"1. CF is non-historical and unrealistic. NEVER happened in History, that despite the warped efforts of those who distort reality to try to find examples of CF." -Zouave

One word.

Melungeons.

They are a people with uncertain history. But the known facts are these... They are -not- pure native american, they became absorbed into the american colonists culture, and they were not happy or have an easy time with this. Now the fact that they are not pure native americans means that they too must have absorbed another culture into their own, before being swallowed whole by the colonists culture. Melungeons are now unsure of their own roots from so much culture 'flipping'.

What about Egypt? Cleopatra was a Greek remember?

Take a look at WWII Japan and look at pressent day Japan. I would say western culture conquered more than western weaponry.

Britains lost empire. While its true Britain no longer controls its empire as it once had, there is no doubt that their culture lives on as a legacy in each of the places they controlled. Many South African caucasians, Austrailians, and Brits alike are mistaken in their traits and customs.

"If you can't beat them, join them."

Having a culture act as you would have them act is just as good as controlling how you would have them act.

On a final note, my tips for controlling culture flipping is to have each city I conquer immediately begin production on a library, if I have any spare units (longbowman, swordsman, etc.) I disband them in the city for rushed production and write it off as ordinance disposal.

In my most recent game as the Germans I was attempting global domination through superior firepower and had wiped out france, china, russia, most of egypt, and was finishing off france when suddenly I acheived cultural victory. Kinda ticked me off really -- apparently rush building libraries like that over 60% of the map builds up hellascious amounts of culture. As I was finishing off egypt I had loads of artillery lying around that I had captured from france and china so I was disbanding artillery to rush universities. Who needs artillery that lags behind your troops when you have carriers?

Anyways... just my two golds.

Nice try, but all you'll do is bring out the same WHINING reply.

I've NEVER lost one of my own cities to CF, and only 1-2 times out of hundreds of cities captured in dozens of games.

And that's using stock rules, no edits anywhere.

The dude just loves being a little priss about it.

poprawkz, please do not refer to anyone in your thread title. I have edited it out, and replaced it. Should you like a different title, PM me.

This was already done b4 i think

There is a difference in CF as implied in the game and culture assimilation and influence you described.

Kind of like saying apples and oranges are the same thing becuase they are both fruit grown on a tree.

How about these historical examples?:

The state of Virginia secedes from the United States to join the Confederacy. About 1/3 of the state then secedes from Virginia (becomes W. Virginia) and rejoins the US.

Another close example: the city of Strasbourg, France. Throughout history it has switched between being a German and a French city. Granted, most of these changes occured through warfare. However, at one point in its history, the city leaders petioned to join the Swiss confederation but were rejected by the Swiss because they feared the city would have been too hard to defend. Sounds to me mighty similar to the option you are given in Civ III when the people of another civ ask to join your empire.

What about Texas? In Civ3 terms, one could make the argument that Texas culture-flipped from Mexico to the US in 1836. The Mexican War was Mexico's unsuccessful attempt to reclaim it. (And yes, I know that Texas declared its independence, but the express purpose behind that was to join the United States.)

Originally posted by Jimcat
What about Texas? In Civ3 terms, one could make the argument that Texas culture-flipped from Mexico to the US in 1836. The Mexican War was Mexico's unsuccessful attempt to reclaim it. ....

True, but it was due to American immigration. Mexico offered cheap land to Americans to settle Texas, build its infrastructure. Soon, Americans outnumbered Mexicans and Ta-Dah, revolution.

Originally posted by Koronin
Nice try, but all you'll do is bring out the same WHINING reply.

I've NEVER lost one of my own cities to CF, and only 1-2 times out of hundreds of cities captured in dozens of games.

And that's using stock rules, no edits anywhere.

The dude just loves being a little priss about it.


Hey dude. Stop being a little fanboy Firaxis apologist. I had enough of them last December telling us how "FABULOUS!!!" the beta Civ 3 was even before the first patch. If Firaxis didn't have critics keeping them honest you'd have likely gotten no patches.
Don't have to thank me; it's OK.

And this thread is about alleged "historical examples", not the game system.

More soon. . .

Originally posted by JBearIt
How about these historical examples?:

The state of Virginia secedes from the United States to join the Confederacy. About 1/3 of the state then secedes from Virginia (becomes W. Virginia) and rejoins the US.

Another close example: the city of Strasbourg, France. Throughout history it has switched between being a German and a French city. Granted, most of these changes occured through warfare. However, at one point in its history, the city leaders petioned to join the Swiss confederation but were rejected by the Swiss because they feared the city would have been too hard to defend. Sounds to me mighty similar to the option you are given in Civ III when the people of another civ ask to join your empire.


FIRST OF ALL, the concept of CF is screwed up in the IDIOTIC GAME MECHANICS and in the way it is implemented in the game, both regarding cities and borders. That is my MAIN complaint.
Cities of '12' that have been part of one civ for 5,000 years do not suddenly decide to join another civ based on some arbitrary formula dreamed up by a computer programmer with no known credits in History. Huge garrisons do not vanish. Borders do not flip over resources. Not in reality.

So the WAY it is implemented is dumb.

But let's just look at the idea of one city being culturally 'taken over" by another. . .

I posted many times that cities HAVE surrendered to overwhelming MILITARY force that terroriszed other cities. Mongols did it, and so did many other to lesser extents. Even the Egyptians made a point of displaying the cut off body parts of defeated enemies. But this accurate concept is not in Civ 3. Oh no. A stack of FIFTY elite legionaries could approach a town with one conscript warrior and that town would not surrender; it would have to still be attacked.

But let's get to specific examples cited. . .

Western Virginia was part of the Appalachian Mountains, and that entire region hated the lowland and tidewater plantation and slave owners who seceded from the Union. What became West Virginia simply REMAINED in the Union - and they did so for ECONOMIC reasons. They never "flipped" they never really left; their interests were alsways the same as the Union. Their was pro-Union sentiments wre prevalent right through the Appalchains even into northern Alabama.

You want ECONOMIC strength to have an effect on controlling territory? OK with me.

You admitted Starsbourg usually was controlled due to WAR. The SiNGLE example you cited clearly was an aberration, and even if it did whatever garrison was in it would not have vanished. Cite the date of this alleged incident and I'll investigate it further. But it is clearly an ABERRATION.

keep 'em coming. . .

Ya, I wasnt trying to attack Zouave in this post, I was just expressing my opinion on the rationale behind culture flipping. Granted the games system could probably use some tweaking and I'm not defending the current system... I was just trying to get out that similar things happen in the real world, and this is just the binary translation. Much like how in the real world all cities do not fit inside one perfect neat little square, and how in the real world we dont always move in perpindicular directions following the 8 semi cardinal directions, heh.

-edit-

In addendum to this, what it boils down to is the need for the game creators to offer something to the playerbase who prefers non combat methods of victory. Too many games center around killing and destruction as the main way to advance, (at least all my favorites do) and culture flipping was their answer (or at least a partial one at that).

poprawkz,

Melungeons.:rolleyes: Oh brother. You make a list of cities controlled by them, or armies of them. They were never a civilization, and barely constitute a tiny unique ethnic group for a very brief period. For those who care, they were multi or tri-racial people in the South pre-Civil War, or those who just didn't look quite white. It was all unique to the bizarre ante-bellum South. Go write a monograph on their partial assimilation into Southern society. They have nothing to do with large cities or civilizations.

Your reference to Cleopatra proves what I said about desperate CF fans distorting History. Egypt was MILITARILY conquered by Alexander, and one of his generals, Ptolemy, having survived the Diadochian Wars (as did Seleucus and Antigonus), set up his Greek Dynasty on Egypt, and Cleopatra was his descendant.

Japan was first CONQUERED MILITARILY. Only then did its society and culture become Westernized.

Parts of European culture can be found in much of the so-called Third World, just as Greek Hellenic culture spread throughout Asia with Alexander. That has nothing to do with Culture Flipping cities and borders.

This is boring, these lame examples you cite.

I have to play Civ 3 and see if Editing Culture "resistance" down to zero stops Flipping.

Later. . .

Originally posted by Zouave
Melungeons.:rolleyes: Oh brother. You make a list of cities controlled by them, or armies of them. They were never a civilization, and barely constitute a tiny unique ethnic group for a very brief period. Exactly - they had no culture and thus were easily culture-flipped.... :p

LoL Isak. :D

Zouave/Coracle, just some friendly advice, try not to call people fanboys whenever they try to defend or explain some part of the game mechanics that you disagree with. It doesn't bode well for other people's outlook on you or your arguments. ;)

Culture flipping as it's implimented is pretty annoying, and could be done in a much better way. Again, I'll repeat my explanation for why Firaxis did it the way it did... not my defense of it. I'll follow up with a bit of a summary and some final comments.

(Almost) random culture flipping is basically Firaxis warning you not to attack your neighbor and expand only by war, or else something will happen. Mom telling you not to touch the stove, so to speak. ;) Sometimes it'll be on, sometimes it won't.

The part about garrisons vanishing is extremely annoying and I think it could be done in a much better way was put in because of the fact that if a city culture flipped and your units get deposited outside the city, then you'd go and take it the next turn. The whole point of culture flipping is to prevent/slow down aggressive expansion. Using Civ 2 Partisans would be much better, but there's no hope for that in Civ 3, so it's best not to complain about it too much.

'Culture flipping' could happen in real life, but only with certain factors (which aren't represented in Civ 3). Rebellious barons, unhappy peasants, economic reasons, hidden garrison, etc. aren't present in Civ 3 to back up culture flipping. I think a little more depth in that area would make flipping seem more realistic, along with a few other motivating factors would be beneficial. But again, this won't be in Civ 3 so it's not worth worrying about.

Ok,I'll give examples again.

Savoy and Nice voted to be french in 1860.
Palestine is the best example.
Mongolia in the 20th century liberating itself from chinese rule.
India from British rule.
Algeria and Vietnam from french rule etc etc.

Culture flip do not apply to us here in province of quebec, after several centuries we still have our own culture. Cultur flip suck.

Originally posted by Trip
LoL Isak. :D

try not to call people fanboys whenever they try to defend or explain some part of the game mechanics. . .

My name on this forum is Zouave. Use it, fella. Furthermore, I NEVER call someone a "fanboy" unless they first have attacked me as a "whiner" - something they have done to anyone who correctly and acurately crtiticized this game since it came out. And I won't take it with a smile, not after eight months of that stuff.

Your lecturing tone - and personal references - does not deserve further response.

BTW, the topic of this thread is "Historical Examples". I see you were unable to post any either.

Originally posted by Damien
Ok,I'll give examples again.

Savoy and Nice voted to be french in 1860.
Palestine is the best example.
Mongolia in the 20th century liberating itself from chinese rule.
India from British rule.
Algeria and Vietnam from french rule etc etc.

There was no Italian Civilization or nation at the time, that was coming. It was filled with city states. The coat of arms of the future Italian flag {up to 1945) was that of Savoy - a region that sought French protection from AUSTRIAN MILITARY THREATS. Wars there had just been fought (major battles at Magenta and Solferino). So no sale.

Palestine? Culture Flipping from Israel?? The Zionists took it over (rightly or wrongly) by force, and the Palestinians want out. And don't tell me the Zionists "bought some of the land" - from absentee Turkish landlords. Not much, and not relevant.

If Mongolia "liberated itself" it didn't "flip" to anyone. And the only reason they did was because they were a client state supported by the Soviet MILITARY.

Algeria was conquerd MILITARILY by the French in the mid-19th century, and Vietnam in the latter part of the 19th Century. The Vietnamese fought a WAR to kick out the French, as did the Algerians in the Fifties and early Sixties. Yes, De Gaulle agreed to leave Algeria, but only after the continuing warfare and terrorism. Algeria didn't just collect more "Culture" and "Flip". BTW, the OAS was formed by disgruntled French army officers to oppose this move and kill DeGaulle - see the movie "Day of the Jackal". It had nothing to do with "Culture Flipping".

Enough of these feeble "examples".

I have to play Civ 3 and see if my changes in the Editor killed off CF.

Outta here. . .

Oh, India. The British conquered India. Following two costly world
wars, the rise in nationalism throughout the world, and the many actions of Gandhi, itwas no longer politically, miliarily, or economically feasible for Britain to stay. And India gaining its independence is not the same thing as one large civ's city "flipping" to another large civ.

Actually Tassadar, I would say that it does apply. Even centuries after being conquered, the "French" citizens of "English" controled Québec still yearns to break free of the canadians and join the french civilization (NOT country - that's one major problem with CF, people just don't get that, especially in the late game, civilization is not equal to a modern country, but a group of them - IE, "English" civilization would be england + most of commonwealth in the modern world ; there would probably only be one civ for the EU, etc) (btw, I'm from Québec too).

And in *THAT* sense, small territories changing allegiance from one group to another, closer, strongly diffusing its culture group makes sense.

