View Full Version : Gamedesign logic: Culture


stealth_nsk
Sep 04, 2010, 12:25 PM
There are a lot of threads about why feature X was removed or why feature Y was implemented this way. Tried to present the whole set of decisions, but the list grew too much, so starting with culture only. WARNING: little realism taken in assumption.

---General---

1. Assumption. We want to implement 1UPT rule to eliminate SOD and provide richer tactic.

2. Assumption. We want hexes, because they make landscape look more realistic and make distance calculations easier.

3. Consequence. We need units to move further, at least 2 tiles, otherwise with point 1 they'll be stuck.

4. Consequence. We need battlefields to be larger, due to points 1 and 3.

5. Consequence. We need cities to have 3-tile radius, due to point 4. This gives us a bonus ability to allow more decisions on city placement.

6. Bonus. Point 5 gives us an ability to have more placement-dependent features for cities, giving further city specialization.

---Culture---

7. Weak system. Civ 4 culture wars lost their value, because with point 5 the distance between cities will be 5-6, so enemy cities will rarely be pushed. Ability to claim enemy tiles disabled.

8. Assumption. We want system to claim enemy tiles to peacefully fight for resources. But this system needs to be pointed and controllable.

9. Consequence. With points 7 and 8 we decide to give culture bomb a chance.

10. Consequence. Point 7 has the following consequences:
- Less importance of city culture.
- Together with point 5, "ring" city expansion would give too much tiles to a city.
So we need to claim tiles one by one.

11. Bonus. With 10 we could add an ability to buy tiles, adding additional money drainer and pointed strategy focus.

12. Consequence. With point 7 we also lost value of empire-wide culture. So we need to invent empire-wide culture-drainer.

13. Bonus. Social policy system as bonus to point 12.

14. Weak system. With point 7, the only system with culture percentage left is city assimilation.

15. Consequence. With point 14, since the whole reason for assimilation is to delay rapid conquest, we could safely replace it with building something what can't be rushed.

16. Consequence. With point 1 and 15 it's safe to remove city unrest period after conquest, suppressable by units. It can't stop more than 1 unit with 1UPT and there's already a system for stopping conquest as a whole.

---Correlation with other systems---

17. Empire-wide happiness provides perfect system for implementing point 15, so the not assimilated cities affect the whole empire.

18. Limited resources and resource demand system increase the importance of points 10 and 11.

19. Individual Great Person counters make point 9 calculatable, increasing its strategic value.


P.S. The decisions here are not the only possible ones, but they are synchronized between each other, so it's impossible to fit any new feature without rebuilding a large part of other features.

P.P.S. Will try to make another post about economics (including removal of sliders and foreign trade routes) next.
Will try to make another post about economics (including removal of sliders and foreign trade routes) next.

Polobo
Sep 04, 2010, 01:51 PM
Excellent write-up; though I am unclear on what you mean by "Weak System" as a type of statement.

Szpilman
Sep 04, 2010, 02:05 PM
I take he means those systems from Civ IV that didn't go well with the new features as they designed, thus having to be rethought or entirely scrapped.

GigaNerd
Sep 04, 2010, 02:09 PM
You've got some AWESOME logic skills! Have you ever considered planning mods? :mischief:

Szpilman
Sep 04, 2010, 02:20 PM
You've got some AWESOME logic skills! Have you ever considered planning mods? :mischief:

Indeed, he makes it seem as credible as reading into what was going on in Jon Shafer's head at design time :)

remko
Sep 04, 2010, 02:25 PM
great insight!!

r_rolo1
Sep 04, 2010, 02:26 PM
Your point 4 is flawed based in what we seen so far. The battlefield in previews does not seem to be more open than in Civ IV.

I do agree that this might have been the line of thought of the game designer... just pointing a aplication flaw. Not sure if point #4 non-appliance makes the thing fall like a castle of cards , but ...

Thyrwyn
Sep 04, 2010, 03:17 PM
7a. Weak System. Culture wars in Civ IV actually encouraged warmongering. The workable tiles around conquered cities were severely limited by the strength of the original culture. Consequence - in order to make a conquered city productive, the next city would have to be conquered. That city would then face the same problem, encouraging the conquest of yet another city. . .

Elenhil
Sep 04, 2010, 04:25 PM
I fail to see how p. 7 could inevitably lead to abandoning city-culture spread. There are no reasons given for not simply making culture spread faster across the hexes (reflecting the overall scaling up of gamespace), producing culture wars similar to civ iv.

Also, p. 10 is partially arbitrary. Why would ring expansion give cities "too much tiles"? Too much for what? By what standard?

Likewise, pp. 8, 9 & 11 actually contradict each other because culture-bombing to capture a tile cannot be a viable way of fighting for resources when at the same time this very tile can be simply bought. It made sense when a great artist could replace dozend of turns of regular culture spreading. Instant money-driven tile capturing need not be offset by equally instant culturebomb-driven tile capturing.

Polobo
Sep 04, 2010, 05:03 PM
7a. Weak System. Culture wars in Civ IV actually encouraged warmongering. The workable tiles around conquered cities were severely limited by the strength of the original culture. Consequence - in order to make a conquered city productive, the next city would have to be conquered. That city would then face the same problem, encouraging the conquest of yet another city. . .

It encouraged large-scale wars as opposed to territory skirmishes. I do think it would be nice to acquire territory at the per-tile level and not just the per-city level but am not utterly despondant because we cannot.

Larger battlefields should be in place since cities are likely to be farther apart on average. More resources could dampen this effect somewhat. Since only first maybe 9 tiles are going to be readily available without spending gold - and also city bombardment means you don't necessarily want to have large gaps between cities (especially on the frontier).

Polobo
Sep 04, 2010, 05:28 PM
I fail to see how p. 7 could inevitably lead to abandoning city-culture spread. There are no reasons given for not simply making culture spread faster across the hexes (reflecting the overall scaling up of gamespace), producing culture wars similar to civ iv.

#7 deals more with the added distance between cities which make city-oriented culture wars less effective - arguably to the point where they might just as well be discarded all-together. I guess the false assumption is that you care about culture-flipping cities at all and are more concerned with flipping individual tiles.


Also, p. 10 is partially arbitrary. Why would ring expansion give cities "too much tiles"? Too much for what? By what standard?

In proportion to how quickly cities grow population would be one decent measure. With rings the second expansion gives 18 tiles on top of 19 already owned and you likely have fewer than 5 population when it happens.


Likewise, pp. 8, 9 & 11 actually contradict each other because culture-bombing to capture a tile cannot be a viable way of fighting for resources when at the same time this very tile can be simply bought. It made sense when a great artist could replace dozend of turns of regular culture spreading. Instant money-driven tile capturing need not be offset by equally instant culturebomb-driven tile capturing.

Admittedly 8-11 seem to flow somewhat uneasily from one to the other. Seems better to say:

Assumption: Ringed expansion is undesireable given 3-rings of control for cities
Consequence: Hybrid but mostly acquire tiles individually

Consequence: Constantly-Applied-Culture mechanics become unnecessary

Assumption: Want a non-military method to switch tiles
Consequence: Use a great-artist

One odd consequence of the Civ4 method was that simply by expanding a ring the effective total culture output of a city increased substantially; whereas now the amount of culture output is directly proportional to the culture produced.

A more complex system would be required in Civ 5 such that you could specify, for each tile, how much of the city's cultural output should go toward each tile - with a minimum acculuated culture required to actually own the tile. You could maybe get a discount/bonus if you have a citized actively working the tile - and maybe even military. Then, whoever owns the tile would have to have their accumulated culture overtaken but some amount in order for the tile to switch ownership. I'd also want to factor military tile acquisition into the system. Oh, and it would have to be "city" ownership in order for this to work when the city were to change hands. Whichever city has the most culture would keep/get the tile upon conquest.

As described the revised city-tile-culture mechanics could readily be implemented on top of the existing system where the only culture wars are due to great artists and city conquest. It does add a considerable amount of GUI and gameplay complexity on top of the major changes already decided upon (especially 1UPT) and it doesn't surprise me that such a system, while desireable and adding depth to the game, didn't make it into Vanilla.

Louis XXIV
Sep 04, 2010, 07:49 PM
stealth_nsk, good post, very well-thought through. I don't know if I agree that every one of their conclusions followed the same path, but those are good reasons for the changes.

