right, Paris, to name just a city, didn't flip at all, did it? Did you EVER read any historical books about ww2?
Conclusion, culture is another concept you must be able to control in this game. If you can't, you're most obviously a total civ3 rookie. I'm playing huge emperor 16 player maps, and it doesn't bother me at all. Now and then I lose a city, pherhaps 1 or 2 in a game. But that's no problem since I know which cities are on danger to flip, and there are units near to retake it the turn after I took it.
Indeed, it costs me 3 tanks.......
but hey, what's 3 tanks on an army of 120?
Coracle, learn to play the game. Your complains make no sence at all. It just shows how worse you can play it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Coracle
I haven't played a complete game since I lost NINE military when a town of '1' flipped.
|
I didn't even notice it at first, but here he is again. Thanks for quoting it, Cybershy.
Coracle, I'm still not sure whether I have to call this bending the truth, or I simply have to call you a liar. You know damn well it was not a 'size 1 with 9 garrison flip'. It was a 'size 1 city +7 foreign tiles with 8 garrison flip', where you had a significant cultural disadvantage. It was your own stupid mistake to stack your entire small attack force in there, and I can't help but smile that you lost it. Like Cybershy said: learn the game, instead of whining about things you don't understand.
quote:
If I can't control Flipping, and turn it off totally in scenarios, I don't buy PTW, and won't even play it at all.
|
Please Firaxis, don't put an option in to turn it off in PTW! If this means we would lose Coracle, I'll gladly have flipping scenarios!
A bit on topic: I don't think that the option would be a good thing in MP, as that will lead to too much debate on whether to turn it on or off before a game starts. It is a (now documented) game mechanic, ans as such is a integral part of the game. If you don't like it, don't play.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adagio
|
|
I don't like it being an option, since at every start of a MP game, you'll have a long debate if it should be turned on or off...and I don't like that debate...
The culture flip formular should just be changed:
It shouldn't be about, how many foreign tiles you have there, it should only be about how big the city is (How many people hates you). Let's just say we have a size 5 city, where 4 of them hates you, then if you have 4 units in the city, there's about 50/50 change if the city flips or not. Though it doesn't just flip-over in one turn. Your units should just loose some hit points, or maybe you'll loose a unit or two (While you get the message there's a war going on in this city). The more units, the lesser change to lose a unit...
This would make it more real, since it makes more sence that 5 angry citicens kills one unit, than 1 angry citicen kills 7 units
|
|
| |
|
|
|
candybo
|
|
Way back when, I was unsure of CF'ing, I thought it would be a smoother over-time type proccess. After all these months, I've more or less figured out how it works, and integrate it into my gameplan. I think it could have been done better, but that's why it's a "game", right?
I guess we know which camp I'm in, and I think that it's a dead issue, the debates about whether it's "historically accurate" being academic and largely semantic. Move on.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
snuggs
|
 |
Oxford, England
Jul 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
I happen to like culture flipping, but why's everyone riding Coracle's arse? Even if he is exaggerating he has a point and it doesn't do to be malicious.
-
yeah, that's what uproaring civilians they usually do with enemy garrisons. They kill them. Is that so strange?
-
Well the concept of a town of 1000 souls taking on several large enemy formations and massacring them to the last man without said units getting the chance even to defend themselves does seem a bit, well, strange.
-
Then you must be a double civ3 newbie,
since everybody knows that you should NOT put more than 3 units in a city near the body that could switch. For sure not after you conquered it.
-
Well is that historical? That was his point. Why should you be forced to AVOID fully garrisonning your cities because, of all things, the population might revolt?
-
And 2nd, a size-one city should, after you conquered it, be filled with much cultural improvements, like temples.
-
Not necessarily. It's very likely to be a complete wasteland and you would need a fortune to pull it round. At any rate this would take several turns.
-
yeah, sure. That's what uproaring civilians usually do, they go to the major of the city and say "Hey, we're going to overtrow you tomorrow 8 pm. Be there!"
-
Nor do rebellions come out of nowhere! X thousand people do not simultaneously get out of bed and think 'yes, lovely morning, I fancy having a revolt'. There'd be nothing amiss if your cultural/military advisor at least drew your attention to the possibility of a flip if you had a city that was approaching critical mass.
-
that's right, Paris, to name just a city, didn't flip at all, did it? Did you EVER read any historical books about ww2?
-
That's just bollocks. It was attacked and largely occupied by Allied ground forces and the population only began to rise once the German retreat was a fait accompli. Even if Paris had 'flipped' - and due to culture of all things - the same process would surely see half the Eastern Front slip back into the Soviet fold without the Russians ever having to fight a battle.
