There is one thing that makes me unhappy since I started playing civ4 :cry: With RFC it is even more disappointing.

Recently I played as Rome. I conquered France - razing Paris, taking Bordeaux and Aix (France collapsed). I wanted this area to be core of my country. I invested a lot in infrastructure and used Great Artist to improve culture - effectively I injected a lot of Roman culture in this area.

One day France declared independence in those 2 cities with full garrison of musketeers. In principle I like this concept very much - great fun. But when I managed the uprising :D - nothing left of Roman culture :mad:

This is not realistic and frustrating.

I am dreaming about some model that 'remember' previous culture. I conquer French city, I start with zero culture. But if Frogeaters come back quickly they recover significant portion of their influence around the city. 'Attrition' of culture could be based on time/population/population per nationality etc.

Historical examples:

Paris captured by Germans (not only once - it did not kill French culture of Paris)
China conquered by Mongols - traditional Chinese culture survived.
Poland conquered many times by many nations - we still exist :crazyeye:

After 1000 years old culture might die - Inca, Aztec :confused:
This model could be linked with resurrection model.

Total lost of culture could happen when city is razed - few such cases happend in history - what is coming to my mind is what Mongols made with Baghdad - it was really a doomday for Arabic culture.

How do you like it and assess feasibility to implement?

One of my favorite Mod Components of all time is "Culture Decay" because it simulates this. I would support this immensely, but 1 of the things is that currently when civs rise, the previous culture is destroyed so the new civ can actually use their tiles.

Personally I think it would be great if instead of the old civ's culture being destroyed, perhaps it should be reduced to represent the French part of the Roman culture (to use your example) splitting off, this amount that is destroyed is then given to the French culture, but if within 10 or so turns the Romans retake the city, most of the lost culture is returned to them, but not all of it.

yeah, agreed. I took Athens in the earliest turn possible (settling Rome one tile east, then moving your galleys hrough italy, picking up your legions along the way).

I immediatly built the oracle there, and temples and libraries, and the great lighthouse: I did not want The Egyptian culture to dominate Greek (now Roman) waters.

THREE TIMES did the bastards ressurect. Three times! And all after 1000s of years too! I was going to have Athens be one of the three cities I achieved cultural victory with. Constantinopolis however, would simply have to do.

Grrrr!

Rav

I have noticed this as well, and it would be great to simulate the truth behind the fact that occupying a city does not mean that you conquer the soul of the people.

yes this is completely frustrating...
why would i build nat wonders/great persons in conquered cities if they will soon lose all their culture...?

game with arabia (elder version): built hermitage plus many great artists in mediolanum to see it fall under rome.. then 0 culture and no more hermitage... again..

hello,

actually in RFC 1.24 resurrections are supposed to effect only unhealthy and unhappy cities. Is this working ?

it affects all cities, except the ones with no unhappiness or no unhealthiness

it affects all cities, except the ones with no unhappiness or no unhealthiness

Is it even possible for a city to have no unhealthyness or unhappyness? Each population point results in a unhappy and unhealthy citizen. There is a national wonder that gratns no unhappyness, but there is none that grants no unhealthyness.

I suppose it is meant in a sense that cities should not have more unhappy than happy and not more unhealty than healthy people. Otherwise the whole change would have no effect, as there is NO city with NO points in unhealthiness.

After playing RFC for a weeks, my dad and I have decided that we don't like it. There's no point in conquering cities when they're just going to be yanked out of your hands later on. What's the point of playing when your enemies constantly return? The Persian and Arabian automatic city-flipping is especially galling because it's extremely unfair and unbalanced. It's a game, after all. I want to change world history. Not be powerless to a pre-programmed destiny.

Having said this, I still like this mod in some other ways. I think the scripted appearance of barbarians and their cities is a wonderful idea. And civilizations appearing at their proper time in history is really nice. I've been thinking about making my own mod based on many of the ideas used in RFC. But I'm not an experienced programmer. I don't know how half the stuff works in RFC.

It was pretty similar with congress system. Initially nobody liked it but after some fine tunning it became integral part of the game - nobody questioning.

The one problem with conquered civs being reborn is it makes it very difficult to win my conquest of domination in the later game.

Actually I have to agree, the whole game you are fighting against pre-programmed destinies .. but you know that is all the fun for me in RFC.

Can I do better than the Incas did against the Spanish? Or opposite : Can I conquer Peru with 5 Conquistadores like Cortez did ?

Can I rebuild the Mongolian Empire ? (yes, but i takes lots of time ..)
Can I rebuild the Roman Empire ? (yes, but i will not sustain)

etc. etc.

This was RoC (Rhye's of Civilizations) in Civ III all about. This is RFC in Civ IV even more about and this will be the true philosophy behind 'Rhye's, Fall and Legacy of Civilizations' in Civ V .... when we finally simulate the assimilation of conquered cultures in our own one and the birth of new civilizations out of this mergers ..

The ressurection feature is relatively new and has some kinks that need to be worked out... You have to give these things time.