IE, the countries of the Warsaw pact and the ex-USSR republics flipping away from Moscow and toward Europe.
IE, the West Bank trying to flip away from Israel and toward the Arab "civ".
IE, Canada pretty much flipping away from England toward the US (because even though it is still a free country that does not obey the US directly, most of it is indeed on a political level rather close to the United States - closer than a mere MPP)

In fact, it can be argued that while the US do have military to back up their actions, they have also converted to their culture many other countries without the need for military action. These minor countries may not be entirely slaves of America, but they do tend to follow America closely.

And, given a game that limit the number of civilizations, having "rebel" cities become their own country would be well-nigh impossible, not to mention ridiculous (take the city, and the civ is offed permanently...which would be made even easier if units were kept alive and just moved to the new border.

Given the game constraints, culture flip is a rather decent way (though units could, say, have been brought back to their capital rather than discarded entirely) to represent what is, in fact, an actual historical phenomenon. It could be much better, yes, but it does make sense.

On a side note, territory square changing culture does *NOT* represent empty territory changing hand. There *IS* people there even if there's no city - scattered houses and the like. So when the square culture flip, it represent the citizen of that particular square starting to think of themselves as "Chinesse" instead of "Germans" because they see a lot more of the Chinesse influence. In ancient times, with borders being a rather uncertain thing, this would make sense.

HOWEVER, one may note that borders should become a lot less fluid once one discovers nationalism.

Palestine? Culture Flipping from Israel?? The Zionists took it over (rightly or wrongly) by force, and the Palestinians want out. And don't tell me the Zionists "bought some of the land" - from absentee Turkish landlords. Not much, and not relevant.


Your history knowledge about Palestine is screwed, but I don't want to drag this OT.

Originally posted by Zouave





You admitted Starsbourg usually was controlled due to WAR. The SiNGLE example you cited clearly was an aberration, and even if it did whatever garrison was in it would not have vanished. Cite the date of this alleged incident and I'll investigate it further. But it is clearly an ABERRATION.

keep 'em coming. . .

I wrote a paper about Strasbourg back in college in 1992. Luckily I still have it (even though I mostly cringe when I read my writing from that long ago). The year in question was 1667. As I re-read my paper, I noticed that I wrote the reason the Swiss cantons rejected the city's bid for entry was partially due to the difficulty in defending (which I stated before) and also due to religious balance issues in the Swiss confederation.

Also interesting to note was that Strasbourg was mainly a German-oriented Lutheran city until France, under Louis XIV, took the city in 1681. Louis and the French then adopted religious and political policies that encouraged French Catholics to move to the region and also to encourage Strasbourgers to convert to Catholicsm. In Civ III terms, he pumped up the culture, in an attempt to avoid the city reverting back to its German roots.

Originally posted by Zouave
My name on this forum is Zouave. Use it, fella. Furthermore, I NEVER call someone a "fanboy" unless they first have attacked me as a "whiner" - something they have done to anyone who correctly and acurately crtiticized this game since it came out. And I won't take it with a smile, not after eight months of that stuff.

Your lecturing tone - and personal references - does not deserve further response.
I'll call you what I like, "fella". :)

If you don't want to address what I stated and instead attack me for my suggestion for making your life easier, then it's clear that you're more interested in arguing and whining about things than getting the problems with Civ 3 resolved. Putting credit upon your incessant complaining about the same thing for the fixes that Firaxis has put out in the patches makes you the most arrogant person I've ever met, along with one of the most delusional.

BTW, the topic of this thread is "Historical Examples". I see you were unable to post any either.
Was I defending Culture flipping? No.

Was I trying to? No. Are you simply attacking anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with you that everything about Civ 3 sucks? Yes. Have you earned a spot on my list (and many others') as one of the most annoying people ever? Yes. Expect no more responses from me. It's clear that you just want to argue and make people angry, and continuing to try to reason with you is below me.

P.S. I expect "no further responses". :)

Trip,
Zouave didn't attack anyone here infact the thread was practicly addressed to him as far as I can see he was defending himself.
Is it possible that people like you attacking him all the time is why he is like this?

now you said "it's clear that you're more interested in arguing and whining about things than getting the problems with Civ 3 resolved"
what else can he or anyone else do to get things resolved we have posted in the forums and emailed Firaxis and with the addition of each new patch we find more things wrong

personally I and im sure countless others Agree with him

Trip as you said your self CF sucks what have you done about it other then attack people that are trying to get enough people to make some noise so Firaxis will change it

as for being arrogant you are the one that attacked him correct me if im wrong but this is a public forum which means he or anyone else can criticize Firaxis if he wants to.
maybe its time for people to back off you don't have to agree with him

now i expect everyone to reply to this

Alright, let's duel. I love a good debate. :cool:

Originally posted by Silent Assassin
Trip,
Zouave didn't attack anyone here infact the thread was practicly addressed to him as far as I can see he was defending himself.
Is it possible that people like you attacking him all the time is why he is like this?
I was addressing the comments he was making and offered a suggestion and he shrugged me off as "lecturing", and said that I don't "deserve further response". Look at my first post. Read it. Where in it do I attack him? Not one spot. If he wants to reply in a rude manner then that's his business. But don't expect anything but the same from me. I'm exactly the person towards you as you show to me, amplified twice over.

Look at the tone of my first post to him. Read it twice if you have to. Then read his response. Notice a difference? Post 1 = "this is why it is, and this is how you can avoid the problem. You're upsetting a lot of people the way it is now and this is how you can change that". Post 2 = "screw you I don't care".

now you said "it's clear that you're more interested in arguing and whining about things than getting the problems with Civ 3 resolved"
what else can he or anyone else do to get things resolved we have posted in the forums and emailed Firaxis and with the addition of each new patch we find more things wrong
It won't be resolved. Jeff Morris at Firaxis stated that culture flipping would not be changed in any way. With a statement like that why would someone want to continue? The lead designer of the game has flatly stated something that won't change, and yet someone continuously complains about it. For what purpose? No one at Firaxis is listening anymore. Telling us over and again doesn't help anything either. After eight months or more, you'd think Firaxis would have changed things if they were going to.

personally I and im sure countless others Agree with him
You mean countless others dislike culture-flipping? Of course. I'm one of them. I just think there's a better way to go about dealing with the problem, and his attitude turns off more people to the issue than he helps bring to his side.

Trip as you said your self CF sucks what have you done about it other then attack people that are trying to get enough people to make some noise so Firaxis will change it
You state again that I attacked him. Show me where I did.
I've spoken with many members of the Firaxis team multiple times on this issue, and gotten the same response: it won't change.
What have I done about changing culture-flipping? Becoming involved, talking with the team and making sure I understand the issue thoroughly. I've done nothing lately because there's no point. I repeat, the head designer of the game firmly stated that nothing would change. Nothing short of firing half of the development team will change things. And what are the odds of that happening? I assure you that continual complaining about culture-flipping won't result in that.

as for being arrogant you are the one that attacked him correct me if im wrong but this is a public forum which means he or anyone else can criticize Firaxis if he wants to.
maybe its time for people to back off you don't have to agree with him
Once again, I ask you to read my first post, then read his response. Point out places where I attack him. Quote me. I can point out places in his response that shows the rude and arrogant tone I recieved from what he said.

I told him not to call people 'fanboys' that disagree with him. Is that attacking him? If I'm not mistaken, calling any thread that supports culture-flipping a "fanboy thread" is more attacking than giving friendly advice. :rolleyes:

I'll quote some things that he's said in just this thread attacking others or otherwise belittling them.

Definitions courtesy of Dictionary.com. :)
This is boring, these lame examples you cite.
Stop being a little fanboy Firaxis apologist.
Ouch, I think the attack-factor on those ones is upwards of 7 or 8.
If Firaxis didn't have critics keeping them honest you'd have likely gotten no patches.
Don't have to thank me; it's OK.
My my, that one is definitely a 10 on the arrogance scale.

Definition of 'arrogant': "Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance."
Enough of these feeble "examples".
And that one's gotta be an 8 or 9 on the rude scale.

Defintion of 'rude': "Ill-mannered; discourteous"

In re: to my post, after I offered some advice so that he didn't get attacked so often, I then explained why Firaxis had each element of culture-flipping included. No attacks there. Maybe my eyesight is just going bad and you can point such things out to me...

now i expect everyone to reply to this
Touche.

Zouave, I see you have yet to respond to this list of examples which i have posted in two different threads:

The Ionian Greeks flipped from Persia. Ancient Israel flipped from the Romans. The West Bank and Gaza have been trying to culture-flip from Israel for years. Israel itself flipped from the Arabs. Persia flipped from the empire of the Medes. Kosovo attempted to flip from Serbia to Albania. Slovenia flipped out of Yugoslavia. America flipped away from Britain. Various tribes in the Aztec empire flipped to Spain when the invasion began. Texas flipped from Mexico. Both Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 flipped out of the Soviet sphere, and the Soviets sent in troops to reclaim them. Care to elaborate on how these are NOT historical examples of culture-flipping?

"Zouave didn't attack anyone here infact the thread was practicly addressed to him as far as I can see he was defending himself." -Silent Assassin

There was no need to defend himself as he wasnt being attacked. It was an invite however to cite his reasoning behind his statement.

Oda Nonabunga made some very good points, I especially like what he said about nationalism. Perhaps nationalism SHOULD affect culture flipping in some way.

As for the Melungeons, Zouave said they were a pre civil war people. Fact is they were around before 1587 for a fact. Thats almost 200 years before the United States was even a concept. To say that they had no culture or civilization would be a great disservice to them or any people for that matter. If early America did not persecute their rights for being colored (well some of them anyways) then perhaps we would have a greater understanding of their history. It was all but forgotten because of -- American culture.

Oh, India. The British conquered India. Following two costly world
wars, the rise in nationalism throughout the world, and the many actions of Gandhi, itwas no longer politically, miliarily, or economically feasible for Britain to stay. And India gaining its independence is not the same thing as one large civ's city "flipping" to another large civ.

Indian territory flipped back to the Indian Civ. It had been around before, and it returned after independance.

To those who like cf, did you ever see in history a civilian population kill a well trained army to take back control of the city, i dont think it exist and even possible, civilian are coward in war time and in no way they can retake control of their city from an ennemy army.

Infograme ( or firaxis) wont do anything about cf, sure, they wont do a 1.29 german patch, they wont do a mac 1.29 patch, and 1.29 is the final update after only 8 month. This mean this compagny have no more future IMO. When a company stop giving support it tell you something going wrong there.

I hope firaxis will cultur flip back to Sid meier s.

Originally posted by Tassadar
To those who like cf, did you ever see in history a civilian population kill a well trained army to take back control of the city, i dont think it exist and even possible, civilian are coward in war time and in no way they can retake control of their city from an ennemy army.What makes you assume they are killed - troops stationed in foreign countries for years have to do other stuff than just walk around with swords all day. They could just decide that after 1, 5 or 20 years of being stationed in that faraway place, they actually like it much better and decide to settle down. That's what happened with the vikings who conquered and settled in England. They eventually got assimilated by the english because they were too far away from home, and time had passed, so they didn't feel any real connection with their home country. Cultural assimiliation - and mind you, they were warriors alright, not peaceful settlers.

But to answer your question directly: No, I've never heard that happen. I've never looked out my window and seen a sign hanging over the city telling how many people live here, and what we are all currently building. :rolleyes:

It's a strategy game - not a history lesson.

Originally posted by Isak
What makes you assume they are killed - troops stationed in foreign countries for years have to do other stuff than just walk around with swords all day. They could just decide that after 1, 5 or 20 years of being stationed in that faraway place, they actually like it much better and decide to settle down. That's what happened with the vikings who conquered and settled in England. They eventually got assimilated by the english because they were too far away from home, and time had passed, so they didn't feel any real connection with their home country. Cultural assimiliation - and mind you, they were warriors alright, not peaceful settlers.

But to answer your question directly: No, I've never heard that happen. I've never looked out my window and seen a sign hanging over the city telling how many people live here, and what we are all currently building. :rolleyes:

It's a strategy game - not a history lesson.

Ok i agree that viking got assimilated over time, but the viking did conquere england and keep control of it, I would say the local were under control by the viking and over time the local and the conquerer form a unique cultur. In anyway the viking flip back to local and lose control.

It is a historical thread not a strategic thread:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Tassadar
Ok i agree that viking got assimilated over time, but the viking did conquere england and keep control of it Yes, for all of 21 years (1014-1035) - I think that constitutes about 2 turns in the game.

And actually English settlements were not the only ones to suffer this fate - the same goes for the Vikings who settled in Normandy.

Infograme ( or firaxis) wont do anything about cf, sure, they wont do a 1.29 german patch, they wont do a mac 1.29 patch, and 1.29 is the final update after only 8 month. This mean this compagny have no more future IMO. When a company stop giving support it tell you something going wrong there.and...It is a historical thread not a strategic thread:rolleyes: What was that again? :p

East Germany, 1989. Flipped from Soviet influence to Western influence (tearing down of the Berlin Wall.)

