 |
| |
|
|
brianshapiro
|
|
Berkeley
Nov 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
I agree that units, or entire armies, disappearing to culture flips is a problem with the current game . But, as for cities flipping in general , and the matter of culture , strategic resources, and other things added to the game; it seems that most who are complaining that they're there or make the game too hard are old civilization ii players who are shocked and crying that their old strategies aren't working so are suggesting its something very very bad. Coracle in another thread was good to bring up the point that its silly that a flip can destroy so many powerful units, but he burries this point in several paragraphs of rants about how culture is a sissy element in the game put in for no reason except to appeal to sissy people, and laces his message with strings of adjectives, rushed passages separated by commas, and capital letters. Maybe if you limited your complaints to something practical, the development team would have actually modified the game in that specific way instead of only the scenario option.
Culture has only incidentally to do with peaceful approaches to conquest, first in the obvious ways that everyone would agree with , with borders and resources ; but also with cities (city-states) having revolts and seceding, making it more difficult to control expansive empires. One should remember if a couple of border cities which were recently taken over flip; its similar to a soviet state reasserting independence from the USSR. Also there had often been unfixed, impermanent unestablished, or unfortified borders before strong nation states are established and where over time one can expect alignment with different cultures. For example, Texas was mainly Mexican before US territory encroached further west and many american immigrants moved to Texas; ultimately it decided to join America. Coracle, dont be silly, of course there is a 'historical' basis (it isnt really 'historical' its logical), even though it cant completely act in a way that it does in history, because the game model is unrefined compared to reality. In Alpha Centauri, any colony with significant civil disorder for significant periods would have a chance of revolting to join a different faction. But of course there is that one silliness in the way its implemented in the game--in one instance i had three armies full of strong units in a relatively small city and they were all completely doomed to vanish the next turn no matter what i did because of unhappy citizens. The civilization could never defeat these units by themselves through their own military.
But why bury this important complaint in non-organized BS rants about culture flipping in general. Im actually not disappointed that this option will be in the scenario editor because i think scenarios should have any flexibility a mod creator wants to give it. But i think its silly that people are trying to force important aspects of the game out because, most likely in many situations, their old strategies fail and its too hard for them, to the point where the development team has to do this.
The only unrealism and absurdity is the details like units lost which can be addressed themselves. Please let it go.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Andrew_Jay
|
 |
St. John's, NF
Aug 2001
time: 01:51
|
|
I don't mind cultural flipping, except for the horrible loss of units in a conqured city.
"Sir, without a temple to appease them, the people of Tarsus have risen up and completely destroyed seven Armoured Divisions".
A possible fix would be if the units got evicted and maybe a few lost/damaged. I don't think it would be so bad then. Rather than lose a huge portion of your invasion force, you might get set back a turn or two while you repaired.
Also, later in the game, I don't think a culture flip city should get a full defender. Instead, perhaps give them some sort of Partisan unit, more like a rifleman. It's bad enough to lose a bunch of units, but then have to face another Mech Infantry is too much sometimes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JtheJackal
|
|
Its in the editor there is no indication its an option for normal gameplay.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Switch
|
 |
This just in, water has been discovered on Mars...
Apr 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
I think that the units should be sent to the nearest city, and each unit has a 50% chance of losing 1HP.
And perhaps, for the defender bit, there is a chance that one unit goes with the city, and becomes the defender for that city with slightly reduced HP (so, not always will the city have a defender. If it doesn't, then you still would start a war after taking back the city). I'm sure there have been instinces when soldiers themselves joined in a riot (bad barracks conditions, forced enrollment, etc).
And I agree, doing this would've pleased probably more people than just adding an option. However, the option would also be nice for scenarios. They should have added the option, plus a fix for the unit problem.... oh well
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
brianshapiro,
Hey fella, I never said what YOU said I said, nor did I ever use or imply the word "sissy", nor engage in personal attacks and rants on other people as you did with me. So go give it a rest with your distortions and insults. "BS"?? You should know.
There are many SENSIBLE ways to handle Culture in the game. Firaxis just dreamed up Flipping as they rushed the game to market without playtesting. Cities historically do NOT do this, nor is razing cities anything but fantasy also. Cities (and towns) did historically sometimes surrender to overwhelming armies (like the Mongols) but that is not an option.
Some of you like FANTASY games pretending to be historical simulations? Fine, you have culture flipping - historical nonsense for many reasons, and not just due to vanishing garrisons.
Most of those who HATE it are long gone having stopped playing the game and have stopped posting.
For those of us who remain who care about logic and reality, hey, I can't wait to turn this garbage off. Was that really so difficult to do, Firaxis??
Would it be so hard to let us mod bomber ranges beyond '8'? To not allow unlimited MP's on RR's? To allow privateers and subs on an enemy trade route the ability to damage that trade in some manner?
Well, keep working on it. With this CF option there is a chance I will get PTW now. There was no chance before.
Last edited by Coracle on 12-08-2002 at 13:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
quote:
Cities historically do NOT do this |
Paris anyone? (WWII)
Leiden? (Dutch-Spanish war)
East Berlin (1989)
but hey, I know, history is wrong! |
You also do need to factor in that this is, well, a game (what a laughable thought. a game contradicting history in even the slighest way?)
But hey, at least some of those people who whine about culture flipping (not naming names....) will be able to stop. although they probably wont.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
Civilizations did not and do not expand and secure territory based primarily on their number of libraries, colosseums, or having Shakespeare's Theater giving them something Firaxis arbitrarily calls "culture points".