SalmonSoil
Sep 04, 2010, 08:01 PM
I thought the increased city radius was more to encourage city placement based on the actual spot instead of just trying to get all your tiles workable.

Polobo
Sep 04, 2010, 08:17 PM
I thought the increased city radius was more to encourage city placement based on the actual spot instead of just trying to get all your tiles workable.

Not all effects (in fact few) have a single cause. ;)

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 04, 2010, 09:43 PM
Actually, I find points 7 & 8 to be utterly arbitrary & lacking in any logic whatsoever. As has been pointed out, just because cities are farther apart, doesn't *automatically* make the Civ4 culture wars system incompatible. It just requires a bit of tweaking to make it work. I've certainly never said that the Cultural Assimilation mechanic of Civ4 couldn't be improved. Once you lose arguments 7 & 8, the rest of the argument really falls into a heap. The reality is that the Culture Bomb is the most horrible game exploit I've ever seen in Civ4 (even more so than the arbitrary diplomacy bonuses from religion) & point 19 is actually going to make even *more* exploitable IMO. As much as some people go through logical contortions to defend the decisions of Civ5's designers, the fact I'm left with is that they've abolished more nuanced mechanics in favor of a much more simplified, war-game based design (after all, a unit-based mechanic for "peacefully" obtaining foreign tiles-the Great Artist-is entirely in line with a simplistic war-game system). Similarly, rolling several mechanics into a single, totally nonsensical global happiness system is also in line with a more war-game style. Now, if thats the kind of game I wanted to play, then I'd be off playing Rise of Nations, not Civilization!

Aussie.

stealth_nsk
Sep 05, 2010, 12:26 AM
The idea behind point 7 and 8 is what big system should play big role.
Culture wars system in Civ 4 was big system, and it allowed city pushing and flipping.
But if we could only flip some tiles at our borders, we don't need that big system, we need something small like unit special ability.

Thormodr
Sep 05, 2010, 12:32 AM
Actually, I find points 7 & 8 to be utterly arbitrary & lacking in any logic whatsoever. As has been pointed out, just because cities are farther apart, doesn't *automatically* make the Civ4 culture wars system incompatible. It just requires a bit of tweaking to make it work. I've certainly never said that the Cultural Assimilation mechanic of Civ4 couldn't be improved. Once you lose arguments 7 & 8, the rest of the argument really falls into a heap. The reality is that the Culture Bomb is the most horrible game exploit I've ever seen in Civ4 (even more so than the arbitrary diplomacy bonuses from religion) & point 19 is actually going to make even *more* exploitable IMO. As much as some people go through logical contortions to defend the decisions of Civ5's designers, the fact I'm left with is that they've abolished more nuanced mechanics in favor of a much more simplified, war-game based design (after all, a unit-based mechanic for "peacefully" obtaining foreign tiles-the Great Artist-is entirely in line with a simplistic war-game system). Similarly, rolling several mechanics into a single, totally nonsensical global happiness system is also in line with a more war-game style. Now, if thats the kind of game I wanted to play, then I'd be off playing Rise of Nations, not Civilization!

Aussie.

I just found a copy of Rise of Nations gold for $8 in the bargain bin at Office Depot. I'll have to fire that up again. Love those Russians with "General Winter" :D

Well designed game from an excellent game designer.

I do expect more from Civ though, I agree.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 12:47 AM
The idea behind point 7 and 8 is what big system should play big role.
Culture wars system in Civ 4 was big system, and it allowed city pushing and flipping.
But if we could only flip some tiles at our borders, we don't need that big system, we need something small like unit special ability.

First of all, there was no reason-except their own personal preference-why Culture Wars couldn't have been *adapted* to fit into Civ5 as the new "Big System"-particularly if the ability to "infect" cities with your culture was based on factors like: Open Borders, Social Policy, Foreign Trade with bordering Civs, distance between the empires, physical linkages between the two empires &-of course-the *total* culture of the two empires. This interplay of cultures could then have worked its way into the Happiness, Tile Buying & Diplomacy Mechanisms. Instead, with no GOOD reason, they instead decided to scrap the entire thing & instead retain just a single element-The Culture Bomb-which is almost impossible to defend against, thus making it an EXPLOIT.

Secondly, there is nothing SMALL about the Culture Bomb-it was probably the single most unbalanced aspect of Civ4, & the one I most hoped they'd drop in the transition to Civ5. Not only that, but they've broken it even further by making it a lot easier to plan which Great People you get-thus turning it into the MOST EXPLOITABLE part of the game. Now, I understand that *you* might enjoy over-simplified Game Exploits, but many of us enjoyed the more nuanced mixing of cultures that occurred in Civ4-albeit with some improvements & modifications in the transition to Civ5. That they've abandoned this nuanced route in favor of a simple, single-unit exploit really highlights how this game is being targeted towards a war-gamer audience. Nothing in your opening post suggests the contrary!

Aussie.

stealth_nsk
Sep 05, 2010, 01:43 AM
First of all, there was no reason-except their own personal preference-why Culture Wars couldn't have been *adapted* to fit into Civ5 as the new "Big System"-particularly if the ability to "infect" cities with your culture was based on factors like: Open Borders, Social Policy, Foreign Trade with bordering Civs, distance between the empires, physical linkages between the two empires &-of course-the *total* culture of the two empires.

There's no gameplay need in this system, unless you're going to rebuild half of the game. I wrote it several times, and I presented logic to show it.

I understand what you personally like the nationality feature, but try to separate your personal preferences from the gamedesign logic. There are some things I'll miss too, but I understand why they were removed and I'll try to mod them in if I found how to do it without gameplay damage.

Secondly, there is nothing SMALL about the Culture Bomb-it was probably the single most unbalanced aspect of Civ4, & the one I most hoped they'd drop in the transition to Civ5.

Culture bombs in Civ 4 and Civ 5 are very different. They have different effect and different purposes.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 01:53 AM
From Arioch's Analyst site

"culture bomb" a tile within 1 space of your territory, putting that tile and all adjacent tiles into your territory.

Sounds like exactly the same, uber-lame Culture Bomb mechanism from Civ4-except now you have greater control over your ability to build them. That's not *logical* game design, that's bad, uber-gamey game design. Thats the kind of thing I'd expect in-say-a First Person Shooter, but not a supposedly deep & intricate game like Civ.

Aussie.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 01:57 AM
Culture bombs in Civ 4 and Civ 5 are very different. They have different effect and different purposes.

Now you see, the fact that you've made this INCORRECT assertion leads me to believe that you haven't really bothered to think these issues through, but are just taking the claims made by the designers as "articles of faith". By contrast, I've actually been following what people have been saying-very closely-which is why I still say that the entire "logic" of your argument is deeply flawed. Namely that, redesign or not, there was nothing about the Culture War system of Civ4 that couldn't have been adapted to work in Civ5, yet instead they chose to retain the most BROKEN element of the entire culture system-namely Culture Bombs. This decision makes alone makes me *Seriously* question their judgment!

Aussie.

stealth_nsk
Sep 05, 2010, 05:00 AM
In Civ 4 culture bomb was one of the methods of gaining city culture. It gave nothing what can't be acquired with other methods. So to make this feature worth a special status of GP, it was made strong.

In Civ 5, in contrast, culture bomb does the thing, what no other system could make. It's not that strong (6 tiles maximum), but:
- You could set the tiles precisely to make strategic decisions about using culture bomb.
- With individual GP counters you could specially build GA if needed.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 06:10 AM
In Civ 4 culture bomb was one of the methods of gaining city culture. It gave nothing what can't be acquired with other methods. So to make this feature worth a special status of GP, it was made strong.

In Civ 5, in contrast, culture bomb does the thing, what no other system could make. It's not that strong (6 tiles maximum), but:
- You could set the tiles precisely to make strategic decisions about using culture bomb.
- With individual GP counters you could specially build GA if needed.

So you've actually successfully described all the reasons why retaining the Culture Bomb, instead of using a more nuanced system, is SUCH A BAD IDEA. You're giving a single unit the ability to take something that you otherwise would not be able to take SHORT OF FULL-SCALE WAR, & there is no defense that I can see against it. No matter how you contort your "logic" to defend it, retaining such a game-breaker is BAD GAME DESIGN-it was BAD in Civ4, it is even WORSE in Civ5.

