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

[N. Machiavelli]

Why are people concerned with whether or not it will be an *option*? If you love the idea of culture flipping (I do), then by all means, leave it on. If little Jimmy wants to play a game as a total warmonger without any consequence, then let him. Why in the bloody heck would you care?

In MP, such an option is togglible, or not. If you join a game where Culture Flips are turned 'off' you can *gasp* request it be turned on, or *double gasp* not play that game.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
Why are people concerned with whether or not it will be an *option*? If you love the idea of culture flipping (I do), then by all means, leave it on. If little Jimmy wants to play a game as a total warmonger without any consequence, then let him. Why in the bloody heck would you care?

Becuase it gives people more things to whine about, that's why.

[MarkG]

Devoted to Coracle

Bravely bold Sir Robin rode forth from Camelot.
He was not afraid to die, O brave Sir Robin.
He was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Robin!

there are currently two posts of mine in the last 3 days, in reply to Coracle, waiting for their answer....
if this continues, i'll have to print more from the above quoted....

[Jon Shafer]

Markos, you could give Coracle a 'special' CT, if you really want to. Something like "MarkG kindly requests a response".

[SABRA]

Since we can turn it Off of On , everyone should be pleased .

[statusperfect]

I would be more pleased if we got a warmonger goverment thats immune to culture flipping. This way Coracle (and other flip-haters) could play with people who like flipping. Fundamentalism maybe?

[Coracle]

Originally posted by statusperfect
I would be more pleased if we got a warmonger goverment thats immune to culture flipping. This way Coracle (and other flip-haters) could play with people who like flipping. Fundamentalism maybe?

So-called "warmongering" is more historically accurate than Flipping. A lot more. I have also asked many times for a situation where cities or towns SURRENDER (or have a chance to) upon the approach of a huge already victorious invading force. If, for instance, a stack of twenty Immortals approaches a town garrisoned by one spearman that spearman with either run or surrender. Or it should.

Not having that option unrealistically slows down an invasion, and can cost the town itself if a '1', it being destroyed.

Also, if a civ has a large military force within several turns movement no town/city would ever "Flip" - real people are not that stupid and suicidal.

But I suppose we'll have to wait for Civ 4 for such a logical way of handling invasions.

[Darkworld Ark]

I like the fact that you can turn off culture flipping, since it'll be good for senarios. Can you imagine the Germans Blitzing France, France culture flips, & the Germans loosing their intire Army? Outside of senarioes, I don't think it should be used, but if it quites Coracle, than let it be.

[Tiberius]

Speaking about historical accuracy:

Originally posted by Coracle

If, for instance, a stack of twenty Immortals approaches a town garrisoned by one spearman that spearman with either run or surrender. Or it should.
Not having that option unrealistically slows down an invasion, and can cost the town itself if a '1', it being destroyed.
Also, if a civ has a large military force within several turns movement no town/city would ever "Flip" - real people are not that stupid and suicidal.

In the autumn of 1552 a handful of "stupid and suicidal" hungarians (~1000 soldiers plus ~1000 armed peasants and women; let's say 1 spearman + 1 militia) from the town of Eger "unrealistically slowed down an invasion" of a horde of more than 70.000 turks/ottomans (presumably not all of them were soldiers, so let's say 40-50 jannisaries), resisting in the castle/fortress of Eger. After a month of siege the turks gave up and left.

In 1596, the foreign defenders (mercenaries) handed over the same castle of Eger to the turks without fight.

But of course, nationality and culture has nothing to do with history, right Mr Warmonger?

[N. Machiavelli]

But of course, nationality and culture has nothing to do with history, right Mr Warmonger?

No, military might did... in both of your examples.

In 1552 a Hungarian army (approx. 7,500 regulars under Istvan Dobo held off the Turkish siege for 38 days. Sieges back then took many months, even years until one side or another got tired and left. So the fact that the Turks gave up the siege to what, on the field, would be a small force, is nothing notible. It is certainly not a matter of 'cultural will' or because of the temple and library in Eger, but the fact that one army bested another army in a fortress outside of town.

Now, the Turks tried again successfully in 1586, not 1596. They made surrender demands to the mercenary guards within the fortress to surrender. Figuring that they weren't paid enough to die for another country, the mercenaries surrendered the fort to the vastly superior-numbered Turks. This isn't an example of 'superior culture' either. It's a matter of a foreign civ defending a fort of yours with 1 or two spearmen and saying "Bugger this" when an enemy force of 15 Knights arrives. That isn't culture, that's intellegence of the defender in the shadow of a military might.