Originally posted by Tassadar
To those who like cf, did you ever see in history a civilian population kill a well trained army to take back control of the city
The Hessian troops in the Revolutionary War disappeared, as a military force. Well, many of them did.

I don't know it for a fact, but I'd be very surprised if the Polish, Czech, Bulgarian, etc., armed forces aren't alot smaller than they were 20 years ago. As Eastern Europe culture flipped, many of the troops became regular folks.

I will say this...one of the ideas that had me excited about Civ 3, in those heady Civ 2 days, was the idea of independent city states as the game wore on. Or even mini-empires.

I think that Firaxis could have very easily melded culture flipping and non-expanding, static mini-kingdoms. Think of how Prussia's leader came to be Kaiser. Or how Rome came to control Italy. Or for the warlike, how England became Britain, or how the US came to control the West.

See, instead of culture flipping, a city should sometimes instead fight for independence. You as a leader would have a choice...fight to keep the city (might win, might lose, will definitely lose some troops and some city improvements), or take your troops out and leave it independent. Of course, sometimes, the city would out-and-out flip, especially if you're an extreme warmongerer with low culture and a history of atrocities.

The lack of that intermediate step is a weakness in Civ 3, and I frankly don't understand why it couldn't be in the game. Just put in a few more goody huts, and make some of them independent cities. Should you leave them alone? Conquer them (and hope they don't reassert their independence later? Or be more prone to flipping?) Build cities nearby and try to culturally assimilate?

Getting off topic I know, but while I like Civ 3, and I like culture flipping as a general idea and antidote to warmongering, I still find the game to be a huge disappointment, overall. I had a basic game design in mind from the best suggestions from the fans that would have been a vastly, vastly superior game.

I still state the Czechezovakian border flip with germany just prior to WWII as the best historical culture flip. The whole event took place while the Czechs were at peace with the germans and the whole process was fired by international pressure- the british and french told the czechs in no uncertain terms that if they didn't give up the border that they would be going to war with germany (on thier own) the czechs reluctantly agreed and gave up their strong border deffences; Heavy artillery and military instalations and were subject to military occupation by germany.

Yes I realize that there will be no change to culture flipping, and I supose I can live with that; The fans have had quite an influence on the design (and redesign) of Civ III, back in the days of the first home computers (The comadore64, Spectrum 48k, and later the sega and nintendo consoles) there was no fan input; or at least no response to that input. You bought a game, and if it sucked then the joke was on you; No one would could ever have imagined it any other way.

It would be possible to make Civilization a very realistc simulation of history, I could think of a million things to make it more realistic- but there would come a point where realism would just become too complicated for The average player , and that is who firaxis (and any other games company still in business) aims their games at, the average players are the people who pay for the development and publishing of the games; The guys and dolls here at civ fanatics may devote much of their time and efforts towards civilization, but overall they are just a small percentage of the people who actualy buy CIV III, check the number of people signed up at Civfanatics and apolyton against the number of copies of Civ III sold (of course this doesn't include lurkers) and you will find that is is only a small percentage of players who are interested in Civ III as anything other than a casual gaming experience, a few weeks of play till the game gets too boring/anoying to play any more.
All firaxis has to do is sell the game to those people, and make a bit more cash from the XP and they can pay for their next release (I know its harsh, but its the reality of capitalism; you would think people would be used to it by now).

It is nice that firaxis do listen to the hardcore fans, we give them free development testing, and in return they give us free upgrades- if it were in their interest to increase the impact that fans have on development, perhaps they would make more changes. I am not a "firaxis Fanboy", but I am aware of the realities of game development and international capitalism, perhaps we are not subject to ideological censorship but you must all be aware that every public production is subject to economic censorship- if an idea is not enconomicaly viable (due to a lack of popular suport=$) then it does not get published.

A more realistic version of Civ III would not be economical viable- it wouldn't return as much money as would have to spent on it, in the same way an ateration to culture flipping would be too hard to implement, its not a small change and it wouldn't provide significantly increased sales of the expansion pack; nearly every one who wants a change to culture flipping would still be buying the expansion pack anyway.

The only two ways to have a greater effect on further development of civ III is #1 convert lurkers in to civfanatics or poly members (representing an increase of market share by the hardcore fans) and #2 organise a boycot of Play the world, a option that I would not advise, reduced sales of PTW can only hurt future CIV development, by seeming to represent oposition to the things included in the add on (such as multiplayer, the main reason for buying PTW as far as many people are concerned).

Originally posted by rmsharpe
East Germany, 1989. Flipped from Soviet influence to Western influence (tearing down of the Berlin Wall.)

This is why I try to restrain myself from looking in this goofy thread. Ah, the distortions.

As was posted months ago, East Germany collapsed because it was ECONOMICALLY bankrupt; politically too.

That does NOT mean "culture" did not play some factor. I always said it could.

And guess what? All those many Soviet divisions in East Germany DID NOT VANISH INTO THIN AIR; they went back to the Soviet Union, soon to become Russia.

Sigh.


If Culture Flipping made even a little sense Canada would have become part of America long, long ago. And Ireland NEVER would have fought for its independence for generations; it just would have become part of Britain.


Let me see if I can think of a few. . .

How about Burgundy? Nope. They were
really French anyway, and the French were stronger militarily. Once the English were on their way out Burgundy could no longer be separate - especially after Charles the Bold LOST BATTLES and was KILLED in COMBAT by the Swiss! No "Culture" there!

How about the semi-barbarian Bulgars? They were right next to the huge and immensely cultured Byzantine Empire and Constantinople. No "flipping" here! Basil II destroyed their army and blinded most of his prisoners whom he sent back home - causing the Bulgar czar to drop dead of a heart attack. No "culture" there.

Hmmm. Any examples. . . The Baltic States? Nope. Right next to Russia and the Soviet Unionfor centuries. Never "Flipped".

California in 1846 "flipping" to the Ameicans? Nope, conquered militarily..

Tiny Tibet ever "flip" to gigantic China? Nope. Conquered militarily.

How about very tiny Hawaii in the 1890's? Nope. It was conquered militarily. (Not much of a fight, admitedly, but it was still done by force).

I give up. There are NO examples. CF is Fantasy. Too bad it's not in a Fantasy game.


Little Portugal next to much bigger Spain never "flipped"/

Zouave your exemple is very good to show how cultur flip is ridiculus ( minus ridiculum). In anyway citizen can kick an invasionary force. Citizen are coward in war time.

A possible real life example.if/when it ever happens
(note my quotes in this example as I strive to put things into a civ perspective.for record..i don't support culture flips.but this is interesting to me)

Quebec:

A french "city"conquered militarily by england way back when (plains of abraham?.i forget its been nearly 20 years since i was in school).and becomes English (consider Canada english "citys" for this purpose)

consider quebec a "city" with mostly french citizens and french culture built up.aome english citizens are of course added over the years but predominantly mostly french citizens there

The citizens in the "city" of quebec decides to VOTE (ie no military involved) and become non-english and revert to its other "cultural identity"..ie french..it may (and indeed probably won't) become part of France but for this example we will consider it part of the French "cultural civ" since that it what its reverting to

Chances are any military in Quebec is going to be made up of Quebecians and thus when they revolt they will not return to Canada (England) but remain there (things like ships etc will probly be a different story.im thinking mostly of infantry bases here ). they werent killed..they didn't mysteriously dissappear.they become "French" (may explain the free units you get when a city CFs to you)

The result will be an area in former "england" that is no longer "english" but "french"

Opinions/comments welcome (except ones about wether or not it will actually take place..this is a pure "what if" situation.but it is POSSIBLE and realistic that it could happen)

How about very tiny Hawaii in the 1890's? Nope. It was conquered militarily. (Not much of a fight, admitedly, but it was still done by force).

:rolleyes: In the game, there would be no way in hell Hawaii would flip to the US, the US had no citizens there, had no cultural influence and Washington was half a world away.

Tiny Tibet ever "flip" to gigantic China? Nope. Conquered militarily.

Take a look at a map. Tibet is hardly tiny. Besides, all those ancient monasteries have been generating culture for eons.

Hmmm. Any examples. . . The Baltic States? Nope. Right next to Russia and the Soviet Unionfor centuries. Never "Flipped".

Their capitals were too close.

EDIT: btw, they were actually part of Russia & the USSR for a long time.

Now, can we get back to the list of examples I posted above? Or will you just continue to ignore anything which supports CF?

Originally posted by Ziggy
Opinions/comments welcome (except ones about wether or not it will actually take place..this is a pure "what if" situation.but it is POSSIBLE and realistic that it could happen) It has already happened - Denmark got back the southern part of the Jutland peninsula from Germany, through a Democratic vote back in 1920.:)

And you have some very good points on why the occupying forces are lost.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Now, can we get back to the list of examples I posted above? Or will you just continue to ignore anything which supports CF?I would also like to see some response to my examples :confused:

Originally posted by Isak
What makes you assume they are killed - troops stationed in foreign countries for years have to do other stuff than just walk around with swords all day. They could just decide that after 1, 5 or 20 years of being stationed in that faraway place, they actually like it much better and decide to settle down.

<snip>


Something like 2000+ British soldiers, apparently with no ties back in England, stayed behind after the Revolution.

Most astounding was that something like 5000 of the Hessians decided not to return to Europe and stayed in North America. This was something close to 50% of the survivors and 30% of the maximum total send/lent to fight there.

CF in the game seems to be an amalgam of revolts, revolutions, independence movements, underground resistance, cutural influence of other countries and other things.

The general closest thing seems to me to be a strong independence movement. Behind the US revolution was simply that Americans began to establish an identity of their own seperate and distinct from the Brits.

Revolutions and wars for independance have been COMMON thru history. However, in the game if a city were to revolt and set up a NEW state/civ of Bulgaria it most often wouldnt work. A)people would complain because they set it for 6 or 8 players and now, there is one more. B) If it happens late enough everyone would just gobble it up.

In fact and in deed, from the perspective of the Brits and their colonies in America, India, etc, when independence came, there is no difference between independance and the CF in the game. They are left without the revenues, strategic positions, natural resources (they were quite dependant on the tall trees for masts and raw iron ore), subjects to call on for the military and so forth. *Just like the game*.

In the game, it makes it a BIT more interesting that there is a risk of it to revert back. This is after all a PENALTY for any number of faulty game play moves on the human's fault. Knowing that it can happen, it would seem the bright player would deal with it rather than ignoring it because they dont like it in the game. After all, it is not impossible to prevent CF from happening.

I do think that smaller cities should be near to impossible to flip back; but the human should maybe lose half the units posted there. The other half were not so awed by the culture as to fight against their former brethren, and moved away or became citizens.

Originally posted by Zouave
If Culture Flipping made even a little sense Canada would have become part of America long, long ago.
I think I see the problem here. You don't have a very sophisticated understanding of how civ empires relate to RL empires. Because Canada, in civ terms, is part of America.

1. The RL border is devoid of military units. In Civ, no matter how good of an ally another civ is, you ALWAYS put troops on the border.

2. If the UN voted to make the US or China king of the world, it wouldn't even be an issue how Canada would vote, because they're in our "culture." The question would be how the "Aztecs" (Latin America) and the "Persians" (the Muslim world) and the "Zulus" (Africa) would vote.

3. Canada is a military ally. They had troops in Afghanistan, yet were not attacked on Sept. 11. If an attack on New York City and Washington DC causes Canadian troops to see action, and that isn't an example of cultural assimilation, then I don't know what is.

The problem is that you're not being subtle or supple enough in translating the 200+ nations in the real world to the 6-16 Civ empites.

Here's another way to look at it...today, there's Europe and America. I'm not sure which camp you'd put Britain in, and whichever one they belong in, they could "culture flip" the other way if things break a certain way.

Here's another RL example (altho maybe a weak one.) Before 1989, the US had many troops in "Europe." The alliance was very tight. But with the collapse of the Soviet threat, "Europe" culture flipped back to independence. *AND* the military forces of "Europe" were greatly reduced (i.e., the "American" military units disappeared, and were replace by a lone mech. inf. unit in "Rome," "Paris," and "Berlin."

Try to be less literal minded, and I think you'll see what we are all trying to explain to you.

Dave brings up something very important that I think a great many people are overlooking.