Aussie.

stealth_nsk
Sep 05, 2010, 06:56 AM
So you've actually successfully described all the reasons why retaining the Culture Bomb, instead of using a more nuanced system, is SUCH A BAD IDEA. You're giving a single unit the ability to take something that you otherwise would not be able to take SHORT OF FULL-SCALE WAR, & there is no defense that I can see against it. No matter how you contort your "logic" to defend it, retaining such a game-breaker is BAD GAME DESIGN-it was BAD in Civ4, it is even WORSE in Civ5.

:wallbash:

The cultural bomb in Civ 5 is MINOR feature.

The only reason for sacrificing GP in exchange for a couple of tiles is to gather disputable resource on a border. You actually could take the resource in another way - by trading.

And since building GP is more controllable you could defense in exactly the same way - by building and using GA.

Tomice
Sep 05, 2010, 07:30 AM
I needed some time to find a real-life counterpart to the GA effect. Finally, I imagine it as a skilled diplomat talking some regional leaders into joining your empire. It is not really an artists job to do it, but in reality a culturally bright empire would probably be more capable of pulling this of (more culture - more GAs). SO it's somewhat ok from a realism point of view.

What should definitively be in the game is a diplomatic penalty for doing it. While it is no war, it is an aggressive act that would not really improve the relations.

I can't find any situation in history when something similar happened, however. Not without significant additional factors. Maybe you could take the eastern european countries that left the Soviet Union and joined the EU as an example. The western culture was more appealing to them in some sense. But those were a bunch of countries, not a single region.



In civ 4, we had a system of aquiring tiles or even entire cities by culture or diplomacy. The problem was that it was hardly ever worth it (culture) or possible (diplomacy). It might be desirable to implement a more pointed, clear and effective system. Cities were far more often aquired peacefully in reality than in civ 4.



In conclusion, I would find it good if cultural players had more (and clearer) chances to expand. But I would really love to see other ways to acquire territory without war. If there's only the GA, then it's a fail. I also hope city trading will not always be grayed out any more in the diplomacy dialogue.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 07:36 AM
:wallbash:

The cultural bomb in Civ 5 is MINOR feature.

The only reason for sacrificing GP in exchange for a couple of tiles is to gather disputable resource on a border. You actually could take the resource in another way - by trading.

And since building GP is more controllable you could defense in exactly the same way - by building and using GA.

No it is *not* a minor feature-saying it often doesn't make it so. Now that you can GUIDE the construction of your Great People, & given the GA's ability to literally STEAL 6 tiles from an opponent (at no additional cost, I'm guessing), then there is really nothing MINOR about that at all-it is GAME BREAKING. Although its true that you need to have the specialists assigned to build the Great Artist, there is nothing I've seen to suggest that the Culture Bomb can't be used against someone with a much higher culture than you-which also makes it a non-minor feature. Maybe if it had a culture cost I'd be more accepting of it; maybe if it caused a diplomatic penalty-as Tomice suggested-I'd be more accepting of it; maybe if it could only be used against those of a weaker culture than you-I'd be more accepting of it. Yet as it currently stands, I still say that the Culture Bomb is an example of AWFUL GAME DESIGN, & should have been dropped first in the transition from Civ4 to Civ5.

Aussie.

stealth_nsk
Sep 05, 2010, 08:01 AM
Surely AI will hate you for this. And human players will do too.

Mercade
Sep 05, 2010, 08:26 AM
In relation to this, has it been confirmed how many tiles of a city you get when you conquer it? Do you get all the tiles that the city bought (with money or culture) or do you only get the core 6 tiles around the city with the culture vanishing?

Polobo
Sep 05, 2010, 08:34 AM
Agree that a culture bomb should cause a diplomatic issue.

I also agree that they should have just done away with capturing tiles outright or done a more nuanced system; leaving in the culture-bomb makes little sense. Whether they could and should have adapted the CIV culture war system is debateable - the main use of culture is to acquire tiles and the culture-war system is an extension of that - since the tile aqusition system is significantly changed (individual tiles versus entire rings) and the old system relied on the applying culture to entire rings.

All that said; I'd rather see a military/diplomatic method to flip tiles and not even have a peaceful method at all.

I also see that they are simplying the game (as well as making some significant structural changes) but cannot really fault them for it. I figure they are likley to add in additional complexity with the expansions (as every game developer does) and the fundamental gameplay aspects are still present. And yes, most of the changes have tweaked the combat system but lets be honest and say that many people who would/are drawn to Civ enjoy engaging in combat - and even will be required to do so.

I wouldn't consider myself a fanboy but on the whole I've found very few decisions Firaxis has made to be superfluous. Mostly they are trimming stuff while focusing on propery implementing those items that they did include. Culture-Bomb is probably one of the few :cringe: items.

I guess I am also fairly adaptable when it comes to my entertainment and have a fairly large window where I can enjoy the game for what it is and not get all upset because A works one way or B was not included. Differences of opinion are great but I find trying to put myself in the other person's shoes and understand more fully why they hold their opinion makes living with conflicts easier. That is really all we are trying to do. And, you can pick apart such an opinion but unless you show us a better way it won't do much good. In this case, since culture mechanics changed, something different needed to be done. You dislike the choices made, and claim CiV style mechanics could remain, but never attempt to describe how you would adapt/implement them in CIV.

Polobo
Sep 05, 2010, 08:37 AM
In relation to this, has it been confirmed how many tiles of a city you get when you conquer it? Do you get all the tiles that the city bought (with money or culture) or do you only get the core 6 tiles around the city with the culture vanishing?

No link but I do recall that you get the same owned tiles that the city had prior to capturing. The unknown is how "shareable" tiles are handled. It is probably similar to CIV where a tile you be associated with only 1 city at a time and that city gets the tile. Leads to some micro if you are going to lose a city that you swap tiles. It would probably be easier just to leave the tiles in the original culture if possible otherwise the tile goes over to the conquerer.

Szpilman
Sep 05, 2010, 08:45 AM
I tend to agree with Aussie that they should have worked on a more nuanced (and yet one over which you had control too) system for culture wars. As of now the only way to counter a culture bomb is.. with another culture bomb. And if it goes back and forth it's gonna be a continuous waste of Great Artists for both sides (in which case whoever generates them more easily is taking the least damage and keeping the disputed tiles for longer, which does say something about having better culture/happiness).

Culture wars could have been made into a fun and multi-faceted mechanism, yet they went for something gamey, as Aussie puts it. I really profoundly hope they'll expand culture wars with expansions. I actually expect an expansion pack all centered around the concept of culture.

Psycedilla
Sep 05, 2010, 09:06 AM
whats wrong with a game beeing "gamey" ?

Tomice
Sep 05, 2010, 09:24 AM
In relation to this, has it been confirmed how many tiles of a city you get when you conquer it? Do you get all the tiles that the city bought (with money or culture) or do you only get the core 6 tiles around the city with the culture vanishing?

I thought about it recently, and I believe the switchable tiles still "belong" to the city that generated the culture to acquire it. Since you buy tiles from the city screen, also tiles acquired by gold have a city they belong to. The city working the tile at a given moment might well be irrelevant.

This avoids the strange need to switch tiles to safe cities before a city is captured.

Also, big old cities in the center of your empire would still "hold" a lot of tiles when your young border towns fall, which is perfectly realistic and desirable gameplaywise.

I believe they made borders (also proviancial borders) permanent after the early game, not shifting back and forth every few turns (which was very strange in modern times). The GA might be the only way to change this, making it very valuable and border changes without war a rare event, which seems fine with me (*).

I never liked how tiles were left without owner after a war, maybe even ending up with an uninvolved nation. I doubt they will leave this in the game now that they can avoid it. So I can't believe in the "back to the inner ring" solution.




Overall, I have a strong feeling that borders will finally be very realistic (except maybe for the GA) and well-implemented. Shifting borders were weird. It was always whole regions who revolted at once, not every village on it's own.



(*) I haven't heard anything about how and if whole cities can change their nationality, I hope there is a cool and realistic way, but I'm sceptic. Cities revolting to another civ should happen more often than in Civ4, and more often than culture bombing.

Elenhil
Sep 05, 2010, 12:48 PM
I see absolutely no problem with either lots of tiles aquired by a city through old-style ring expansion or simply making culture spread over the tiles fater to accomodate for larger distances between cities.

To elaborate on both points. First, once again, why 3-hex city radius=too many tiles? By what standard too many? Was having a lot of unused tiles in a BFC ever a negative thing? Did Creative civs ever have problems with low-yield high-culture cities because they had their second border pop earlier than they could grow enough citizens to work all these newly acquired tiles?