BTW, the Turks held Eger for the next 100 years. In enemy territory, in a great cultural center. It never 'flipped'. It was surrendered back to the Hungarians in 1686 when the Hungarians defeated the Turks at Buda and drove the bulk of the Turkish force out of the country.

Warmongering won this town, not nationality or culture.

*EDIT* Fixed Quote tag

[Admiral PJ]

It would be nice for culture flipped cities to lose some population when they flip just automatically.. maybe a third of the pop(depending on its racial makeup) could leave as workers/refugees units or just vanish/ be killed in the civil war. These would be people that wanted to stay with the old civ .

I'd also like to know how much culture the previous civs had had in the city to tell if it would flip..

And stick in guerilla rebel units too, which can do propoganda on a city, then vanish.. and fight with units.

[Tiberius]

Dear Machiavelli,

First of all, please check your sources.

In 1552 there were between 2000 and 2100 defenders in the castle, including women and children (and NOT 7500). And yes, the commander was István Dobó, at least you weren't wrong here. They resisted more than a month in front of a 70 - 80 thousand turkish army, who finally gave up and left.

In late september 1596 (ant NOT 1586) the turks arrived again and this time the castle was defended by ~7000 men under Nyáry Pál, most of them mercenaries, who later arrested the hungarian officers and handed them and the castle to the turks.

Maybe you should visit the place sometimes so you could remember better the facts.

Other than that, how can you say that 2000 men resisting against an army of 70000 is "a result of military might"

The difference between the 2 sieges is exactly the fact that in the first case the castle was ferociously defended by people who wanted to protect their own land, religion, national identity and so on. All of the things that in Civ3 are generically called "culture&nationality".

One more thing: my post wasn't supposed to be about culture flipping, but about warmongering and historical accuracy.
If somebody is a warmonger, fine by me. I'm only disturbed when such a person bashes is his every post the culture system in Civ3 and in return demands more and more military tools to win the game, arguing with "historical accuracy".

Like it or not, culture and nationality played their own very important role in history, even in the history of mlitary warfare.

[SABRA]

As long as there is going to be a type of ON / OFF function , why not .

[Tiberius]

I think nobody can complain about an ON/OFF switch for culture flipping.

Like many other Civ players, I love the culture system and it's my favorite addition to Civ 3. So I don't like others who are complaining non-stop about culture because they can't (or don't want to) adapt their warmonger playstyle with the new rules.
Am I complaining about Immortals being too powerful?

How would this sound to you?
"Hei, Firaxis, the bombers and artileries are too powerful, the enemy is destroying my roads and temples; don't let them bombard improvements!" or
"Why are the tanks so powerful? I had a pikeman in my capitol and he was killed by only one tank! That's horrible!"

Maybe I could make enough noise to force Firaxis to make warfare optional

[Galvatron]

The culture flip system is horrible because in reality people don't really care which emperor oppress them and force them to do this or that and the whole "we belong to a specific culture" thing Firaxis brought into the game is too strict and it can ruin the whole game. You can't concentrate on more important tasks (like conquering the whole world) because you always have to pay attention to the naughty little citizens and babysit them.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Galvatron
The culture flip system is horrible because in reality people don't really care which emperor oppress them and force them to do this or that and the whole "we belong to a specific culture" thing Firaxis brought into the game is too strict and it can ruin the whole game. You can't concentrate on more important tasks (like conquering the whole world) because you always have to pay attention to the naughty little citizens and babysit them.

Well said!! Even I, who despise Culture Flipping for the unrealistic nonsense it is, never thought of that.

Throughout most of human history people did not usual think in terms of "culture" or nationalism. They just cared about their own welfare. So Firaxis got that wrong too!

Only in the late Medieval/early Industrial period did people think like that. Hell, in the case of the Germans and Italians they didn't think in terms of one Culture until about just 150 years ago.

Beyond that, cities did not join - or resist - another civ based primarily on Culture/nationalism. Their RULERS decided based on various political and economic reasons.

So thanks. You just shot another giant hole in the nonsense that is Culture Flipping.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Tiberius
I think nobody can complain about an ON/OFF switch for culture flipping.

Like many other Civ players, I love the culture system and it's my favorite addition to Civ 3. So I don't like others who are complaining non-stop about culture because they can't (or don't want to) adapt their warmonger playstyle with the new rules.
Am I complaining about Immortals being too powerful?