Certain parts of Civ III have been designed around certain aspects of the real world, not designed as them. Try to think of the things that happen in a more broad sense. Like how a Tank 'unit' doesn't represent one tank, but a couple tank regiments, some mechanized Infantry (not the unit, but infantry in half-tracks and whatnot), a little Artillery support, etc. The same goes for naval units. A 'carrier' isn't just one carrier, it represents a carrier battlgroup, with small craft support. You can't look at culture flipping any differently. People shouldn't be looking for 'such and such city has abandoned such and such nation', but you need to look into the factors that might cause these things in the real world and how they might relate to CF in Civ III. In other words, you have to add a 'story' or an 'definitive explanation' to events that occur, and not say "well this is stupid all of the sudden a city I have 30 Modern Armor in just 'flipped'". You need to look further into it to be able to understand it. The people who hate the thing and would get rid of it in a second see it more as 'the city goes back after I captured it and my units were destroyed'. Others who don't mind it so much and are willing to accept it see it as 'when my troops entered the city, they were ambushed by some partisans who managed to re-take the city'. Far-fetched? Maybe, but I'm sure you can think of something better if you try.

The point is: Culture-flipping isn't just culture-flipping. Try to look more into it. :)

Originally posted by Zouave


This is why I try to restrain myself from looking in this goofy thread. Ah, the distortions.

As was posted months ago, East Germany collapsed because it was ECONOMICALLY bankrupt; politically too.

That does NOT mean "culture" did not play some factor. I always said it could.

Economics and politics are as much a part of culture as literature or artwork.

I think we must understand a couple of things:

First, Civ III is a simulation game. This means, it's a simplified model of the reality, so we can't expect to see the game elements as complex as they are in the real world.

And second, at least for me, I understand culture in Civ III not only as the cultural influence per se, but a sum of cultural, economical, technological and political influence. A couple of examples:

Why american culture has spread so much in the whole world? Well, I think it's because they have the technological, economical and political means to allow that.

Take southern California for example. Los Angeles is the city with the largest mexican population after Mexico City, even not being a part of Mexico. Well, then, why doesn't they just "flip" to Mexico? Because the political and economical (and why not? cultural) influence of the US is so strong, that it reaches even further from the border.

Look, I'm in Mexico City, but I'm writing this in English, I'm listening to American music, this computer is made in the US and I work for an American company. AND THE LAST TIME WE HAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN MEXICO WAS WHEN THEY DISEMBARKED IN VERACRUZ NINETY YEARS AGO!!

So, the point is that culture comes along with politics, economics and technology. (and most of the times, military strenght is irrelevant).

Culture flipping is very annoying, no doubt about it...

I think they should have a warning system in place.. lets say the people like another culture etc.. they create a militia out of the unhappy citizens trying to oust existing power/army... if succesful the city culture flips...

This way as a player you can:

1- send in workers, settlers trying to outnumber the local culturally different people in the city

2- occupy the city with a large military to quell uprisings, if you city is full of unhappy poeple then it revolts and your army has to fight against the militia to keep the city...

This would work like a charm, no sudden flips etc...

That's true, a warning of some kind would be good. I mean, CF is a reality, but it doesn't happen that suddenly.

CF is meant to slow down an offensive. That means if it told you it was going to happen soon, you'd just move every unit out of the city next-door, wait until it flips, then take it back the same turn. Not much for hindering an offensive. :p

Answer to TRIP:

What I meant by warning of some kind, was more along the lines that some battle should ensue when the city wants to culture flip, your existing units in the city against the militia for example... If you have a large enough garrison I highly doubt the city would be able to flip but for "X" amount of turns it could be in civil disorder, and its militia troops could surrond the city attacking it etc...

Otherwise what is the alternative?
You have a HUGE army with a leader in the city, and "POOF!" they are all gone, not a single bloody battle, they just all disappeared??? at least kick them out of the city or something, cause it just doesn't make the game realistic otherwise...

Remember in CIV2 when you took over an enemies city you had those Guerrilla troops (think they were called partisans), that were loyal to the old regime (culture/civ).. something like that is what I am talking about...

Originally posted by teturkhan
at least kick them out of the city or something, cause it just doesn't make the game realistic otherwise...
There are two purposes of culture flipping. One is along the lines of Canada and Mexico IRL. The other is along the lines of the Hessians and Englsih troops in the Revolutionary War.

In any event, you're missing the point. The purpose of the kind of culture flipping you're complaining about is NOT realism. The purpose is to slow down warmongerers.

Compare the Roman Empire to the Mongol empire. The former grew slowly, and each new territory was assimilated. And we are still impacted by the Romans.

The Mongol empire grew very fast. And they didn't worry much about assimilated/absorbing their conquests. And Mongolian culture had little if any influence.

Then, let's look at the Muslim empire that grew after Mohammed. It grew pretty quickly, and they worked on absorbing their conquests. The Swahili language of the East Coast of Africa is related to Arabic much like French is related to Latin. Look at the north coast of Africa.

See, rapid military conquest, without an attempt to spread your own culture, has no impact. I wonder what happened to the Mongol hordes when the Mongolian Empire disintegrated.

Through the Byzantine Empire, the Roman empire lasted over 2000 years.

There are many Muslims in Kenya and Tanzania.

The moral is, if you don't want your conquests to flip, either conquer slowly (Rome), or work like hell to absorb them (Muslims.) Don't be like the Mongolians.

Sure it slows down rapid expansion, but can you really say which way of conquest is more effective? Alexander the Great defeated the Persians and pretty much conquered their entire empire in a matter of years. Romans conquered over centuries, is one way better than the other? I think not. Mongols culture was nothing to boast about, yet they still maintained such a large empire OVER people whose culture was far more advanced than theirs. Culture flipping has little regard for the presence of a powerful army and that is my point. You should be able to maintain order if you have a large enough garrison in the city. I recall one time I had a HUGE army in a Chinese city that I had just taken over, the Chinese culture was much more advanced than mine… inevitably it flipped back to Chinese control, what happened to my great army? *POOF* they were all gone, not even a SINGLE unit escaped – that is just simple nonsense – come on nobody should buy that – its completely unrealistic.

I am not saying culture flipping should not happen, what I am saying however is that an army should not all of a sudden disappear off the face of the planet… sounds like a page taken out of the X-Files! :)

Originally posted by Flavor Dave

I think I see the problem here. You don't have a very sophisticated understanding of how civ empires relate to RL empires. . . Try to be less literal minded, and I think you'll see what we are all trying to explain to you.

But you DO have a "sophisticated understanding" of this?! :rolleyes: :vomit:


Before 1989, the US had many troops in "Europe." The alliance was very tight. But with the collapse of the Soviet threat, "Europe" culture flipped back to independence. *AND* the military forces of "Europe" were greatly reduced (i.e., the "American" military units disappeared, and were replace by a lone mech. inf. unit in "Rome," "Paris," and "Berlin."

First of all there was no ongoing war. Second, they did not disappear; they were eventually and consciously disbanded - and that was stupid and dangerous anyway. Half the U.S. Army divisions "disappeared" in the Nineties - and that was the result of Bill Clinton, not Culture Flipping.

I'm sure Canada would also appreciate your rermarks. Just be sure you don't let Firaxis sell you any Worldcom stock.

I could say more, but I'd get banned for a week.

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Economics and politics are as much a part of culture as literature or artwork.

No, they are part of your Civilization. Marketplaces and banks do not produce "Culture" in the Firaxis definition and formula.


One programmer, who doesn't have any History credits as far as we can determine, dreamed this up and some people want to defend it. This really is a curious Sociological phenomenon. :crazyeye:

Originally posted by Luis G.
. . .
Look, I'm in Mexico City, but I'm writing this in English, I'm listening to American music, this computer is made in the US and I work for an American company. AND THE LAST TIME WE HAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN MEXICO WAS WHEN THEY DISEMBARKED IN VERACRUZ NINETY YEARS AGO!!




And the chance of it becoming part of America (the U.S.) controled by America IS ZERO.

The convoluted attempts to defend this CF concept, since there are NO historical "examples", is amazing.

Cities do not change their Civilization, one they have been a part of for millennia, based on a computer formula Soren Johnson of Firaxis concocted. Nor do garrisons vanish, nor borders flip over resources.

In the game marketplaces, banks, and the like do not produce "Culture".

Some attempt to incorporate economics, political strength,
military power - and "Culture" - TOGETHER to reflect the INFLUENCE of a Civ is fine with me; always has been. This could be manifested in many ways, even in war creating disorder, partisan units, more happiness or unhappiness, whatever. THAT would be the "sophisticated" way of handling it.

But what Firaxis gave us is arbitrary, simplistic, simple-minded, and just plain wrong.

Originally posted by teturkhan
Culture flipping has little regard for the presence of a powerful army and that is my point.

A "sufficient" garrison has complete control of culture flipping. Sufficiency varies according to several factors, but is not more than (foreignpop+overlap)*2.

how often would an invading army outnumber the local inhabitants? They oust your army, your army of elite trained soldiers gets destroyed by miltia? I find that hard to believe...

the set point for needed units to prevent culture flipping is too high...

Originally posted by teturkhan


the set point for needed units to prevent culture flipping is too high...

That's a completely different question than if flipping should occur at all. Now it's just a matter of what constitutes sufficiency. Merely having a force enough to conquer a town in an eight-week summer campaign is not enough. You must also provide the resources to occupy an unfriendly people over many years. Ipso facto, the resources required to occupy is larger than the force of conquest. As always, sufficient infantry is the key.

http://www.zachriel.com/InfantryIcon.jpg
http://www.zachriel.com/Infantry.htm

I'm certainly not against having a slider for flipping, if someone wants to handicap the game, or to create a mod.
:)

Originally posted by Zouave
And the chance of [Mexico] becoming part of America (the U.S.) controled by America IS ZERO.
Yes, I do have a more sophisticated understanding of how the 200+ nations of our planet are represented by the 6-16 Civs in the Civ series. Here's the proof.

While you've got your panties in a wad, please tell me of one time in the last 5500 years when there were as few as 16 "nations," remembering that the Iriquois count as a nation.

You also didn't really engage my example of Canada. You just made a flippant remark. I'd rather you deal with my points.

The convoluted attempts to defend this CF concept, since there are NO historical "examples"
Except for the countless examples people have been giving you on this thread.

Cities do not change their Civilization, one they have been a part of for millennia, based on a computer formula Soren Johnson of Firaxis concocted. The only thing that makes this statement true is the 2nd half, the part about Soren's formula.

Of course, that applies to every friggin' part of civ, so it begs the question of why you play the game. If CFing bothers you so much, then so should founding cities, city growth, shields, and on and on and on and on and on.

Nor do garrisons vanish,
Except when they do. Hessians.

But what Firaxis gave us is arbitrary, simplistic, simple-minded, and just plain wrong.
There are two kinds of flipping. One is when a city gets absorbed in peacetime. The other is when a conquered city reverts back to its own culture.

The way I read you on this subject, you confuse the two. You mix'n'match reasons why it's unrealistic, why it's arbitrary, why it doesn't work, how to fix it, etc.

To me, these are two separate issues. Are they two separate issues to you?

The convoluted attempts to defend this CF concept, since there are NO historical "examples", is amazing

*AHEM*

The Ionian Greeks flipped from Persia. Ancient Israel flipped from the Romans. The West Bank and Gaza have been trying to culture-flip from Israel for years. Israel itself flipped from the Arabs. Persia flipped from the empire of the Medes. Kosovo attempted to flip from Serbia to Albania. Slovenia flipped out of Yugoslavia. America flipped away from Britain. Various tribes in the Aztec empire flipped to Spain when the invasion began. Texas flipped from Mexico. Both Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 flipped out of the Soviet sphere, and the Soviets sent in troops to reclaim them. Care to elaborate on how these are NOT historical examples of culture-flipping?

But what Firaxis gave us is arbitrary, simplistic, simple-minded, and just plain wrong.


Kinda like EVERYTHING on the Civilization series. :rolleyes:

Strictly speaking and viewing CF only in the most narrow and literal contexts, CF doesnt really exist IRL. That is, a city doesnt switch alliegance to another country because the temples are cooler there, the shopping is better or they like the Britney albums.

But then the game doesnt really pretend to model reality, but is simply based on some real life concepts. Where else but a game could ANY GL do in 1-5 years what would take 200-1000 years without him?

The game Civs dont have to contend with a host of real life isssues, chief among them independence movements (VERY common IRL) and terrorism.

I submit that CF rather than being "simplistic", is not meant to reflect a *single* situation but an amalgam of real life conditions like independance and civil wars or where the national authority does not have control of the whole country. Examples of this are legion: Beirut controls the city on a good day, but hasnt controlled the country in years; ditto for Mogadishu and Somalia; Pakistan doesnt even pretend to exert authority over the tribal areas or Northwest Territory; France lost control of Canada and a sugar island(s) in the 1760s; the Brits lost all of the American colonies; Pakistan lost Bangladesh; Brits lost Transjordan, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan; the KSA-Yemen and KSA-Oman borders are dotted lines on most maps acknowledging that the bedouin tribes make their own rules and answer to no government; The Falkland islands of a few years ago; the breakup of artifical countries like Czech and Yugo into (over 10 and counting) smaller entities.