Second, the whole transition to 1UPT ended up simply scaling up the gamespace. 1 Civ V hex is simply smaller than 1 Civ IV tile. This must naturally have produced faster culture spread speeds for borders to catch up with increased distances, just as it was with extra unit movement points. And that would have been all. There is nothing in it that might have required scrapping the mechanism altogether.

Lyoncet
Sep 05, 2010, 01:15 PM
I'd just like to say that I'm really disappointed with you, Aussie Lurker. You used to be a fun and interesting guy to chat with on the forums, but in the last few days suddenly you're twisting words, making unwarranted attacks, and just plain being rude to people. Just here you're capslock-yelling at people for stating their opinion (which I see as no less valid than yours).

Also, you're either not thinking very well or just plain not caring about whether or not your arguments make sense. You started ranting earlier on how CIV was great because it was the first time you could win without UCS, and that CiV is going to be a huge step backwards in that department, when Schaffer (I think it was him) has repeatedly stated in interviews that his favorite strategy is to bunker down in three cities and use the small-empire advantages, and that they went out of their way to make that a viable strategy, and when there's an entire social policy tree that's pretty much dedicated to improving the play of small empires. And the thing is, someone who's as active on the forums as you knows that.

The worst part is that when someone mentions that they don't think your ideas are consistent with what we know so far, you twist that into a "so you disagree with me so you say I'm lying" defense, which is patently false. For example:

I resurrected my CivFanatics account because I found it hard to take Aussie_Lurkers comment at face value. I also played Civ4 a lot, and I regularly observed that newly conquered border cities wouldn't be of much use as long as the surrounding territory was flooded by the culture of remaining core enemy cities. In case a third civilization had settled nearby, the newly conquered cities were also prone to flip to this third party.

lockstep

So you're accusing me of lying then are you? You might notice that I *also* said that, whatever faults existed in the Civ4 culture system, I believe it worked far *better* than the system they've gone with for Civ5-which effectively makes your culture USELESS outside your own borders (except on unowned tiles)! To me that, & an inability to buy owned tiles, is going to make the game way too dull for words!

Sorry, that's just ridiculous. (And no, I didn't crop anything out of either of those.) He's obviously not saying you're lying, and your attempting to inflame the situation to such an absurd degree just makes it look like you're either mean-spirited or desperate. Plus, if no organic tile-flipping is the thing that's going to make the game "way too dull for words!" I question both your judgment and your sincerity. Especially since you constantly say "I know CiV is going to be a good game, but I don't know if it's going to be a great game," you obviously changed your opinion really, really fast or just say whatever seems convenient at the time.

To top it all off, every time someone's countered your "culture bombs are way too good!" argument with "yeah, but all GPs are supposed to be good, and everyone can get GPs, so if there's an issue it's that nobody's going to want anything other than artists, not that someone's going to be able to steal the game since everyone else will be building them if they're that good," you ignore them, typically with lots of exaggeration and capslock-screaming at them and doing a patented "no matter how many times you say your opinion it's still going to be wrong and mine's going to be right!" I'm not making that up.

No it is *not* a minor feature-saying it often doesn't make it so.

I don't know what it was that made you go off the deep end and go from one of the most polite, agreeable people on the forums to what you are now, which is anything but, but it's quite disappointing. And I'm sure I'm not the only person who thinks that. (And that will be true no matter how many times you say its not!:p)

I know this will probably get deleted and I'll get infracted for talking about someone's forum etiquette rather than the subject at hand, but in my opinion this is the subject at hand. When someone's behaving this, frankly, destructively, you can't get anything else done. So sorry mods.

King Jason
Sep 05, 2010, 01:20 PM
No it is *not* a minor feature-saying it often doesn't make it so. Now that you can GUIDE the construction of your Great People, & given the GA's ability to literally STEAL 6 tiles from an opponent (at no additional cost, I'm guessing), then there is really nothing MINOR about that at all-it is GAME BREAKING. Although its true that you need to have the specialists assigned to build the Great Artist, there is nothing I've seen to suggest that the Culture Bomb can't be used against someone with a much higher culture than you-which also makes it a non-minor feature. Maybe if it had a culture cost I'd be more accepting of it; maybe if it caused a diplomatic penalty-as Tomice suggested-I'd be more accepting of it; maybe if it could only be used against those of a weaker culture than you-I'd be more accepting of it. Yet as it currently stands, I still say that the Culture Bomb is an example of AWFUL GAME DESIGN, & should have been dropped first in the transition from Civ4 to Civ5.

Aussie.

And if I'd rather have a golden age for my empire instead?

You make it sound like people will be building their cities in such a way to pop Great artists at the rate civ4 SE's popped great scientists in an effort to bombard the world with culture bombs. As if this is the flat-out best benefit of the Artist, period.

Additionally, your argument is flat out silly. The Artist GP has options to do several things; one of which is to instantly grant the player the rewards of massive culture accumulation, E.g. Territory. The only other reward of an Artist would be to grant a social policy which would likely be insanely overpowered. This is no different than the bonuses other GPs can offer

Look at some other GPs;

Scientists - Instantly learn a technology
Engineers - Instantly complete a building.

In fact that's the trend really; GPs can either:

Create a golden age
Increase your accumulation of their associated resource (gold, science, culture, production) Over time.
Give you the reward of accumulating said resource instantly.

There is nothing gamebreaking about the Great Artist, and if it is, it's no more gamebreaking than saving an engineer to rush a wonder that another empire clearly could've built faster than you. Not even Egypt can compete with that. It's no more gamebreaking than using a scientist to rush a tech that gives you an advantage over your enemy.

As a side note; I agree with Lyoncet ~ Auss, you used to be someone who's arguments I enjoyed reading. Regardless whether I was for or against it. Now, on damn near every issue of civ5 you seem to be banging pots and pans just to make noise. I don't get it.

Tomice
Sep 05, 2010, 01:36 PM
Do we even know our culture has no effect in foreign lands? Are we sure there is no city flipping because of cultural pressure? It might still happen, just not tile per tile.

Arioch? Have your all-seeing eyes spotted something? ;)

Venereus
Sep 05, 2010, 01:55 PM
Arioch? Have your all-seeing eyes spotted something? ;)

His half-naked hot neighbour. Hopefully he'll post some pics at his site. :eek:

Polobo
Sep 05, 2010, 02:24 PM
I'd actually rather get the free SP (probably with investment limitations just like technology has in CIV) than the culture-bomb. I don't see, initially, how it would really overpowered; and it would be available to all civs to should even out to some degree.

Edit: The game trailer in the video section of the forums shows this clearly.

SuperSmash5
Sep 05, 2010, 04:38 PM
I don't understand why someone would get so butthurt over the changes in how you acquire tiles. So they removed cultural pressure? Big deal. Culture wars were never a huge part of the game except when you conquered cities and then they starved down to size 4 because of all the foreign culture. And that mechanic was pretty annoying. I like the new discrete method. It's more intuitive. And it lets you actually claim land when you conquer a city. Sure, the culture bomb is a little cheesy, but all things considered culture is much improved. Heck, culture has its own tech-tree equivalent and is just as important to manage as science, gold, or production.

Tomice
Sep 05, 2010, 05:01 PM
Culture wars were never a huge part of the game except when you conquered cities and then they starved down to size 4 because of all the foreign culture. And that mechanic was pretty annoying.

Yes, that's a good point. I'm all for a way to peacefully conquer cities, impressing them instead of bloodshed. But while Civ had this possibility, the main effect was the annoyance you described. I can only remember one occasion where I gained a city I really wanted due to culture flip. And this city was worthless for another 100+ turns until it had enough culture to control its BFC.

What I really hope is that culture can make the entire "province" flip over at once.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 06:40 PM
And if I'd rather have a golden age for my empire instead?

You make it sound like people will be building their cities in such a way to pop Great artists at the rate civ4 SE's popped great scientists in an effort to bombard the world with culture bombs. As if this is the flat-out best benefit of the Artist, period.

Additionally, your argument is flat out silly. The Artist GP has options to do several things; one of which is to instantly grant the player the rewards of massive culture accumulation, E.g. Territory. The only other reward of an Artist would be to grant a social policy which would likely be insanely overpowered. This is no different than the bonuses other GPs can offer

Look at some other GPs;

Scientists - Instantly learn a technology
Engineers - Instantly complete a building.