That's not history or reality. Nor a simulation of it. Nor a game in the tradition of Civ 1 or Civ 2. It is a DIFFERENT game, and one nobody asked for in over five years of forum discussions about an upcoming Civ 3 after Civ 2 came out.
But if people are gullible enough to believe in cities that can be instantly "razed", and big garrisons of armed veteran soldiers disappearing when some civilians revolt (or something), well, can I sell you some stock in Imclone, Worldcom, or Enron?? 
Last edited by Coracle on 13-08-2002 at 05:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:21
|
|
- you blame Firaxis for culture because nobody asked it
- you blame Firaxis for putting the raze the city functionality in the game
- the raze the city functionality was requested by millions
- your logic sucks
And about culture,
if you live in a city with no temple, no library, no church, no colloseum, nothing nothing nothing, and over the border there's that cool city with all that fancy stuff. Then you think "I was I was a civilian of that great country next door"
And the farmers around the city will be attrackted to those cities. That's why the radius grows when the cultural points grow.
It does make sence. Of course, it's a game (repeat x100)
if you want the game to reflect the world, there are not enough shortcut combinations!
oh whatever,
your comments suck hard.
newbie rookie.
I'll ask Firaxis to put a "Total complete nitwit rookie" mode in the game, for those who can't beat the Chief level.
That should have cool options like:
- press control-k and all enemie units are vanished.
- press shift-123456 to reveal the world 
- press control-a to win the game.
for now I have one suggestion: format c: and the game won't bother you anymore.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sir Ralph
|
 |
Long live teh Schwampel!
Dec 2001
time: 06:21
|
|
I like the culture in Civ3 as a glue that holds a civilization together, I can live with culture flipping, but I don't really like it. It is the awkwardly implemented try to address the immigration factor in the game.
Culture should attract foreign citizens and let the border cities of the other civilization lose population in favor of the cities of the civ with the bigger culture, but it should not let entire cities flip and vanish big garrisons.
Culture also could be a factor to "integrate" foreign citizens in own cities and make them take the citizenship of their hosts. I should not be a risk of flipping to add foreign workers, but they should increase the risk of civil disorders. I would appreciate, when foreign workers would cost upkeep, to make it attractive to add them to cities, at least later in the game. There should be no slave labor in Democracies, but it should take place in other forms of government.
Would add a tad bit more fun and even realism in the game, without much work, IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
frostycreep
|
|
Devon, England
May 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
Culture flipping is an integral part of civilisation 3. The game is based around culture. If you dont like culture flipping then you dont like civ 3.Should it be an option? no. Can it be improved?yes. The best idea yet is that you will be able to keep a number of units after a city flips. If this was implemented the problem would be solved, although personally i dont see it as a problem anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
brianshapiro
|
|
Berkeley
Nov 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
Evicting units might be as silly as having them destroyed; how would they be evicted. A good solution might be that instead of automatic flipping, at the time the city would flip, instead it takes half hitpoints away from a unit, then the next turn its targeted, destroys it with the message '[Unit] injured in rioting by resisters'. It would also be interesting to see units injured by local culture riots in civil disorder in addition to what we have now in the destruction of civic buildings. Also, at turns maybe during the resistance or civil disorder, depending on some check, a unit can 'massacre civilians' and lower the population in the city by one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
brianshapiro
|
|
Berkeley
Nov 2001
time: 21:21
|
|
Oh yes--and this is just an idea, but maybe in resisting cities and possibily cities in civil disorder, units cant heal their injuries or cant heal as fast, leaving them more vulnerable to both attacks and rioting,
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Your.Master
|
|
Port Elgin, Ontario, Canada
Apr 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
In war, I figure that units should be evicted to an unoccupied square adjacent to the rebelling city, more likely on the more defensible terrain, among other factors, to choose between the 8 squares.
This way the units are right there, ready to reconquer the city. They just fled from wide revolts, and I imagine that some weak partisan unit would be defending the city, as well as possibly some captured military units (I got your panzer! *holding thumb between the first two fingers).
In peacetime, a democratic civ should just cede over the city and have it's units shipped back, but other govs may take to war.
I know it's not the way of the Civ engine and couldn't happen in this game, but I would imagine that a culture flipping city that wants to join another should cause a chain of events like this:
|city secedes from civilization-
-civilization lets them go, city joins another civilization, ships military units back home (or to their borders, or something), the end|
OR
-civilization is insulted and declared immediate WAR with diplomatic consequences (Help! Help! I'm being repressed!), continue-
-city appeals for aid from another civilization-
-is turned down, they are on their own and in trouble, units are evicted as per my war idea, the end|
OR
-other civilization accepts, city joins them, the two countries engage in war, units are evicted as per my war idea, the end|
As for historical basis, the real problem here is that it is extremely rare *BUT NOT UNKNOWN* for a single city to switch allegiances for no apparent reason. This tends to happen over a spread of similarly treated cities with similar background in a similar geographical spread. That is to say, occupied World War II France forms a resistance, the cities don't work perfectly despite overwhelming German occupation, and guerrillas fight to help retake the cities. Alternately, all 13 colonies rebel from Britain, not just one of them. There is a gameplay problem in this, however. Having a massive section of your empire conduct a successful rebellion could prove enormously frustrating, far moreso than a single city changing sides.
Anybody ever have one of those stunning civ2 moments, back when you were new to harder difficulty levels, where you won a war only because you got the capital and the empire split?
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2002 07:24
|