In all those those cases, the natural resources and revenues are/were lost to the government. It remains a mere technicality for example, that Peshawar shows on maps as inside Pakistan, for the tribal chiefs and mullahs exert control on the area and Islamabad gains nothing in the way of resources and taxes without their consent.

Without the threat of CF there would be little reason to build culture related improvements, just armies and the game would become a simple, 1 dimensional shoot-em-up.

In real life, are borders determind by treaties or by culture generated by the cities? culture flipping keeps that d*%& iroquis settler from building a city in my heartland before my borders expand and then remaining there for a thousand years. culture flipping seems as if it was intented for this purpose. Not realistic, but neither was that settler building a city in my heartland.

Michael York, check the reply before yours.

Culture flipping of border makes sense, in regard to what he explains about the bedouin tribes and indian/pakistani ones.

Originally posted by Flavor Dave

I think I see the problem here. You don't have a very sophisticated understanding of how civ empires relate to RL empires. Because Canada, in civ terms, is part of America.

1. The RL border is devoid of military units. In Civ, no matter how good of an ally another civ is, you ALWAYS put troops on the border.

2. If the UN voted to make the US or China king of the world, it wouldn't even be an issue how Canada would vote, because they're in our "culture." The question would be how the "Aztecs" (Latin America) and the "Persians" (the Muslim world) and the "Zulus" (Africa) would vote.

3. Canada is a military ally. They had troops in Afghanistan, yet were not attacked on Sept. 11. If an attack on New York City and Washington DC causes Canadian troops to see action, and that isn't an example of cultural assimilation, then I don't know what is.

The problem is that you're not being subtle or supple enough in translating the 200+ nations in the real world to the 6-16 Civ empites.


Here's another way to look at it...today, there's Europe and America. I'm not sure which camp you'd put Britain in, and whichever one they belong in, they could "culture flip" the other way if things break a certain way.

Here's another RL example (altho maybe a weak one.) Before 1989, the US had many troops in "Europe." The alliance was very tight. But with the collapse of the Soviet threat, "Europe" culture flipped back to independence. *AND* the military forces of "Europe" were greatly reduced (i.e., the "American" military units disappeared, and were replace by a lone mech. inf. unit in "Rome," "Paris," and "Berlin."

Try to be less literal minded, and I think you'll see what we are all trying to explain to you.



This logic is extremely flawed; Canada is not considered part of the American civ. If that were the case there should be some Canadian city names or some sort of reference to this in the game. It's fairly clear that you are playing as an individual country and that is what the deisgners intended. That is why the expansion is adding civs, the game is not trying to represent every single country/empire that ever existed with just 16.

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
This logic is extremely flawed; Canada is not considered part of the American civ. If that were the case there should be some Canadian city names or some sort of reference to this in the game. It's fairly clear that you are playing as an individual country and that is what the deisgners intended. That is why the expansion is adding civs, the game is not trying to represent every single country/empire that ever existed with just 16.

Herr Reichsmarshal-

Unfortunately, the game simply does not stick rigidly to either the "player as civilization/cultural grouping" or "player as nation-state" viewpoint.

The naming convention within the game is broadly consistent with the "nation-state" concept. But certain examples can be given against this - the "Greek" civ being a case in point. Not only was there no "country" (in the sense of a nation-state) such as Greece for the bulk of Greek history, and particularly for the classical period, but the game chooses to depict Greece as led by Alexander of Macedon, barely by some definitions Greek (although clearly of Greek culture).

Indeed, to even attempt to use modern nation-state concepts in dealing with game mechanics is flawed, as until the advent of nationalism 'countries' were a different beast entirely.

There are times within the game when I rationalise the rules through consideration of the state concept, and times when I think of myself as leading a cultural tradition. The whole thing is artificial - whatever makes the game work for the player is fine.

(For example, I always think of the high corruption at a distance in a 'democracy' as being due to other nations in my cultural grouping doing their own thing, rather than what the mother country wishes. I don't think Canadians are that corrupt, but they sure don't spend their money on what the British (or French or American) government wants! :))

*rolls eyes* Canada is not considered a part of the american civ, true. BUT it is ALSO true you are not an individual nation in the later ages, even if all your citys are named after those of one nation.

The countries of the world generaly tend to align in a number of "block" ; each civilization in the later ages is one of these blocks. For example the English Commonwealth as a whole would be a block (with Canada having CFed to America), etc.

It is *RIDICULOUS* to say that a civ in the later ages is the equivalent of a nation. Each civ is BASED on a nation (for cities name, etc), but it is NOT a nation.

Your point does not stand Reichmarshal. The game *DOES* try to represent every country existing at any given moment in your game ; however having only 16 country in a modern time in a earth-related game is ridiculous. Morevoer, most countries have spheres of influence - smaller nations that tend to follow them, act in concert with them generaly.

This is what a civ in the later age represents. Not a nation. The american civ in the game was not made to include Canada, but IRL Canada would be part of the American "Civ". This is the distinction you failed to make.

QUOTE]Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
*rolls eyes* Canada is not considered a part of the american civ, true. BUT it is ALSO true you are not an individual nation in the later ages, even if all your citys are named after those of one nation.

The countries of the world generaly tend to align in a number of "block" ; each civilization in the later ages is one of these blocks. For example the English Commonwealth as a whole would be a block (with Canada having CFed to America), etc. [/Quote]


There is very little indication in the game that it is trying to have every civ represent every real life bloc. The main civs where this is the case are the Persians and the Romans, since they have a substantial amount of foreign city names (which were not even always truly Roman in culture like Jersualem and the fact that Persia has Kandahar, it also shows cities that they were in the civ's empire at their powerful point).

If the game was truly trying to represent everyone, Germany would have Austrian and possibly Swiss cities. The game would cover Spain and South American also. Furthermore there are culture groups in the game like American, European, Mediterrianan, Middle Eastern, and Asian.


It is *RIDICULOUS* to say that a civ in the later ages is the equivalent of a nation. Each civ is BASED on a nation (for cities name, etc), but it is NOT a nation.

They add other countries/provinces later in the game and are perhaps influenced by them, that is not how it would be if you only built your own cities and got no goodie huts though.


Your point does not stand Reichmarshal. The game *DOES* try to represent every country existing at any given moment in your game ;

This is true (except for the "your point does not stand" ;) )

however having only 16 country in a modern time in a earth-related game is ridiculous. Morevoer, most countries have spheres of influence - smaller nations that tend to follow them, act in concert with them generaly.

The game does not try to be 100% realistic that would be impossible in a game since it is often a juggle of realism and game balance. Although civ's in rl do have a sphere of influence it does not always make them part of the same civ or prove that the designers were trying to represent this.

This is what a civ in the later age represents. Not a nation. The american civ in the game was not made to include Canada, but IRL Canada would be part of the American "Civ". This is the distinction you failed to make.

Your "civ" can be homogenous or hetergenous depending on what you do. Some civs are not represented at all currently in the game regardless of what mental gymnastics are used to rationalize it (such as certain parts of Africa).

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
*rolls eyes* Canada is not considered a part of the american civ, true. BUT it is ALSO true you are not an individual nation in the later ages, even if all your citys are named after those of one nation.

The countries of the world generaly tend to align in a number of "block" ; each civilization in the later ages is one of these blocks. For example the English Commonwealth as a whole would be a block (with Canada having CFed to America), etc.

It is *RIDICULOUS* to say that a civ in the later ages is the equivalent of a nation. Each civ is BASED on a nation (for cities name, etc), but it is NOT a nation.


The concept of "Civ" is highly abstracted. This is one of the ingenious ideas that makes Civ what it is. Sometimes the game feels like specific countries; other times cultural blocks, such as Western Civilization, the German Confederation, or Christiandom; still other times an allied collection of City States. In a similar vein, sometimes the map distances seem strategic, other times tactical -- another great concept that makes Civ what it is.

The worst part about culture flipping is that extremely high amounts of units can dissappear irrationaly. If most of them escaped or you could actually prevent flips that would be obviously better than it currently is.

4 points that almost anyone can agree with:

1. Enable some indicator on how likely the city is to flip. It could be green for "fairly safe", yellow for about a 30% chance or so, red for 50% +. You have to admit that is would be much more realistic and interesting with that addition. It would be VERY possible to have some spys gauge opinon.

2. Reduce the use of culture flipping as a war tool. The name is "CULTURE". It should be much more likely during peace than war.

3. Prevent instant flips and loss of any units in armies. Losing an arming over a flip is a waste of a leader (many say the army is too :p, rush wonders instead). If it did not always immeditatley flip it would be way more manageable.

4. Most importantly MAKE IT BASED MORE ON CULTURE!!!!!!! If "Egypt is an admirer of your civ's cutlure" they should be flipping to you not away from you!! If they are in awe flipping should be very unlikely. On the flip side :lol: if you have worse culture it should be more likely. All too often it seems the reverse is the case.


What most players hate about flipping is that if 3 cities flip simelotanelouly you can lose 60% of your offensive power. There is no reason for that.

I generally raze cities now, since they are have almost no improvements when I take them and it makes it much easier to focus on winning the war that way. The computer civs should place their cities in better spots also.

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
The worst part about culture flipping is that extremely high amounts of units can dissappear irrationaly. If most of them escaped or you could actually prevent flips that would be obviously better than it currently is.

4 points that almost anyone can agree with:

1. Enable some indicator on how likely the city is to flip. It could be green for "fairly safe", yellow for about a 30% chance or so, red for 50% +. You have to admit that is would be much more realistic and interesting with that addition. It would be VERY possible to have some spys gauge opinon.

2. Reduce the use of culture flipping as a war tool. The name is "CULTURE". It should be much more likely during peace than war.

3. Prevent instant flips and loss of any units in armies. Losing an arming over a flip is a waste of a leader (many say the army is too :p, rush wonders instead). If it did not always immeditatley flip it would be way more manageable.

4. Most importantly MAKE IT BASED MORE ON CULTURE!!!!!!! If "Egypt is an admirer of your civ's cutlure" they should be flipping to you not away from you!! If they are in awe flipping should be very unlikely. On the flip side :lol: if you have worse culture it should be more likely. All too often it seems the reverse is the case.


What most players hate about flipping is that if 3 cities flip simelotanelouly you can lose 60% of your offensive power. There is no reason for that.

I generally raze cities now, since they are have almost no improvements when I take them and it makes it much easier to focus on winning the war that way. The computer civs should place their cities in better spots also.

Indeed.

The ILLOGIC of "Culure Flipping" is that if the garrison was ejected all they would have to do is next turn attack back in and retake the city or town. That is why I suggested such units be ejected in DISORDER, with several hits points lost, and be unable to attack at all for two turns. That should give the other civ time to get troops into the Flipped city/town. If they are too far away to do this it never should have flipped to begin with. The town should be in some form of disorder after a flip, and lost a population point.

Of course there should be an indicator of the status of a city.

The rest of your points are valid, too.

I once lost almost all my offensive unitsin an Ancient flip. Game over. Three hours wasted.

You miss one thing. CF is "a war tool" you refered to. The insanity of "razing" is a demented cousin of CF and should be eliminated after the Ancient period. As the game is now, CF is indeed a war tool, and thus instantly razing big cities with disappearing populations and the tile becoming grassland is oftimes necessary.
Razing in the Modern Era is crazier than CF itself.

Changes are very much needed, as I have said since December.

Firaxis will NOT make those changes. They will push this down our throats no matter what.

So I edited Culture resistance levels down to zero. If it doesn't stop CF I won't play it, and certainly not buy PTW if they don't give us some options on CF as they did with corruptions. And the same goes for that stupid Settler Diarrhea.

Originally posted by Zouave
The ILLOGIC of "Culure Flipping" is that if the garrison was ejected all they would have to do is next turn attack back in and retake the city or town. That is why I suggested such units be ejected in DISORDER, with several hits points lost, and be unable to attack at all for two turns. That should give the other civ time to get troops into the Flipped city/town. If they are too far away to do this it never should have flipped to begin with. The town should be in some form of disorder after a flip, and lost a population point.

Of course there should be an indicator of the status of a city.

The rest of your points are valid, too.
Firaxis should have spent more time on Culture Flipping than for cities to instantly disappear from your control, along with your units, and stick a few of theirs in it automatically. Nearly anything similar would have been better than random like they have it now.

Originally posted by Trip

Firaxis should have spent more time on Culture Flipping than for cities to instantly disappear from your control, along with your units, and stick a few of theirs in it automatically. Nearly anything similar would have been better than random like they have it now.

Well, that's the sad result of not playtesting games before release. :(

The weird part is why they now refuse to if not eliminate CF at least make it a little less illogical. :mad:

The good (or bad) thing about civ is that we don't know what a civilization is supposed to represent, we don't know if a military unit is 1 guy or 10,000 people, we have no idea how big a population unit is. This makes arguing whether Canada is part of America in civ, whether the garrison is large enough quell the revolt in real life, etc, almost impossible. Maybe that was how they intended it?