In fact that's the trend really; GPs can either:

Create a golden age
Increase your accumulation of their associated resource (gold, science, culture, production) Over time.
Give you the reward of accumulating said resource instantly.

There is nothing gamebreaking about the Great Artist, and if it is, it's no more gamebreaking than saving an engineer to rush a wonder that another empire clearly could've built faster than you. Not even Egypt can compete with that. It's no more gamebreaking than using a scientist to rush a tech that gives you an advantage over your enemy.

As a side note; I agree with Lyoncet ~ Auss, you used to be someone who's arguments I enjoyed reading. Regardless whether I was for or against it. Now, on damn near every issue of civ5 you seem to be banging pots and pans just to make noise. I don't get it.

Have you noticed, though, that every other GP ability does not *directly* impinge on other civs? Instantly acquiring a tech or a building isn't necessarily taking something directly away from another Civilization. I'm all for the GA's abilities to match those of the other GP's, so why not give it the ability to instantly gain a Social Policy? That directly fits the logic you describe.

Another point is that *yes* the other civ can generate great artists & use the culture bomb back-but then what we've got is just another form of unit-based combat (albeit cultural combat). I'd much rather see a multi-faceted (diplomacy, buildings, warfare, social policies) approach to gaining pre-owned tiles (& cities), especially given that such an approach would add to the *flavor* of the game (& to my mind the flavor/immersion of the game has been of increasing importance since Civ3). My feeling still remains that there is no good logic to underpin the decision to remove mechanisms like Cultural assimilation, tile ownership, Cultural "mixing" & Multi-ethnic cities/National Identity when they could have actually been made fantastic parts of the game instead (trust me, I've seen what modders can do in Civ4-& if they can do it, then I'm sure the designers of the game can do it too!)

p.s.: I'm sorry if I've seemed tetchy lately-maybe it was Cabin Fever. I was stuck indoors for 2 whole days due to storms. All the same, I do get annoyed with arguments that amount to "in Firaxis we trust" or "oh, well you just want an expansion, not a sequel" or-worst of all-"just mod it in"! All the same, though, I'll try not to let my annoyance levels get out of control from here on!

Aussie.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 06:49 PM
Yes, that's a good point. I'm all for a way to peacefully conquer cities, impressing them instead of bloodshed. But while Civ had this possibility, the main effect was the annoyance you described. I can only remember one occasion where I gained a city I really wanted due to culture flip. And this city was worthless for another 100+ turns until it had enough culture to control its BFC.

What I really hope is that culture can make the entire "province" flip over at once.

Again, if I'd had these problems then I'd probably hate the system as much as you guys do, but I seriously *never* really had that much of an issue (certainly never had to starve captured cities or had cities be useless for dozens of turns). Its worth noting, though, that the system in Civ4 was 100 times better than the system they introduced in Civ3-which is kind of my point. Yes the Civ4 culture mechanic had flaws, but they were not flaws that couldn't have been fixed, just as the flaws from Civ3 were fixed in the transition to Civ4. Instead I fear that they've given up on the whole thing &-in so doing-set back the franchise in this particular area (which is ironic, given how they've seemingly pushed the franchise forward in areas like combat & diplomacy)!

sensual benny
Sep 05, 2010, 08:37 PM
I don't know how you've avoided enemy culture making captured cities worthless and causing them to starve immediately (are you spreading lots of culture to the city beforehand with spies? Only capturing cities that are under heavy pressure from your own culture?), but it's a problem we've all had to deal with, and is indisputably part of Civ 4.

bjbrains
Sep 05, 2010, 08:59 PM
Yea. The culture pressure problem is definitely there, and in my games has always stopped me from many 'quick wars', because any ground I take will be useless.

Boshi
Sep 05, 2010, 09:49 PM
Yup that was one of the things that annoyed me a lot about the more recent iterations of Civ and that sent me to playing Paradox games for a good long while, basically in that Civ you don't get quick wars you get big all or nothing show downs. I'd really like a game in which the power rankings are a bit more "bouncy" in that its possible to actually lose a war and still win a game, often in Civ IV if I played lower difficulty levels I'd end up first in the power rankings pretty early and then stay there, while in the higher difficulty rankings if I :):):):)ed up once then it'd become pretty much impossible for me (at least with my skill level) to win :)

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 05, 2010, 10:23 PM
I don't know how you've avoided enemy culture making captured cities worthless and causing them to starve immediately (are you spreading lots of culture to the city beforehand with spies? Only capturing cities that are under heavy pressure from your own culture?), but it's a problem we've all had to deal with, and is indisputably part of Civ 4.

Well, I am a role-player by nature, which means I never tend to go after cities that I don't feel like I have a just claim over. I also find it quite easy to embark on short-term, limited wars where I capture maybe only 2 or 3 border cities at most. Then I'll usually see if I can obtain a cease-fire in order to consolidate my new holdings. That's not to say the problems you've had weren't occurring, just that I rarely-if ever-saw it myself. Either way, my point still remains that these....annoyances.....were solvable (& had been solved in several mods)-so its just a shame they've chosen to abandon the mechanism altogether :(.

Aussie.

SuperSmash5
Sep 05, 2010, 11:33 PM
Well, I am a role-player by nature, which means I never tend to go after cities that I don't feel like I have a just claim over. I also find it quite easy to embark on short-term, limited wars where I capture maybe only 2 or 3 border cities at most. Then I'll usually see if I can obtain a cease-fire in order to consolidate my new holdings. That's not to say the problems you've had weren't occurring, just that I rarely-if ever-saw it myself. Either way, my point still remains that these....annoyances.....were solvable (& had been solved in several mods)-so its just a shame they've chosen to abandon the mechanism altogether :(.

Aussie.

Lol, that'll do it. If you avoid playing a competitive game, then there are all sorts of problems you don't have to worry about.

And, well, they did solve the problems. They added a new mechanism. And from what I can tell, it works fine. Sure the "lolgreatartist" moments are a little silly, but it's not that big of a deal.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 06, 2010, 12:50 AM
Lol, that'll do it. If you avoid playing a competitive game, then there are all sorts of problems you don't have to worry about.

And, well, they did solve the problems. They added a new mechanism. And from what I can tell, it works fine. Sure the "lolgreatartist" moments are a little silly, but it's not that big of a deal.

....but as I said, I don't agree with the so-called "solution", because I believe that it will lead to *more* problems than it has supposedly solved whilst-at the same time-we will have lost a lot of the flavor we had in Civ4. All for very little gain!

Aussie.

SuperSmash5
Sep 06, 2010, 01:23 AM
....but as I said, I don't agree with the so-called "solution", because I believe that it will lead to *more* problems than it has supposedly solved whilst-at the same time-we will have lost a lot of the flavor we had in Civ4. All for very little gain!

Aussie.

Nah. I don't think that it'll create more problems. It's not complex enough to really implode like that. I'd say it's pretty intuitive, not to mention the fact that it's discrete. If you have a tile, it's yours.

As for flavor, you mean how the game feels stylistically? I don't think that's something to really be concerned about. It's not like Civ5 won't have it's own flavor even if it's not like Civ4. And besides, Civ4's flavor is kinda stale in my opinion.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 06, 2010, 02:22 AM
Nah. I don't think that it'll create more problems. It's not complex enough to really implode like that. I'd say it's pretty intuitive, not to mention the fact that it's discrete. If you have a tile, it's yours.

As for flavor, you mean how the game feels stylistically? I don't think that's something to really be concerned about. It's not like Civ5 won't have it's own flavor even if it's not like Civ4. And besides, Civ4's flavor is kinda stale in my opinion.

I was actually referring to immersion, which I think will be wrecked if you can't have multi-cultural cities & the ability to push culture onto owned tiles in ways other than the use of a Great Artist (which I consider the most immersion-wrecking game mechanic I've read about so far!) I also find Civ4 to be anything but stale. I expect to be modding & playing the game for many, many months to come.

Aussie.

Elenhil
Sep 06, 2010, 03:00 AM
I simply found the way culture expanded my borders FUN. Never a warmonger, it gave me satisfaction to see my civ take over neighbouring tiles and even cities after a crammed aggressive settlement start. Rather gratifying, you know. Sorry to miss any kind of fun I grew used to.

rune_staehr
Sep 06, 2010, 03:20 PM
First of, I should say that my preferred gaming style is very close to aussies. I do really like to play the game as a role playing sort of game.
This means that I do really enjoy MM since it makes me "connect" better with my citizens and their environment. I really was sad to see that CiV was being simplified on so many levels. I however kind of expected it would be, to give more features for expansions.
That said, the culture bomb in CiV will definitely not be overpowered. As I see it, you would at best be getting 5 tiles, as the one you bomb from will be connected to the rest of your empire by definitely at least one, most likely two, and in the case where your border meets that of another civ probably three, maybe even two.