How would this sound to you?
"Hei, Firaxis, the bombers and artileries are too powerful, the enemy is destroying my roads and temples; don't let them bombard improvements!" or
"Why are the tanks so powerful? I had a pikeman in my capitol and he was killed by only one tank! That's horrible!"

Maybe I could make enough noise to force Firaxis to make warfare optional

I am not interested in the stupid ideas somebody (still unidentified) at Firaxis dreamed up regarding Culture Flipping. Note, I did NOT say "Culture"; I said "Culture Flipping" - a bad idea even more poorly implemented into the game mechanics.

It is unrealistic, dumb, and non-historical, besides being asinine in game terms. Go check out Alexman's "It Finally Happned!" thread in the Strategy forum to see another example of an idiotic flip destroying a game and making a mockery of a good strategy.

I have no interest in learning some arcane tricks to win at a system that is inherently flawed and braindead to begin with. I have better things to do.

I have no interest in being forced into some left-winger's Politically Correct wussy ideas about "Culture" instead of "war-mongering". The reality is that in History war (or the threat of war) WAS very important, as was ECONOMIC and trade domination which has also been neglected in the game.

"Culture" and national identities through most of human history was NOT very important, not until the last several hundred years. So Firaxis got that wrong too. (See Galvatron's post above).

Another fact. I know what Civ 1 and Civ 2 were. We had every right to expect improvements in that type of game. Instead we were TRICKED and given "Culture" - NOT a true Civ 3. I do not appreciate that kind of "bait and switch" from Firaxis. No sale.

[Zachriel]

But British India, properly so called, only embraces seven hundred thousand square miles, and a population of from one hundred to one hundred and ten millions of inhabitants A considerable portion of India is still free from British authority; and there are certain ferocious rajah in the interior who are absolutely independent. The celebrated East India Company was all-powerfull from 1756, when the English first gained a foothold on the spot where now stands the city of Madras, down to the time of the great Sepoy insurrection. It gradually annexed province after province, purchasing them of the native chiefs, whom it seldom paid. . . .

This is from Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days. The British try to extend their control over India, but are never able to completely subdue the native people. The description drips of culture conflict with military and economic aspects, resulting in eventual British defeat.

[Tiberius]

Since culture flipping is going to be optional, it's kind of pointless arguing about it, but still, some answers:

Originally posted by Coracle
I am not interested in the stupid ideas ... a bad idea even more poorly implemented ... it is unrealistic, dumb, and non-historical, besides being asinine in game terms.

It is stupid, unrealistic and dumb for you. There are people who like it and some find it brilliant. Have at least a little respect for them and don't bash the idea in every post of yours.

About beeing non-historical: what do you think is happening in Eastern Europe since 1989? A culture-flipping, that is. People didn't like the sovjet style of living (wealth, culture, freedom, etc; all the things that make a civ appealing or not) and did choose to "flip" to the western civilizations. Though I admit that the Sovjet Union didn't lose all their units from Hungary or Eastern Germany.

I have no interest in learning some arcane tricks to win at a system that is inherently flawed and braindead to begin with. I have better things to do.

Like warmongering, right? This is what you can't or don't want to understand: that you are not the only one playing Civ3 and I have better things to do than warmongering. The difference between us is that I am willing to learn things that I don't like, but are part of my favourite game.

I have no interest in being forced into some left-winger's Politically Correct wussy ideas about "Culture" instead of "war-mongering". The reality is that in History war (or the threat of war) WAS very important, as was ECONOMIC and trade domination which has also been neglected in the game.
"Culture" and national identities through most of human history was NOT very important, not until the last several hundred years.

All of the above were important: war, economy and culture. If you can't accept this, I have nothing to discuss with you anymore.

[MarkG]

Tiberius, dont try to argument with Coracle. It's not like he will answer back....

Galvatron, so because the game is not 100% war war war, it's ruined? go play some red alert then....

[Tiberius]

In march 2000 after lot's of discussion a list (containing the 5 most wanted fixes and new ideas for Civ3) was voted by Civ fans. It was called the Essential Civ3 List.
It contained

the fixes that need be done and the new ideas that must be in Civ3 in order to deserve the number "3" in it's title.