-
Conclusion, culture is another concept you must be able to control in this game. If you can't, you're most obviously a total civ3 rookie. I'm playing huge emperor 16 player maps, and it doesn't bother me at all.
-
Good for you. I believe his problem though was it was HISTORICALLY INACCURATE and should be OPTIONAL. What's wrong with that?
-
Coracle, learn to play the game. Your complains make no sence at all. It just shows how worse you can play it.
-
Jesus. Is there something I don't know about Coracle - is he a child rapist or something? Why's everyone being so rude?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
Yea sure.
The unarmed civilians in a town of '1' or '2' can "kill" a garrison of many VETERAN ARMED SOLDIERS (who vanish)... without even losing so much as a single population point or even putting the town in disorder. I had nine military disappear in a town of '1' once.
Here's a secret. You know one of the main reasons why this irritates me the most? It proves History IS NOT TAUGHT anymore in our lousy public schools. It's a scary thought. If people are gullible enough to believe in vanishing garrisons - and cities that can be instantly razed - it truly is scary.
Last edited by Coracle on 13-08-2002 at 05:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by snuggs
Jesus. Is there something I don't know about Coracle - is he a child rapist or something? Why's everyone being so rude? |
Snuggs, indeed you don't know a few things about Coracle, it seems. The rudeness is mostly a reaction to him, because he has no other means of expressing himself. He wants to be a troll, and acts quite immature. I tried to help him with his culture flipping problems several times, and tried to debate with him with reasonable arguments, but he has no interest in that, he just likes to whine and repeat arguments that have been discussed to death. As a result, you fall into the same pattern as he does -- even if I'd love to avoid it -- but it seems personal attacks and name calling is about the only thing he is sensitive to. And most of the board is upset with his behaviour, more then one thread got jacked by him and turned into a no-yes-nono-yesyes-nonono contest.
As to the other points you make: I'm not going to discuss those (again), you are partially right, but most of these are just a question of different opinions.
Even if I like the concept of culture flipping, the reason why I'm becoming more and more extreme in my opinion on CF is that I think it is a game concept, and if you don't like it, you either learn to work with it, or stop playing Civ III. I never have problems with CF, and I'm sure most who do the trouble of understanding it have none either, but I'm getting sick of reading the same 'Culture Flipping is a bug, a game flaw thought up by evil Soren' arguments over and over again without any trouble on Coracle's part to try to play with it, instead of just whining against it.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Coracle
I had nine military disappear in a town of '1' once.
|
Snuggs, you see what I mean? I replied to this a few posts above, saying that Coracle should stop repeating false arguments, bending the thruth. He posted the screenshots in another thread, and again I tried to help, pointing out that the size 1 town had 7 foreign tiles in its radius so you can hardly call it a size 1 town (well it was, but that lone citizen was not what was causing the flip). Further, of his 9 troops, one was a catapult, and everybody knows that catapults do not prevent flips, as it is just a piece of equipment. But does Coracle care? No sir, he just repeats himself again, even in the same thread if necessary. So tell me Snuggs, how do you react to this?
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Martinus Magnificus
|
 |
Nijmegen, Netherlands
Feb 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
Constructive posting: lesson 1
Coracle, although I agree with you most of the time, I do not appreciate the way you are spamming the forums with pure frustration. That is in no way constructive. Let me show you what I mean.
Personally, I find the idea of culture in Civ III interesting, but I blame Firaxis for the way they implemented it in the game. For instance, borders are mainly established by military force or diplomacy and therefore one should be able to control a resource by military force alone. Also, a city should not lose all cultural buildings when captured. That makes no sense at all. And even more disturbing: a garrison of over five units vanishes in thin air during a culture flip.
Here's the constructive part (Coracle, watch this!): possible solutions
- As far as borders are concerned: put in an option for negotiating borders or temporarely extending borders by miltary force (i.e. as long as you've got a garrison there, you control the tile)
- about losing cultural city improvements: when capturing a city, only a few randomly picked improvements are destroyed, not only cultural ones. I never understood why the borders around a city shrink when the city is captured. It makes no sense to me. A city's cultural influence should remain roughly the same, although it may shrink somewhat.
- about culture flipping: a city garrisoned with five units or more should never flip. Units inside the side get damaged every turn the city wants to flip though. Cities with weaker garrisons should be able to flip, but the units do not vanish into thin air, but are damaged and driven out of the city.
Get it?
Last edited by Martinus Magnificus on 13-08-2002 at 16:39
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-08-2002 18:30
It would make things a lot easier to deal with.
|