I would love for the game to have been in development with me and my peers in mind, however I have always known that the majority does not like to MM, and since they buy more games than we do, that is something we will have to live with until I can make enough money to buy firaxis, and pay for the development without heed to cost.

SuperSmash5
Sep 06, 2010, 05:21 PM
I was actually referring to immersion, which I think will be wrecked if you can't have multi-cultural cities & the ability to push culture onto owned tiles in ways other than the use of a Great Artist (which I consider the most immersion-wrecking game mechanic I've read about so far!) I also find Civ4 to be anything but stale. I expect to be modding & playing the game for many, many months to come.

Aussie.

Immersion? In a turn based strategy game? How in the world would the tile-claiming system affect something so abstract? Now I think you're just making stuff up. I'll admit the great artist is kinda cheesy, but it's a very small part of the tile-claiming system.

Schuesseled
Sep 06, 2010, 06:27 PM
Have you noticed, though, that every other GP ability does not *directly* impinge on other civs? Instantly acquiring a tech or a building isn't necessarily taking something directly away from another Civilization. I'm all for the GA's abilities to match those of the other GP's, so why not give it the ability to instantly gain a Social Policy? That directly fits the logic you describe.

Another point is that *yes* the other civ can generate great artists & use the culture bomb back-but then what we've got is just another form of unit-based combat (albeit cultural combat). I'd much rather see a multi-faceted (diplomacy, buildings, warfare, social policies) approach to gaining pre-owned tiles (& cities), especially given that such an approach would add to the *flavor* of the game (& to my mind the flavor/immersion of the game has been of increasing importance since Civ3). My feeling still remains that there is no good logic to underpin the decision to remove mechanisms like Cultural assimilation, tile ownership, Cultural "mixing" & Multi-ethnic cities/National Identity when they could have actually been made fantastic parts of the game instead (trust me, I've seen what modders can do in Civ4-& if they can do it, then I'm sure the designers of the game can do it too!)

p.s.: I'm sorry if I've seemed tetchy lately-maybe it was Cabin Fever. I was stuck indoors for 2 whole days due to storms. All the same, I do get annoyed with arguments that amount to "in Firaxis we trust" or "oh, well you just want an expansion, not a sequel" or-worst of all-"just mod it in"! All the same, though, I'll try not to let my annoyance levels get out of control from here on!

Aussie.

Either ability seems to fit quite well. What i want to see is purchasing tiles diplomatically.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 06, 2010, 06:29 PM
Immersion? In a turn based strategy game? How in the world would the tile-claiming system affect something so abstract? Now I think you're just making stuff up. I'll admit the great artist is kinda cheesy, but it's a very small part of the tile-claiming system.

Well if you don't get any immersion out of the game, then I really don't understand why you even bother playing it. I actually *do* feel immersed in the game when I'm playing it, & the cultural assimilation mechanic definitely assisted in that. The Cheesy Great Artist system will wreck that immersion &-contrary to what you claim-it is the *only* part of claiming owned tiles.

Aussie.

SuperSmash5
Sep 06, 2010, 11:16 PM
Well if you don't get any immersion out of the game, then I really don't understand why you even bother playing it. I actually *do* feel immersed in the game when I'm playing it, & the cultural assimilation mechanic definitely assisted in that. The Cheesy Great Artist system will wreck that immersion &-contrary to what you claim-it is the *only* part of claiming owned tiles.

Aussie.

I play it for the strategic and competitive aspect. Except when the game is just totally bogus, I don't even pay attention to the realism. I really don't see where the immersion is coming from. I get immersion from JRPGs and heavily story focused games like Metal Gear Solid. Civilization is so focused on numbers and strategy that it breaks down any immersion I would've otherwise had.

Claiming tiles =/= Claiming owned tiles. If you want to claim owned tiles, do it through WAR! :lol:

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 07, 2010, 01:39 AM
I play it for the strategic and competitive aspect. Except when the game is just totally bogus, I don't even pay attention to the realism. I really don't see where the immersion is coming from. I get immersion from JRPGs and heavily story focused games like Metal Gear Solid. Civilization is so focused on numbers and strategy that it breaks down any immersion I would've otherwise had.

Claiming tiles =/= Claiming owned tiles. If you want to claim owned tiles, do it through WAR! :lol:

If thats the only way you think we should claim owned tiles, then you really ought to be off playing war-games. I believe Civilization is so much more than "just another war-game".

Tomice
Sep 07, 2010, 01:56 AM
I play it for the strategic and competitive aspect. Except when the game is just totally bogus, I don't even pay attention to the realism.

Many think so, but I totally disagree :D And I think many others do, too. I often play games e.g. without using slavery, theocracy, fascism,... I do think about what I'm just doing when I nuke someone.

My fascinacion comes greatly from the "how would I lead a nation" aspect. The cheesier and gamier the rules, the less I'm fascinated.

Louis XXIV
Sep 07, 2010, 09:02 AM
I would like to see negotiation to purchase tiles, but I feel it would be very difficult to have an intuitive, balanced system. Certainly, having it on the diplo screen wouldn't work (would be too awkward). I could see a system where you can purchase it from the city screen where you purchase other tiles (if you click on a hex from another civ, you'll get a pop up listing their asking price and see if you accept it).

To be perfectly honest, it's just far easier to trade cities (which you can do in the game and they actually seem willing to consider). Almost all real life major territory exchange treaties involved a city of some size trading hands. But, yeah, I wouldn't mind minor border adjustment being done through diplomacy (I just feel that it would get complex far, far too quickly. Especially if you want to trade tiles for tiles, such as a few productive tiles for a resource tile).

Tomice
Sep 07, 2010, 09:53 AM
It is probably not that hard for an AI to calculate the value of a tile based on the output and ressource on it. But it might be hard for it to make additional considerations (value of the tile for troop movement and trade routes, future need for ressources, backup stash of strat. res. for future wars and territorial losses, happiness pool needed during a conquest campaign).

On the other hand, if we can trade cities, the AI should already have an algorhythm to calculate tile values! So IMO if we can trade cities, why no tiles?

KrikkitTwo
Sep 07, 2010, 10:20 AM
I agree that claiming owned tiles should happen through claiming cities
and I'd even be OK if that only happened through War+Diplomacy

What I'd like to see is for culture to have some impact on War. (Rebel units being created, territory that is 'yours' but the enemy gets benefits in as well)

Seven05
Sep 07, 2010, 02:41 PM
I simply found the way culture expanded my borders FUN. Never a warmonger, it gave me satisfaction to see my civ take over neighbouring tiles and even cities after a crammed aggressive settlement start. Rather gratifying, you know. Sorry to miss any kind of fun I grew used to.
I'm the opposit, in a sense, as I found the Civ 4 culture mechanic to be tedious, sloppy and immersion breaking. I was annoyed that the ONLY way to directly capture tiles was through culture. I was annoyed by the fact that you solidified your borders with things like theaters and the single best unit for capturing enemy territory was a great artist (unfortunately still 'broken' in Civ 5). I or my opponent could have millions of military units and they would be strangely unable to take a single tile, but Elvis... Elvis could conquer like no other- open land, cities you name it.

Yes, there were mods that addressed this just like I'm sure there will be mods that address the differing opinions on how culture should work in Civ 5. I know that I will definately be taking away the GA's ability to conquer land, probably as one of the first things I mod.

At least holy cities and their obscenly powerful shrines are out, just need to neuter the GA and all will be well. Perhaps now border tensions will amount to something more than an increase the the global theater count.

I think those of you that see this is only catering to warmongers are missing a big part of what this will result in. I also think that us arguing about how it will or won't work in Civ 5 is pretty meaningless, at least for another 18 days. Maybe it will be better, maybe it won't be an improvement at all, but it certainly can't be any worse than it was in Civ 4 unless they revert it back to the way it works in Civ 3.

Zechnophobe
Sep 07, 2010, 07:02 PM
There are a lot of threads about why feature X was removed or why feature Y was implemented this way. Tried to present the whole set of decisions, but the list grew too much, so starting with culture only. WARNING: little realism taken in assumption.