Not to drag this OT, since this is a history thread, but gameplay > realism IMO. Is it good gameplay that a PRNG decides whether a city is kept and 30 Mech Infantry dissappear? IMO, no. I think EU2 modeled resistance, loyalty of the people etc much more effectively with revolts, where the rebels have actual armies and you need to tie up your precious armies defeat them - kind of like the American Revolution in RL.

Also, a warning would by no means take away the significance of culture flip. The idea would not be to take units out of the city, but to put more in so you crush the revolt (possibly losing A FEW units in the battle that would occur). Think about it: if you just invested >1000 gold into a city to rush temple, library, cathedral, etc would you really move units OUT and lose those turns, that gold, without a fight? I wouldn't, unless I had a chronic unit shortage and the odds of me getting a force there to quell the revolt was not favorable.

Originally posted by Zouave
Well, that's the sad result of not playtesting games before release. :(

The weird part is why they now refuse to if not eliminate CF at least make it a little less illogical. :mad:
We can only guess what Jeff is smoking *ahem*. ;) :D

I really wish they did give us more options regarding it, even the ability to modify how often (if at all) culture flipping occurs.

The Mongol Hordes swept through vast territories in a relative quick time period. Granted they wiped out entire cities out of the way, and many revolts did occur they nevertheless built the largest empire the world has ever known.

I predict if such a thing as Culture Flipping existed during their time - in the same capacity it does in the Game – the Mongols would have never made it out of Steppes.
If they did, it would have been gradual, waiting for every city to like them, or for them to build HUGE armies to place in each city before they progressed to the next one.

I enjoy having culture flipping in the game, but I think it should be a rarity. Instead something like reduced production, riots, or rebellions (Partisans) would be more appropriate. IF it does flip without a fight and my huge army all of a sudden disappears its too unrealistic and I find it hard to imagine how people can justify it. The formula should be changed, so a much smaller army can maintain order.

teturkhan: Without CF, the Mongol Empire would still be around.

Originally posted by teturkhan

I enjoy having culture flipping in the game, but I think it should be a rarity. Instead something like reduced production in the form of riots, or rebellions (Partisans) and so on. Having a huge army all of a sudden disappear is so unrealistic and I find it hard to imagine how people can justify it. The formula should be changed, so a much smaller army can maintain order.

Exactly. As it stands now, the only way to beat culture flipping is to ethnically clense all enemy citizens from conquered territories or your cities WILL FLIP (unless you have 148 thousand units garrosing the city).

Also, if another civ accepts a city culture flipping towards it, it should be an act of WAR. Countries do not just annex large tracts of other countries during peacetime without any repercussion.

Seemes like the game was rushed, so instead of creating a real resistance model, they just decided whole cities would suddenly and wholy flip to other nations.

Still, I would find the game playable if they made it an option to TURN THIS SILL THING OFF (otherwise, I love the game, even though it definitely lacks many bells and whistles, showing furthermore how it was a rush job).

Also, if another civ accepts a city culture flipping towards it, it should be an act of WAR. Countries do not just annex large tracts of other countries during peacetime without any repercussion.

Very true. Either that and/or allow the Civ that lost the city 1 turn in which they can try to recover the city without it being an act of war. This is what the Soviets did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Exactly. As it stands now, the only way to beat culture flipping is to ethnically clense all enemy citizens from conquered territories or your cities WILL FLIP (unless you have 148 thousand units garrosing the city).

No, you don't have to go that far. My rule of thumb is to put about as many units in as there are people + enemy held tiles in the city radius, and to try to capture those tiles ASAP. Building culture in the city helps a lot here.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Very true. Either that and/or allow the Civ that lost the city 1 turn in which they can try to recover the city without it being an act of war. This is what the Soviets did in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.


THIS WOULD BE TERRIFIC! I hate it when I have to re-declare war on a civ after fighting an exhausting 400 turn war because the city I was fighting for decided to culturally flip back to them.

This whole thread has now been officialy thread-jacked since we're no longer talking historical examples. :)

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
The worst part about culture flipping is that extremely high amounts of units can dissappear irrationaly. If most of them escaped or you could actually prevent flips that would be obviously better than it currently is.

The degree of debate on these boards is so high precisely because nothing "would be obviously better than it currently is" to all participants on the board.

4 points that almost anyone can agree with:

I actually strongly disagree with the first three points, but admit I may be in the extreme minority (so may not be "almost anyone" ;)).

1. Enable some indicator on how likely the city is to flip. It could be green for "fairly safe", yellow for about a 30% chance or so, red for 50% +. You have to admit that is would be much more realistic and interesting with that addition. It would be VERY possible to have some spys gauge opinon.

2. Reduce the use of culture flipping as a war tool. The name is "CULTURE". It should be much more likely during peace than war.

3. Prevent instant flips and loss of any units in armies. Losing an arming over a flip is a waste of a leader (many say the army is too :p, rush wonders instead). If it did not always immeditatley flip it would be way more manageable.

4. Most importantly MAKE IT BASED MORE ON CULTURE!!!!!!! If "Egypt is an admirer of your civ's cutlure" they should be flipping to you not away from you!! If they are in awe flipping should be very unlikely. On the flip side :lol: if you have worse culture it should be more likely. All too often it seems the reverse is the case.

I'm not sure I fully understand point 4 (as I think total civ culture plays a fairly strong role in the CF calculation), but more or less agree that total civ culture should play a strong role in the chance of a flip.

As I said above, I fully accept that I may be in the extreme minority on this, but I think CF serves an important game balance function. Without the threat of CF I have little incentive to build anything other than expansion units (settlers and workers) and military units. While the AI invests shields in culture, I will invest solely in conquest. I will simply keep building cities and armies, and mercilessly, almost without pause, beat on all my neighbors all the time. I will pack my cities very close together, and they will not get larger than 12 (and in most cases 6) population. With the luxury resources I acquire through warfare I will not need the contentedness factors of temples and cathedrals. My army of workers will build an extensive road network and I will generate much commerce - no need for libraries and universities in order to move up to my next conquest tool. Since culture flipping is not a threat, I willregularly garrison my wounded troops in cities (for 2 HPs repair instead of 1, full repair if a barracks survived my assault, and for the city defense bonus), and I need not ever worry about my logistics lines (the movement restrictions of enemy territory) being interrupted by a flip. My blitz will not be slowed.

Culture flipping mitigates (but does not eliminate) the benefits of the above approach - it serves to help balance the military / cultural / scientific aspects of the game, just as the threat of military destruction serves to mitigate the benefits of going all culture all the time, at the expense of national defense. CF operates as a deterrant (one of many in the game) to turning Civ 3 into soley a war game (there are better war games available). Your examples of how to "fix" CF work against the mitigating effect that CF provides.

CF imposes penalties on those who neglect culture -- and sometimes these penalties are harsh indeed. Extensively softening the potential penalties, through predicitve indicators which allow easy counter-tactics (only when needed ;)) or preservation of "flipped" units, works against what one can argue is the primary raison d'etre of culture flipping. Why preserve culture flipping as a game concept at all if you want to take these steps?

okay, true nobody cared for the Mongol's culture... and probably everyone in the Mongol Empire couldn't wait to over throw these overlords... but hold on a second! The Mongols wouldn't of even had an empire to begin with! - The way the game is set up it is virtually impossible to go on a conquering rampage with low culture rating - unless you leave a HUGE garrison in each city.

If my culture is weak - I should be able to offset this with a powerful army - period.

BTW, the Mongols lost in the end because of internal fighting - once the conquered people saw the weakened Mongols they didn't hesitate to revolt... Military Revolt btw :)

okay, true nobody cared for the Mongol's culture... and probably everyone in the Mongol Empire couldn't wait to over throw these overlords... but hold on a second! The Mongols wouldn't of even had an empire to begin! It is virtually impossible to go on a conquering rampage in the game with low culture rating - unless as mentioned many times in this thread - you leave a HUGE garrison in each city.

If my culture is weak - I should be able to offset this with a powerful army - period.

BTW, the Mongols lost in the end because of internal fighting - once the conquered people saw the weakened Mongols they didn't hesitate to revolt... Military Revolt btw



The Mongols blitzed their way though the Civs they fought, thus eliminating enemy influence from their city radii. This also had the effect of driving the enemy capital further away, reducing the risk of flipping. They also razed numerous cities.

Conquering at the speed the Mongols did is not possible in Civ 3, due to the inability to use enemy roads that Coracle seems to hate so much. However, it would NOT be good for game balance if you could replicate what the Mongols did: imagine the reaction if you could spend hours and hours building up a huge Civ (China) when someone suddenly came out of the blue and rolled over your empire before you could properly react?

Just the thought of something exciting like a Mongol Invasion gets me pumped...

i think it would be great to see some devistating all out invasions in the game - something to make you go Oh SH*T! WTF! DA*N! I am TOAST! :)

You know there is lots of fun in just surviving!

Just the thought of something exciting like a Mongol Invasion gets me pumped...

i think it would be great to see some devistating all out invasions in the game - something to make you go Oh SH*T! WTF! DA*N! I am TOAST!

You know there is lots of fun in just surviving!



If you want that to happen give the barbs a good unit for their 'advanced' setting, remove your bonus against them, and leave a few encampments alone near your borders (on Raging). Wait to enter the Middle Ages, and you will have 48-72 barbarians swarming over your border. This is effectively what happened to the Chinese, except the barbs then turned into a Civ of their own.

Originally posted by teturkhan
okay, true nobody cared for the Mongol's culture... and probably everyone in the Mongol Empire couldn't wait to over throw these overlords... but hold on a second! The Mongols wouldn't of even had an empire to begin with! - The way the game is set up it is virtually impossible to go on a conquering rampage with low culture rating - unless you leave a HUGE garrison in each city.

If my culture is weak - I should be able to offset this with a powerful army - period. . .


Yes, I've cited the Mongols many times. Their overwhleming military strength intimidated cities they moved against, and some of them simply surrendered and begged for mercy - you can call that a form of "Flipping". And it was due to MILITARY power and the Mongols' terror tactics and slaughter of those who resisted. It was not due to their number of temples and libraries.

But in Civ 3 you can move against a town with a hundred knights
and it still will not surrender even if garrisoned only by a warrior.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by whosurdaddy
Also, if another civ accepts a city culture flipping towards it, it should be an act of WAR. Countries do not just annex large tracts of other countries during peacetime without any repercussion.
To reiterate a point I've made before (and I think on this thread), I don't understand why they didn't add "independent" city states. CFs in times of peace would go independent, and might fully flip later.

Originally posted by Zouave
But in Civ 3 you can move against a town with a hundred knights
and it still will not surrender even if garrisoned only by a warrior.

I've never played Black/White, but I'm aware of the basic concepts.

It would have been nice for Civ 3 to adapt some of that programming.

Originally posted by teturkhan

BTW, the Mongols lost in the end because of internal fighting - once the conquered people saw the weakened Mongols they didn't hesitate to revolt... Military Revolt btw :)

That is usually what city flipping represents. The Mongols had sufficient forces to conquer, but not sufficient forces to garrison such a vast empire. Without a cultural vision to present to their subjects, their empire quickly (by historical standards) disintegrated. Indeed, many descendents of the Mongols stayed in power -- but only after adopting the culture of their subjects. Turns out it was the Mongols who were assimiliated.

To Zouave:-

Are you still going ahead with your project to reduce or even eliminate culture-flipping? If so, could you please post your findings as I for one would be very interested in anything you discover. This is because somtimes culture-flips lead to 'orrible distortions when creating historical scenarios, so I too would like to have the ability to disable or remove this feature. For example, I wouldn't want any cities to flip in a WW1 or WW2 scenario. And I certainly don't want Muslim cities flipping to the invading Christians in a Crusader scenario!

If you do find a way, then there will be other times when I'd like to apply your discoveries in reverse and INCREASE the chances of culture-flips! :eek: For example; I'm currently creating many new units for Exsanguination's 'Alexander the Great' scenario, and increased culture-flipping may be an ideal way of representing the fact than many Persian controlled cities, and the whole of Egypt, opened their gates and 'flipped' to the invading Macedonians without a fight in spite of their garrisons, which deserted to and were disbanded by Alexander because they were useless or he didn't trust them (the people of these cities were not queuing up to embrace Macedonian/Greek culture, it's just that they hated Darius and the Persian culture so much that they were willing to view Alexander as a liberator).

Another time I'd like to increase it will be in a scenario I want to create about the Roman Civil Wars of the 1st century BC, where most of the cities of Greece, after a century of Roman occupation, 'flipped' to Mithridates VI Eupator of Pontus in 87 BC, while at the same time at the other end of the Mediterranean the Roman general Quintus Sertorius and the surviving veterans of Marius 'flipped' and joined the Spanish tribes, creating a new independant kingdom which held off all Roman attacks untill his assination in 72 BC.

