Who else is dissapointed that there'll be a culture flipping option?

[brianshapiro]

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]

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]

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

[Robert Plomp]

I like the culture flipping system.
Just know how to deal with it. It's great, but indeed, civ2 strategies make no sence with it.

You can't just take over an empire easy. I spend much time and money by making cultural and hapyness producing improvements quickly in newly conquered cities.

I don't care that weanies like coracle can turn if off though. But at the other hand, if firaxis has to listen to all those crybabies, they don't have time to work on the really important things

The culture system rocks. It's one of the great additions to civ3.

[monkspider]

I agree with Cyber. I love the culture system, and it's probably my single favorite addition to Civ 3, but it is great that it is an option now, since obviously there is an outspoken minority who do dislike it.

[Robert Plomp]

since obviously there is an outspoken minority who do dislike it.

Indeed, firaxis AGAIN proves how much they listen to the fans. Even if they're a minority. And they put these options in the game, just because they listen to the people.

But those people will NEVER listen to others, and they will keep on crying. Even AFTER Firaxis build in these things.

Great job firaxis! You've made a great game again!

[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.

[Robert Plomp]

Cities historically do NOT do this

Paris anyone? (WWII)
Leiden? (Dutch-Spanish war)
East Berlin (1989)

but hey, I know, history is wrong!

[Nubclear]

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.

[dunk]

I think it is good that culture flipping will be able to be turned off. I'll always play with it on in my normal games. Scenarios are a different story. It would be nice to turn it off so cities don't flip in the middle of WWII or the American Civil War.

[Stuie]

I'll always leave it on in my "normal" games, but like others I would like to be able to disable culture flipping for scenario creation.

[Hagbart]

Well.. Firaxis is just listening to the people that complained about the flipping. I'll just keep it turned on.

[GoodFella]

Personally I think ythe culture system is virtually perfect.

[Jon Shafer]

Culture: Better than Civ 2, but needs a lot of work.

[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??

[Mr. President]

but hey, I know, history is wrong!

Have you been reading revisionist documents again? Tsk, tsk . . .

[Level]

Originally posted by Coracle
and one nobody asked for in over five years of forum discussions about an upcoming Civ 3 after Civ 2 came out.

Ever read The List?
It's amazing what was asked for.

[Robert Plomp]

- 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.

[Coracle]

http://64.246.32.51/~admin1/forums/s...threadid=58421

BTW, for all your CF fans out there, be sure to check out the ridiculous Flip cited by 'alexman' in his thread in the Strategy forum. Then tell him how much sense it made!

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Coracle
nobody asked for in over five years of forum discussions about an upcoming Civ 3 after Civ 2 came out.

two months later i'm replying to the same argument by you

let's see if you try to reply this time

/me turns back time to June 4th 2002

Quote:

in over five years of debate about Civ 3 after Civ 2 came out NO ONE ever asked for Culture Flipping.

beyond the fact that you must be the only man on earth to have participated in ever civ-related discussion in every possible way(forums, usenet, mailing lists) the last 5 years, check out the following

ethnicity model
http://apolyton.net/civ3/suggestions.../radical.shtml

suggestions for rebeling cities due to unhappiness or religious reasons by Jonathan Cedrum and Mieke Meijlink
http://apolyton.net/civ3/suggestions...c_conc04.shtml

btw, in addition to being stuck to the same answered arguments, you also seem to be stuck to using the ip address to access the forums. please do so from this url
http://apolyton.net/forums

[Harovan]

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.

[player1]

The ONLY, and I say ONLY, probelm with culture fliping is a POSSIBILITY of losing 10 units division to flip.


And it could be easiliy fixed (if someone, who can, actualy cares to do so).

VERY SIMPLE MODEL:

When flip starts you lose 3-4 units immediatly (number of units dependent from city size).

If city has no more units, it fliped.
(then city gets some free units depending from cities popultaion)

If city still has more units, you keep the city, but chance for fliping next turn will be much more higher.

This chance should be more easily lowered by high militray presence.

[frostycreep]

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.

[XarXo]

I like culture flipping, and I think that shouldn't be an option. Why not put options to: Wars, Alliances, etc... ?
Simply Not.

The people that play the game and don't build temples or similar is that only thinks in units and more units. After I build a city the first thing that I made is a unit, a temple, a barracks and 3 units (disbanding the previous), finally I start to make workers and settlers. That's all!

[brianshapiro]

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]

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]

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?

[MarkG]

and of course coracle is nowhere around to answer back....

[Robert Plomp]

and of course coracle is nowhere around to answer back....

wanna bet how long it takes untill he comes with the same thing back, ignoring your answer?

I say 24 days.