---General---

1. Assumption. We want to implement 1UPT rule to eliminate SOD and provide richer tactic.

2. Assumption. We want hexes, because they make landscape look more realistic and make distance calculations easier.

3. Consequence. We need units to move further, at least 2 tiles, otherwise with point 1 they'll be stuck.

4. Consequence. We need battlefields to be larger, due to points 1 and 3.

5. Consequence. We need cities to have 3-tile radius, due to point 4. This gives us a bonus ability to allow more decisions on city placement.


You pretty much lost me right here. How does lower city density equate to larger battlefields? Heck, I don't even know if a 3 tile radius will be noticeably less dense, unless city sizes are substantially larger. I think having 4 or even 5 radii of cultural borders made for 'bigger' battle grounds, as you had to be further away before declaring war.

Also, point 4 is wrong. 1UPT could also be balanced by having less units, which we suspect is true due to limited resources and increased build times.

SuperSmash5
Sep 07, 2010, 08:41 PM
If thats the only way you think we should claim owned tiles, then you really ought to be off playing war-games. I believe Civilization is so much more than "just another war-game".

Don't tell me what games I should or shouldn't play. I can like Civilization for whatever reasons I want to.

That being said, I think it's a very intuitive system to have to declare war in order to take someone else's land. However, I wouldn't mind if there were a plausible system that allowed for buying or trading of land though diplomacy but a continuous system using overlapping culture is very messy.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 07, 2010, 10:52 PM
I would like to see negotiation to purchase tiles, but I feel it would be very difficult to have an intuitive, balanced system. Certainly, having it on the diplo screen wouldn't work (would be too awkward). I could see a system where you can purchase it from the city screen where you purchase other tiles (if you click on a hex from another civ, you'll get a pop up listing their asking price and see if you accept it).

To be perfectly honest, it's just far easier to trade cities (which you can do in the game and they actually seem willing to consider). Almost all real life major territory exchange treaties involved a city of some size trading hands. But, yeah, I wouldn't mind minor border adjustment being done through diplomacy (I just feel that it would get complex far, far too quickly. Especially if you want to trade tiles for tiles, such as a few productive tiles for a resource tile).

It needn't be complex. A simple "if you try & buy owned tiles, the diplomacy screen will pop-up & the Civilization that currently owns that tile will seek to negotiate a price for them-assuming that the purchaser has sufficient 'cultural control' of said tile."

ilikepies
Sep 07, 2010, 11:07 PM
No claiming enemy tiles? So no more culture wars, just whoever gets there first gets the area? That's ridiculous.

Louis XXIV
Sep 07, 2010, 11:13 PM
It needn't be complex. A simple "if you try & buy owned tiles, the diplomacy screen will pop-up & the Civilization that currently owns that tile will seek to negotiate a price for them-assuming that the purchaser has sufficient 'cultural control' of said tile."

The problem isn't Tile for Cash, it's Tile for Tile(s). That's when things could be difficult.

BTW, was it said (as many are saying) that you can't win enemy tiles through culture? The fact that there's a great artist should imply otherwise, no?

bjbrains
Sep 07, 2010, 11:22 PM
You can't buy or culturally take tiles automatically any more. The culture bomb is now the only way to do so.

stealth_nsk
Sep 07, 2010, 11:52 PM
You pretty much lost me right here. How does lower city density equate to larger battlefields? Heck, I don't even know if a 3 tile radius will be noticeably less dense, unless city sizes are substantially larger. I think having 4 or even 5 radii of cultural borders made for 'bigger' battle grounds, as you had to be further away before declaring war.

Also, point 4 is wrong. 1UPT could also be balanced by having less units, which we suspect is true due to limited resources and increased build times.

With SoD your battlefield equals 2 tiles :)
Surely, the game is balanced for less units, but they still need much more space than stacks. Also consider those 4-5 tile moving units, they need some space to maneuver.

Louis XXIV
Sep 08, 2010, 07:55 AM
You can't buy or culturally take tiles automatically any more. The culture bomb is now the only way to do so.

See, I've seen people say this here and I remember that you can't take cities culturally, but I can't remember ever reading that applied to tiles. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm curious if you (or anyone else) remembers where you read that.

Elenhil
Sep 08, 2010, 09:19 AM
I'm the opposit, in a sense, as I found the Civ 4 culture mechanic to be tedious, sloppy and immersion breaking. I was annoyed that the ONLY way to directly capture tiles was through culture. I was annoyed by the fact that you solidified your borders with things like theaters and the single best unit for capturing enemy territory was a great artist (unfortunately still 'broken' in Civ 5). I or my opponent could have millions of military units and they would be strangely unable to take a single tile, but Elvis... Elvis could conquer like no other- open land, cities you name it.
But then again, why would you want to take individual tiles? To deny the enemy strategic resources? Military can do it. To capture these resources yourself? That's quite another thing to consider.

It is not very feasible to try to extract resources in the middle of hostile territory. You first need to make this piece of territory (and the ones required to secure the area and provide for extraction routes) yours. You can't really make it yours through military strength only (otherwise you'll only get insurgency, sabotage, etc.).

Thus, culture stands for the sum of all non-military means of projecting your empire's influence. A soft power, to employ the buzzword. It is only logical for it to work gradually and, in effect, extend your borders (which in CIV are often closer to an abstract "sphere of influence" than to actual state borders).

r_rolo1
Sep 08, 2010, 09:53 AM
Well, a little off-topic ...

Does anybody knows exactly what happens to tiles that are in the workable area of 2 cities or more when one of the cities is taken ?

iop
Sep 08, 2010, 10:19 AM
Well, a little off-topic ...

Does anybody knows exactly what happens to tiles that are in the workable area of 2 cities or more when one of the cities is taken ?
It looks like they stay with the city that originally acquired them, but I don't think there's clear confirmation.

r_rolo1
Sep 08, 2010, 11:15 AM
@iop

In civ III and IV, the ownership of a tile was determined by culture, so this was not a issue. In previous 4x games of Firaxis where tile ownership was not determined at all by culture ( SMAC ), the ownership of a tile was determined by distance to the cities ...

I'm just not sure of how the game will handle that in here. Obviously neither of the previous solutions applies fully and keeping a log of what city bought what tile ... seems too much of effort for just this issue.

KrikkitTwo
Sep 08, 2010, 11:18 AM
I'm just not sure of how the game will handle that in here. Obviously neither of the previous solutions applies fully and keeping a log of what city bought what tile ... seems too much of effort for just this issue.

All indications are that that is exactly what they will do. (and it seems simple enough... just store a list of tiles for each city)

r_rolo1
Sep 08, 2010, 11:28 AM
All indications are that that is exactly what they will do. (and it seems simple enough... just store a list of tiles for each city)
I think that might create some issues in some situations ( say , a odd isolated tile from time to time ). But it is not a big issue anyway ... more curiosity than anything else :D

Seven05
Sep 08, 2010, 12:11 PM
Thus, culture stands for the sum of all non-military means of projecting your empire's influence. A soft power, to employ the buzzword. It is only logical for it to work gradually and, in effect, extend your borders (which in CIV are often closer to an abstract "sphere of influence" than to actual state borders).
The problem is that it completely ignored military power, meaning a military campaign was completely devolved into city attack and city defense. In effect the way culture worked in Civ 4 made military and espionage all but redundant because it effectively 'abstracted' the conquest of territory (and cities in some cases) down to who had the most theaters, temples, etc.

If it was to represent dissent, why did it work better than espionage? If it was to represent influence, why was military might ignored?

It wasn't abstract, it was sloppy. The only improvement it offered over Civ 3 was that you could prevent other civs from walking on your grass and given enough time those little one tile holes would eventually fill in so the AI wouldn't try to plop a city there. And then there was Elvis...

KrikkitTwo
Sep 08, 2010, 12:55 PM
I think that might create some issues in some situations ( say , a odd isolated tile from time to time ). But it is not a big issue anyway ... more curiosity than anything else :D

Well I think you can probably only buy/culturally take tiles for a city that are adjacent to one of the city's existing tiles.

The_J
Sep 08, 2010, 01:26 PM
For buying that's sure right.
In the city view, you can only see the price for the tiles, which are adjacent to a tile which is already belongs to the city.

guinsoo
Sep 08, 2010, 08:48 PM
I actually think culture wars for squares is interesting and accurate. You can occupy a city with force, but you cannot control the whole region unless you assimilate them culturally. That behavior seems to match real life.