As you can see everybody, sometimes culture-flips are required, and sometimes they are not.
So neither side in this long ongoing debate is 100% right or a 100% wrong. ;) :D

(BTW, I ment what I said....I WOULD like to find a way of reducing flipping for some scenarios. It's just that I'm so busy creating new units that I haven't the time to do the experiments myself. So please, let us know what you find. Cheers :) )

Originally posted by Kryten
For example, I wouldn't want any cities to flip in a WW1 or WW2 scenario. And I certainly don't want Muslim cities flipping to the invading Christians in a Crusader scenario!


I agree that being able to control city flipping is essential to the creation of scenarios. I disagree about turning off flipping for a Crusader scenario. That was the ultimate problem facing the Crusaders. The Christians never successfully converted the people in the conquered territories, and as soon as the garrisons became too expensive to maintain, the people reverted.

I wonder why the culture flipping feature doesn't have an on/off switch? Sure would kill this thread if there was :)

Originally posted by Zachriel
I agree that being able to control city flipping is essential to the creation of scenarios. I disagree about turning off flipping for a Crusader scenario. That was the ultimate problem facing the Crusaders. The Christians never successfully converted the people in the conquered territories, and as soon as the garrisons became too expensive to maintain, the people reverted.

Hmmmm....we have (very breifly) had this discussion before. I see your point; the Crusaders would probably be on the losing side of a flip, but never on the gaining side. But it would need very careful balancing by the scenario creator. After all, it wouldn't be much of an historical scenario if the Crusaders had to keep huge garrisons of 20 or 30 units in their cities. As you said, the main thing about the crusades was how small the christian armies were. But ok; I cheerfully withdraw the Crusades as an example of a scenario where culture-flipping is not desired, and I put in its place....

.....the American Civil War (which is another historical scenario which is also under construction in Customization Forum). Again, culture-flipping, like respawning civilizations and pollution, would distort this scenario and so should be switched off. :D (I assume Kentucky would best be representented by a neutral 'nation').
But Alexander the Great would be best with it switched on (and even increased).

Sometimes flipping is a good thing, and sometimes it's a bad thing. It all depends.... ;)

Originally posted by Kryten
I see your point; the Crusaders would probably be on the losing side of a flip, but never on the gaining side.

I believe the Crusaders drastically reduced the population of cities they conquered, especially Jerusalem. That works in Civ3, too.

http://jeru.huji.ac.il/ef1.htm

Originally posted by Flavor Dave

To reiterate a point I've made before (and I think on this thread), I don't understand why they didn't add "independent" city states. CFs in times of peace would go independent, and might fully flip later.

YES! This is precisely what is needed. Call to Power I found to be a horrible game, but even it had this feature.

Originally posted by Kryten
To Zouave:-

Are you still going ahead with your project to reduce or even eliminate culture-flipping? If so, could you please post your findings as I for one would be very interested in anything you discover. This is because somtimes culture-flips lead to 'orrible distortions when creating historical scenarios, so I too would like to have the ability to disable or remove this feature.


Yes, please, I would like to know as well, I've tried almost everything I can to no avail. I mean, I wouldnt want Cherbourg flipping to the Germans in a ww2 scenario, taking with it the entire D-day invasion force.

All I can say is I am playing with those values and after awhile I will become convinced if it works. Just one flip proves it DOES NOT work. It will take a number of games and many captured towns and cities not flipping to convince me. Patience, patience.

It would be nice if Firaxis deigned to tell us, but I likely wouldn't believe them anyway based on their track record.

Originally posted by Zouave
All I can say is I am playing with those values and after awhile I will become convinced if it works. Just one flip proves it DOES NOT work. It will take a number of games and many captured towns and cities not flipping to convince me. Patience, patience.



Just go into a new map, and create 2 civs with several cities apiece, one for you and an enemy civ. Edit the culture for all the cities to give both sides substantial culture. Give both sides 20 or so people in all their cities, and give yourself a large army (give no units to the enemy).

Then start the game, and immediately take one of the enemy cities with some of your units. Then simply wait 20 or so turns to see if the city flips (having captured a size 20 city, most likely with that many foreign nationals it will flip in a matter of a few turns).

Then u can play around with as many options as needed in the editor and begin the scenario over and over again to see if you can avoid the city flipping.

Here's the things I have done so far -----

I've tried reducing changing assimilation rates to 100% in the editor, so foreign nationals would hopefully assimilate immediately, thus reducing the chance of a culture flip, but this doesnt seem to work at all.

I think it turns out that foreign nationals will only assimilate once u have more pop in the city than foreign nationals, and therefore u still have to starve foreign citizens, etc. in order to begin the assimilation process.

As far as stuff in the culture tab, all u can do is set resistance chance to 0% so that hopefully u can begin adding your populaton members to the city in the hopes that the foreign nationals will begin to assimilate. But this still does not do much to help either.

Despite all of these measures, my cities will still flip to enemy control in test scenarios that I have run. So basically, unless someone here is a programmer and figures out a way to mod the game with some special program or something, I believe that there's not much that can be done about culture flipping in the present 1.29 editor (gasp!).

Originally posted by Catt

I'm not sure I fully understand point 4 (as I think total civ culture plays a fairly strong role in the CF calculation), but more or less agree that total civ culture should play a strong role in the chance of a flip.


I seem to have worse flip problems when fighting civs that have slightly lower culture, however possess a powerful military and great production/science. I believe they should increase how much it is based on culture and reduce how much it is based on anything else. The military advisor describes it as "they admire x civ's culture and so the people of x city deposed the governor and join someone else".


Culture flipping mitigates (but does not eliminate) the benefits of the above approach - it serves to help balance the military / cultural / scientific aspects of the game, just as the threat of military destruction serves to mitigate the benefits of going all culture all the time, at the expense of national defense. CF operates as a deterrant (one of many in the game) to turning Civ 3 into soley a war game (there are better war games available). Your examples of how to "fix" CF work against the mitigating effect that CF provides.

CF imposes penalties on those who neglect culture -- and sometimes these penalties are harsh indeed. Extensively softening the potential penalties, through predicitve indicators which allow easy counter-tactics (only when needed ;)) or preservation of "flipped" units, works against what one can argue is the primary raison d'etre of culture flipping. Why preserve culture flipping as a game concept at all if you want to take these steps?


As it currently is culture flipping is unbalancing because of the staggering amount of units that can be slain this way. If multiple cities flip simeoltaneously it can severely hamper the war effort. I also believe that the destruction of all culture improvements in the city is completly absurd. It makes liberating the city much less useful. In the real world cities don't always lose their cuture all because they were captured. Just look at Paris or a ton of other cities.

The fact that they get the city back, a free unit, and you have to lose units all over again taking it back is enough.

Originally posted by Zouave



You miss one thing. CF is "a war tool" you refered to. The insanity of "razing" is a demented cousin of CF and should be eliminated after the Ancient period. As the game is now, CF is indeed a war tool, and thus instantly razing big cities with disappearing populations and the tile becoming grassland is oftimes necessary.
Razing in the Modern Era is crazier than CF itself.


I completly agree. The problem is that culture flipping incourages razing even further than it naturally would be useful. In mulitplayer razing will cause some serious balance problems. Also the fact that you lose all culture improvements when capturing cities is another problem (unrealistic too).

Zouave,as i said b4,my home city(Le Havre,Normandy) which was the 1st french harbour was razed within a night by the british air force.

Razing is far from being unrealistic.

Originally posted by Damien
Zouave,as i said b4,my home city(Le Havre,Normandy) which was the 1st french harbour was razed within a night by the british air force.

Razing is far from being unrealistic.

Much of it may have been destroyed, but it was not razed in Civ terms which means being wiped out of existence with no trace left behind. Le Havre is still around today, isnt it? Nuff said.

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


If you want that to happen give the barbs a good unit for their 'advanced' setting, remove your bonus against them, and leave a few encampments alone near your borders (on Raging). Wait to enter the Middle Ages, and you will have 48-72 barbarians swarming over your border. This is effectively what happened to the Chinese, except the barbs then turned into a Civ of their own.

The problem with barbs in Civ2 is that barbarian units cannot change as the ages go on. Didnt even Civ1 (and Civ2) have this???

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


As it currently is culture flipping is unbalancing because of the staggering amount of units that can be slain this way. If multiple cities flip simeoltaneously it can severely hamper the war effort.

But you see, my point is that this is actually how it should be. Neglect early culture such that you are far behind an enemy's cultural level, and you run terrible risk of losing units. You should have been investing more shields in culture in order to minimize this risk (or else you've determined that the risk is acceptable, in which case "you pays your money and you takes your chances.") The game is balanced by ensuring that culture neglect will hamper the war effort.

Alternatively, think about this approach. There is no rule of any kind that says one must occupy conquered cities with lots of units (and therefore risk losing units in a flip). Perhaps a better tactical decision to avoid an "unbalancing" result is to avoid putting so many units in harm's way (by garrisoning in a city)? Maybe fortifying one's forces in the open plains or hills outside of town would prove wiser than bringing one's armies into the warren of alleyways and blind streetcorners and amidst the politcial intrigue and plotting of the coffehouses of a recently conquered city?

Back On-Topic: Re the Mongols. I haven't read a clearly laid-out explanation as to why the disintegration of the Mongol Empire is not a historical example of culture flipping. Did I miss it in the (currently) six-page thread?

Originally posted by Damien
Zouave,as i said b4,my home city(Le Havre,Normandy) which was the 1st french harbour was razed within a night by the british air force.

Razing is far from being unrealistic.

Yea. right.

A single damaged unit can make a metroplis of millions vanish instantly, the population disappearing into thin air, and the tile it is on becoming unpolluted grassland ready for rrigation. :crazyeye:

Destroying by air bombardment is not the same thing as "razing". And even Hamburg wasn't totally destroyed that way.


Just don't let Firaxis sell you any Enron stock. :p

Nope. It does not work. :mad: :( See the attached image from the current test game.

You will note I am the Persians and I have almost totally conquered the Americans. And yet a garrisoned town of '6' flipped back.

Reducing in Editor/Culture all Resistance rates to zero does NOT stop Culture Flipping. Whether or not it effects it in any way I know not.

Until Firaxis gives us some options and explanations on all this I have no more time for Civ 3. I am not about to spend hours of my limited time playing a scenario to see nearly half my offensive force suddenly disappear. No thanks.

Originally posted by Zouave
Nope. It does not work. :mad: :( See the attached image from the current test game.


Reducing in Editor/Culture all Resistance rates to zero does NOT stop Culture Flipping. Whether or not it effects it in any way I know not.



I can confirm this as well (see my post earlier in the thread). Looks like our only hope is if some program can make some program to mod the game. I know there were various culture trainers that worked in previous versions which may have helped, but I know of nothing now.

Reducing in Editor/Culture all Resistance rates to zero does NOT stop Culture Flipping. Whether or not it effects it in any way I know not.


The change WOULD affect CF marginally, as it would prevent resistors from appearing in any cities and thereby reduce the risk of flipping a bit.

Yes, I've cited the Mongols many times. Their overwhleming military strength intimidated cities they moved against, and some of them simply surrendered and begged for mercy - you can call that a form of "Flipping". And it was due to MILITARY power and the Mongols' terror tactics and slaughter of those who resisted. It was not due to their number of temples and libraries.

And what happened to them? Their empire fell to pieces around them. They are renowned for the speed at which they conquered, not for the empire they left behind. The empire of Alexander the Great suffered a similar fate.

But in Civ 3 you can move against a town with a hundred knights
and it still will not surrender even if garrisoned only by a warrior.


If your forces are that overwhelming, why would you NEED them to surrender? You would be able to whip them with even working up a sweat.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But in Civ 3 you can move against a town with a hundred knights
and it still will not surrender even if garrisoned only by a warrior.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor will a town flip when garrisoned with such a large force. This applies to the WWII scenarios mentioned, as well.

Originally posted by Catt


But you see, my point is that this is actually how it should be. Neglect early culture such that you are far behind an enemy's cultural level, and you run terrible risk of losing units. You should have been investing more shields in culture in order to minimize this risk (or else you've determined that the risk is acceptable, in which case "you pays your money and you takes your chances.") The game is balanced by ensuring that culture neglect will hamper the war effort.

It is untrue to say that if you build up your culture cities will rarely flip. They will still flip all the time. That is one of the problems with "culture" flipping. The point is either for it to be a method of obtaining/liberating cities through CULTURE or it is a war tool. It can't be both. Moving units outside of the city does not always make much tactical sense. I noticed that cities rarely flip if there are no units in them. That proves the game tries to use it as a war tool rather than for peaceful purposes. I find the peaceful city flipping (which is the only type that helps the players; for some reason caputured player cities don't war flip) does not out weigh the "war" type.