Now: please Coracle and other culture hating players check out how many ideas were warfare related and how many asked for:

Empires should become increasingly difficult to hold together as they get larger...they should be subject to a risk of civil war, rebellion, secession, etc...If your empire was increasingly likely to crumble as it expands, the challenge of conquering the other Civs would be replaced by that of keeping your empire together.

or

...I would like to introduce the possibility of spontaneous revolutions, coup d'etats, civil wars, feudal risings, secessions, peasant revolts, colonies declaring independence, famine and tax riots.

or

the possibility of secessions and civil wars, peasant revolts and feudal risings, more random elements like crop failures and epidemics, more influence of religion and economics making it possible to win in different ways, dangerous barbarians able to conquer large empires and to create a new civilization, the possibility to start at a later starting date for the advanced player, the introduction of 'decay' factors affecting older and conservative civilizations.

The list (in the order of votes received):

fixes:
Nr. 1. Trade
Nr. 2. Diplomacy
Nr. 3. Make It Harder For Civs To Last
Nr. 7. No more Instant City Conversions

new ideas:
Nr. 1. Rise and fall of Empires
Nr. 2. Domestic Politics
Nr. 3. New modes of victory
Nr. 5. Stacking (finally something related to war!!)
Nr. 6. Religion
Nr. 13. Recruitment system
Nr. 14. Automatic patrolling

Nobody said explicitly "culture", but ideas like "Make It Harder For Civs To Last", "No more Instant City Conversions", "Rise and fall of Empires", "Domestic Politics" or "Religion" are all directly or indirectly related to the culture system Firaxis had implemented in Civ3.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by MarkG
Tiberius, dont try to argument with Coracle.

I'm kind of starting to realize myself the futileness of arguing with Coracle...

I was just trying to ... never mind.

*sigh*

[player1]

I like idea of Culture Fliping.

And "culture fliping" is a realy bad name.

It just ordinary rebellion.

ONLY problem with it is possbiliy of loosing 10 or more units in such rebellion.

I mean, it' kills suspension of disbelief.

You are supposed to put big garrions is oreder to supress rebellions, not to make them empty in order to lower chance of losing units.

[Tiberius]

It is not just an ordinary rebellion. Sometimes it is, but not always.

You can call "ordinary rebellion" Kosovo trying to flip from YU, but certainly not the USA flipping from Britain (rebellion, but not an "ordinary" one) or Eastern Europe flipping from the Sovjets to the EU (mostly a peaceful process, not an armed rebellion).

The possibility of losing a lot of units is a problem, indeed. Though the one who wins the city doesn't get them, either. They just vanish.

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by MarkG

Galvatron, so because the game is not 100% war war war, it's ruined? go play some red alert then....

Well war is nothing else as diplomacy with other means, as my good friend and greatest war theoretic of all time von Clausewitz said one day. You need to expand and to defend your interest and how you do it? Right with the military. War is a constant factor always present in Civilization and if anything else fails to convince your neighbours to do what you want the military will not fail and in the end domination is all that counts. You have to be the dominating civ in the game than you will have no problem winning it and I always get decisive world domination victories.

[MarkG]

eeer what's with the "war is essential" speech?
i'm not saying a civ game should have a war as a part of it
i'm just saying civ games are civ games, not war games

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Though I admit that the Sovjet Union didn't lose all their units from Hungary or Eastern Germany.

Just to clarify. The vast majority of Soviet troops were disbanded and are now standing in the unemployment line. Many of these troops were "natives." In the Sepoy mutiny referenced above, 96% of the troops were native Indians. So yes, the garrison just disappeared.

[MarkG]

see tiberius? coracle is on to other threads....

i think it's like Memento(the film). Coracle remembers to check only the threads he posted in in the last hour.
after that, it's all gone from his memory....

[Tiberius]

Somebody made a humorous remark (in another thread) about Coracle saying:

"I think Coracle is a script"

...probably trigerred by words like "culture flipping", "Firaxis", etc.

ROTFL!!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Galvatron
Well war is nothing else as diplomacy with other means, as my good friend and greatest war theoretic of all time von Clausewitz said one day.

You may want to ask your friend for a copy of his book On War. In particular, pay attention to 1:9. THE RESULT IN WAR IS NEVER ABSOLUTE. "The conquered State often sees in it only a passing evil, which may be repaired in after times by means of political combinations." Also, keep in mind that Clausewitz is often blamed for providing the theorectical underpinnings for the devastation of Europe, including Germany, in the two World Wars.

They have created a desolation, and called it peace. -- Tacitus