Alternatively, think about this approach. There is no rule of any kind that says one must occupy conquered cities with lots of units (and therefore risk losing units in a flip). Perhaps a better tactical decision to avoid an "unbalancing" result is to avoid putting so many units in harm's way (by garrisoning in a city)? Maybe fortifying one's forces in the open plains or hills outside of town would prove wiser than bringing one's armies into the warren of alleyways and blind streetcorners and amidst the politcial intrigue and plotting of the coffehouses of a recently conquered city?

It isn't always possible to conqueror 80% of the cities in one turn. If cities are always going to flip all the time you might as well just raze them all the time. The Roman Empire was able to keep their even during civil wars and during World War 1 and 2 armies did not lose so many units so often to "flipping".

What is it that constitutes a culture flip (this sentence is sure to be quoted by many ;) )? If it is a typical revolution, then it is not a "culture" flip. If it is partisan activity it is not a true culture flip either then.

Good discussion going!

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


It is untrue to say that if you build up your culture cities will rarely flip. They will still flip all the time. That is one of the problems with "culture" flipping.

I disagree. Wholeheartedly. And I am not saying that building up culture equates to flipping becoming a rare event. I am saying that a strong civ culture is a great preventative measure against flipping problems.

I have lost cities to flipping (both in times of peace and in times of war). The key to avoiding flipping is to understand how flipping works. A strong total culture is a great bulwark against flipping. It is not a cure-all, but it is an important factor. The more readily apparent influencers on flipping are foreign citizens / foreign controlled city radius tiles - it is these factors to keep a very close eye on.

In peacetime, if your border cities have foreign culture pressing into their 21-tile radius you are at risk for a flip. Accept the risk, or take other measures to prevent it (garrison a lot of units in the city). If your border cities control all of their 21-tile radius and contain no foreign citizens, they will not flip.

In wartime, your newly captured cities will always contain foreign citizens, and will often feel the pressure of "enemy" culture exerted on many of their 21-tile city radii. Tread carefully. Expect a lot of flips if you refuse to garrison the city. Even a very strong advantage in total culture will not by any stretch of the imagination prevent flips in recently conquered cities.

The point is either for it to be a method of obtaining/liberating cities through CULTURE or it is a war tool. It can't be both.

Why not? Maybe I don't understand your point. :confused:

Moving units outside of the city does not always make much tactical sense. I noticed that cities rarely flip if there are no units in them. That proves the game tries to use it as a war tool rather than for peaceful purposes. I find the peaceful city flipping (which is the only type that helps the players; for some reason caputured player cities don't war flip) does not out weigh the "war" type.

I agree that moving units outside of a city does not always make tactical sense. But it often does. Just as garrisoning the city often makes tactical sense.

Perceptions and experiences differ from player to player, and it is dangerous to assume that one player's experience reveals "truths" of game features - particularly where a player tends to employ the same tactics / play style from game to game. Your perception that cities rarely flip if there are no units in them is a perception, and not something sufficient to support the argument that the "game tries to use it as a war tool." I sometimes decide not to garrison captured cities - leaving either 0 or 1 injured units as a garrison. And these largely ungarrisonned cities flip back with alarming regularity.

And I have frequently seen "my" cities, after being taken by an evil AI civ, flip back to me. How often are you losing a number of cities to the AI? Could the relative infrequency of the AI taking and holding your cities explain your perception that your cities rarely flip back?

It isn't always possible to conqueror 80% of the cities in one turn. If cities are always going to flip all the time you might as well just raze them all the time.

Well that's certainly a tactical choice. I choose to almost never raze cities. And I pretty much never take 80% of a civ on one turn. I prefer to retain the cities as my spoils of war. I often leave troops garrisoned in the hills outside a city until I can rush a temple or a library and get the first cultural border expansion. Depending on the city population, my total culture, etc., I will then often garrison with what I consider a sufficient force to prevent future flips. If I can eliminate cultural pressure within the 21-tile city radius, I've won half the battle. If the city flips before I've garrisoned it, it generally means a one-turn (really a momentary) interruption in my logistics lines, and some wasted gold or wasted shields (in rushing the temple with cash or disbanded units). A front-line city (directly on the border with the enemy) may be more problematic -- if the city flips the enemy receives the movement bonus of the recently flipped city's roads - which means I will probably leave a fair number of units near the city in order to withstand a counter-attack.

The Roman Empire was able to keep their even during civil wars and during World War 1 and 2 armies did not lose so many units so often to "flipping".

What is it that constitutes a culture flip (this sentence is sure to be quoted by many ;) )? If it is a typical revolution, then it is not a "culture" flip. If it is partisan activity it is not a true culture flip either then.

I think others have addressed the Roman and WW examples and I won't rehas the earlier arguments. Did I still miss the explanation as to why the disintegration of the Mongol Empire isn't an historical example of culture flipping (albeit somewhat abstracted)?

The Mongol Empire went into decline because of internal fighting, and incapable leaders unlike Genghis Khan, his sons and grandsons. I have stated this already, if culture flipping was in existence during the time of Mongol conquests like it is in the game they would have never got out of the Steppes of Asia. Mongols rule was based on the strength of their army, pure and simple. Yet, they did not have to garrison hundreds of thousands of troops in cities before moving on to further conquests. It took centuries for many of these lands to break free from the Mongol yolk. Furthermore some of you suggest that the Mongol Empire crumbled because they lacked culture – yes they did lack culture but they didn’t hesitate to assume the culture of other peoples utilizing the finer points of them. This does not constitute culture flipping. They never lost control of lands because they adopted many points from the Chinese and Uygurs cultures, if anything it made them stronger. There are many examples in history, where Civilizations assumed the richer cultures of other Civilizations – without losing control over that territory.

This is a very interesting thread, and I see merit in both sides of the argument – however there is one glaring point that doesn't make sense about the way CF works. That is losing your army without even a fight, or one unit left alive. Not even one!? That is very hard to believe and in my opinion completely unrealistic. The first time it happened to me, I wasn’t so upset at the flipping which I viewed as a revolt against my power, but I was pissed right off that my ENTIRE army was gone including my leader! That’s just complete nonsense.

The Mongols had revolts too, many of them as matter of fact, but at least they still had their army to crush the revolt.


MEANT TO POST THIS IN "CULTURE FLIPPING - HISTORICAL EXAMPLES" - ANY RESPONSES PLS POST THEM AT THAT THREAD AND NOT HERE.

The Mongol Empire went into decline because of internal fighting, and incapable leaders unlike Genghis Khan, his sons and grandsons. I have stated this already, if culture flipping was in existence during the time of Mongol conquests like it is in the game they would have never got out of the Steppes of Asia. Mongols rule was based on the strength of their army, pure and simple. Yet, they did not have to garrison hundreds of thousands of troops in cities before moving on to further conquests. It took centuries for many of these lands to break free from the Mongol yolk. Furthermore some of you suggest that the Mongol Empire crumbled because they lacked culture – yes they did lack culture but they didn’t hesitate to assume the culture of other peoples utilizing the finer points of them. This does not constitute culture flipping. They never lost control of lands because they adopted many points from the Chinese and Uygurs cultures, if anything it made them stronger. There are many examples in history, where Civilizations assumed the richer cultures of other Civilizations – without losing control over that territory.

This is a very interesting thread, and I see merit in both sides of the argument – however there is one glaring point that doesn't make sense about the way CF works. That is losing your army without even a fight, or one unit left alive. Not even one!? That is very hard to believe and in my opinion completely unrealistic. The first time it happened to me, I wasn’t so upset at the flipping which I viewed as a revolt against my power, but I was pissed right off that my ENTIRE army was gone including my leader! That’s just complete nonsense.

The Mongols had revolts too, many of them as matter of fact, but at least they still had their army to crush the revolt.

Your city will CF when it is nearly surrounded by other cities, in 99.99% of the cases being, cities just captured as I've never had one of my own flip. I always capture or raze nearby cities when I capture a city. While I'm sure a couple of purists don't want to do it that way, it is effective at preventing flips, they never happen to me anymore.

Why would you have a leader in it? I always race or escort them to my empire.

Anytime I see 'realism' or 'unrealistic' I kinda have to laugh a little.

Originally posted by Zouave



Oh, India. The British conquered India. Following two costly world
wars, the rise in nationalism throughout the world, and the many actions of Gandhi, itwas no longer politically, miliarily, or economically feasible for Britain to stay. And India gaining its independence is not the same thing as one large civ's city "flipping" to another large civ.

I agree that culture-flipping happens too suddenly in civ3. The United Kingdom gave up Hong Kong because of several reasons. It was really militarily indefensible, had a very large majority of Chinese and other Asians, and, yes, there was a cultural aspect to China's takeover. But, as has been said many times, the owner civ should at least have a warning before a flip occurs! After that, perhaps corruption, unhappiness, civil disorder as a warning....

In Hong Kong's case the British Government gave a lot of warning before hand. Strangely enough it was the Chinese civilians that evacuated in droves rather that the military.:rolleyes:

The arguments over culture flipping are some of the most heated of any subject in Civ III, and I have always been in the "Against" camp, though only just inside the border.
You see the thing is I like culture flipping, it is one of the best additions to the civ formula- but I do think that as it stands CFing need to be altered. There are so many things in Civilization that make you bang your fist on the table and shout at the PC, because you get so involved, you always have that feeling of "just one more turn", and Something like a culture flip killing the bulk of your attacking force and wiping out in one fell swoop the fruits of twenty turns of labour on your part, can for some players, be just too much.

Culture flipping is an inevitable part of invasion, and I don't mind losing the units, but what gets my goat is having absolutely no warning- if culture flipping is an inevitable slide towards the loss of a city, it should feel inevitable, not just random.
Several days ago I proposed a suggestion for a Traffic light approach to culture flipping, so that the over all chance of culture flipping for a weak cultured civ is actually made more inevitable- but it comes with plenty of warning; So that you can try to do something about it. Thinking about scenarios, one of the things that makes a scenario (or any game of civ III) really playable, is a good challenge; imagine a scenario where you play as Alexander the Great- trying to get control of the whole of the old world through military conquest, while having a relatively low culture (perhaps 1:1 with the rest of the nations). That would be a great challenge, but would be very annoying because you would feel that it was an unbeatable challenge- no amount of tactical skill is effective against random Culture flips- all you can do is station troops and hope for the best, or alternatively rush to conquer the enemy civ with out garrisoning your gains and again hope for the best. In the end your tactical decision is irrelevant, because the outcome is based on dumb luck. Yes some cities are more likely to flip, but once random number generation is used, that difference becomes impossible to gauge- its like in George Orwell’s "animal farm"- All numbers are random, but some are more random than others :) I believe that for culture flipping to be a fun part of the Civ III experience it need to be less dependant on random number generation- because that’s been one of the weaknesses of turn based strategy from the very start; Its where all the problems of Civ III come from "culture flipping", "spearman killing tank" etc... Remember in Civ 1 how units would either win or loose combats based almost entirely on random luck? how a single rifle man could potentially destroy twenty tank units, or one tank unit could potentially destroy twenty rifle men? it just made the whole game seem silly.

I like culture flipping, I do believe that it is historically realistic (though it should not be entirely based on culture, military should be part of the equation) and I feel that Civ 3 would be poorer with out it. But I also think that a degree of warning of the slide towards loss is needed; and no I don't believe that "lord, there are x resistors in the city we should garrison it with strong troops" is enough of a warning.

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
In Hong Kong's case the British Government gave a lot of warning before hand. Strangely enough it was the Chinese civilians that evacuated in droves rather that the military.:rolleyes:

There are still plenty of Chinese civilians there.... :)

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
. . . [/B]

No one at Firaxis has ever stepped forward and admitted to dreaming up Culture Flipping, nor have they ever explained their rationale for it. They can't give historical examples as there are none as we've gone over repeatedly. To Firaxis: is Soren to blame for this, and care to explain yourselves?

Months ago we complained about crazy AI trade rates and ridiculous massive corruption. We eventually got the Editor to allow us to control them and to make them rational. Why not with CF effects? Why not a toggle off switch.

Exactly how, Firaxis, are you going to handle "historical" scenarios? It is bad enough U-boats can't attack merchant shipping (how the Germans almost won two world wars) - you've done nothing about that - but it will be even more ridiculous if in a Napoleonic scenario the entire French army disappears when Smolensk flips back to Russia, or in WW II when all of Patton's tanks vanish into thin air when Leipzig flips back to Germany.

Just FIX it. And Warning Indicators would be a start - or is the local governor so mindless he doesn't even know the mood of the population?!

Originally posted by Zouave
They can't give historical examples as there are none as we've gone over repeatedly.
You mumble to yourself alot, don't you?

I mean, there's a whole freakin' thread on cultural flips. You can't just will them out of existence.

Take a hike. A long one.


There are no legitimate historical examples despite your fantasies and those of Firaxis.

Originally posted by Zouave

There are no legitimate historical examples despite your fantasies and those of Firaxis.

Deal with it :rolleyes:

And now, me being royally sick of this thread, it is closed.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/announcement.php?s=&forumid=15