Please don't take this to mean that I think that how Civilization does it is the best way. I do think that some mix of cultural and military methods of controlling territory should both be applicable (ideally in a roughly equivalent manner).

And of course almost every system is going to end up failing in some degree of realism. But I think that within the scope of other design decisions made, this seems to follow logically. I don't see a huge problem with it.

Polobo
Sep 08, 2010, 08:59 PM
I actually think culture wars for squares is interesting and accurate. You can occupy a city with force, but you cannot control the whole region unless you assimilate them culturally. That behavior seems to match real life.

Except you describe control in terms of productivity as opposed to "these are our lands/borders". Without a finer degree of classification of "owned/controlled" any system is going to end up failing in some degree of realism. This system simply says that the first city to claim a tile owns that tile and ignores any ability for the city to relinquish (or be stripped of) that claim. An owned tile can be worked to full productivity at any time; and it also provides full military benefits at all times as well.

While some games do introduce the concept of "revolt risk" I would not say it makes the game more fun even if it is more realistic; manually playing whack-a-mole is an un-fun way to constrain military expansion.

Elenhil
Sep 09, 2010, 02:43 AM
The problem is that it completely ignored military power, meaning a military campaign was completely devolved into city attack and city defense. In effect the way culture worked in Civ 4 made military and espionage all but redundant because it effectively 'abstracted' the conquest of territory (and cities in some cases) down to who had the most theaters, temples, etc.

If it was to represent dissent, why did it work better than espionage? If it was to represent influence, why was military might ignored?


It is IMO quite logical that you could not use solely military power to conquer territories in CIV. You can rob, pillage and burn, but you can not exploit natural resources by military units. You need influence (=culture) which is essentially non-military (and city-centered).

The notion that military power alone can bring control of resources (territory) is proven time and time again to be wrong. Latest Middle Eastern history is but the latest example. It is influence that counts, and it is not military in its essence. You won't get oil by fortifying a, say, Navy SEAL unit on top of an oil well. You might get it by projecting cultural notions like representation, capitalism, etc. It is just the side effect of modernity that America's influence is projected through other buildings besides theatres and temples.

However, Alexander the Great's example comes to mind when it comes to temples and theatres. He tried to control the lands he conquered by building these very seats of Greek culture.

As an intermediate example, take Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Once again, in eerily CIV-like terms, having retaken the cities constituting what would become their satellites (by military strength, no doubt), they kept them relatively "happy" through garrisoning them with military units (enabled by a certain novel type of Hereditary Politburo Rule) while constantly pumping out all sorts of cultural buildings producing propaganda-culture. And the loss of Soviet influence over Eastern Europe which anniversary we had a happy opportunity of observing last year came about not through military strength but through what may best be described as culture. Which had been building up until certain cities flipped (and yes, not without the help or some culture-planting and revolt-inciting Espionage missions).

Which, by the way, might have been a perfect non-military and non-city-centered way of flipping tiles, had Espionage made it into CV.

Aussie_Lurker
Sep 09, 2010, 07:45 AM
The problem is that it completely ignored military power, meaning a military campaign was completely devolved into city attack and city defense. In effect the way culture worked in Civ 4 made military and espionage all but redundant because it effectively 'abstracted' the conquest of territory (and cities in some cases) down to who had the most theaters, temples, etc.

If it was to represent dissent, why did it work better than espionage? If it was to represent influence, why was military might ignored?

It wasn't abstract, it was sloppy. The only improvement it offered over Civ 3 was that you could prevent other civs from walking on your grass and given enough time those little one tile holes would eventually fill in so the AI wouldn't try to plop a city there. And then there was Elvis...

For what its worth, I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns-even though I didn't have quite the difficulty you seemed to have. As I said above, though, modders were able to to create what I think was called a Culture Conquest Mod, where you could spread your culture to a tile by militarily defeating the unit on the tile. In a 1upt system, such a rule could work well as an non-diplomatic source of spreading culture-& I think is much better than the Culture Bomb!

Aussie.

Elenhil
Sep 09, 2010, 09:07 AM
For what its worth, I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns-even though I didn't have quite the difficulty you seemed to have. As I said above, though, modders were able to to create what I think was called a Culture Conquest Mod, where you could spread your culture to a tile by militarily defeating the unit on the tile. In a 1upt system, such a rule could work well as an non-diplomatic source of spreading culture-& I think is much better than the Culture Bomb!

Aussie.
Ahem. How realistic do you think is that? Farewell, insurgency, lots of troops make any Middle Eastern country western?

I can't think why should so many players think that units must capture tiles. Tiles are not just uninhabited land. They clearly represent the coutnryside (well, not quite the idyllic English one, but still - real country with people) in which the people of the country are free to decide which nation they sympathize (=identify) with most. They can't be "flipped" by military units, neither can cities. It takes economic - and yes, cultural influence, too, to pull them over. It is just a minor shortcoming of gameplay mechanics that revolts, insurgency and assimilation are dealt with within cities only. Hardly possible to be dealt with on a general per-tile basis.

Louis XXIV
Sep 09, 2010, 09:12 AM
Yeah, the idea of troops causing tiles to flip isn't quite realistic. I would argue that they should allow a neighboring city to work tiles that your troops are on just across the border if you have units on them, but, once the units leave, the tiles go back to their cultural owner. That would probably be the most realistic.

But it's a minor detail. It doesn't really matter much in big picture gameplay.

KrikkitTwo
Sep 09, 2010, 10:51 AM
Actually I'd like to see 2 'levels of control'

1. Military control... either a unit present or military control of the city. Allows production

2. sociocultural control... if this is in conflict with military control it 'forces it back' ie if an empire militarily controls a city that they don't 'culturally control' then Rebel units will be generated... one's that are serious threats.
Military units on tiles they don't cuturally control would require massive maintenance or they would take damage... or they would fight at a disadvantage.

Elenhil
Sep 09, 2010, 11:01 AM
Actually I'd like to see 2 'levels of control'

1. Military control... either a unit present or military control of the city. Allows production

2. sociocultural control... if this is in conflict with military control it 'forces it back' ie if an empire militarily controls a city that they don't 'culturally control' then Rebel units will be generated... one's that are serious threats.
Military units on tiles they don't cuturally control would require massive maintenance or they would take damage... or they would fight at a disadvantage.
It is almost exactly as it is in CIV. You have to garrison a captured city to bring down rebellion. Unfortunately it is strictly economical by nature (unhappiness, zero production), however, I seem to recall a guerilla or rebel random event which might be tweaked a bit to produce a regular mild military uprising mechanic. And military units in foreign lands do incur higher maintenance costs.

Unfortunately, there is little of that glimpsed from CV previews so far.

KrikkitTwo
Sep 09, 2010, 11:07 AM
It is almost exactly as it is in CIV. You have to garrison a captured city to bring down rebellion. Unfortunately it is strictly economical by nature (unhappiness, zero production), however, I seem to recall a guerilla or rebel random event which might be tweaked a bit to produce a regular mild military uprising mechanic. And military units in foreign lands do incur higher maintenance costs.

Unfortunately, there is little of that glimpsed from CV previews so far.

The 'economic rebellion' is one serious problem that all the civ series have had. An actual 'military rebellion' is needed, especially for the late game.

And here the "foreign" means "not under Military control", rather than "not under cultural control"

Cyberian
Sep 09, 2010, 11:14 AM
Military units on tiles they don't cuturally control would require massive maintenance or they would take damage... or they would fight at a disadvantage.

Or they will laugh at the rebels and be happy to gain some more experience points (thats what I did with civ4 guerrillas out of razed cities)


What I always liked about culture in civ4:

I usually settle with some gaps between my cities where there is bad terrain and I sometimes build cities far in the distance just to get that early marble. The land grabbing from massive culture was good to deny my enemies building cities in close proximity of mine.

With new smaller Borders I fear that I will be placing my cities on strategic points early but a bit scattered and the other civs will then put small cities all between my cities and on the borders.

Seven05
Sep 09, 2010, 11:16 AM
It is IMO quite logical that you could not use solely military power to conquer territories in CIV. You can rob, pillage and burn, but you can not exploit natural resources by military units. You need influence (=culture) which is essentially non-military (and city-centered).
You missed my point... almost completely :)

My issue with Civ 4 culture is that it trumped EVERYTHING ELSE. You could have twenty stacks each with a hundred tanks in them lining your borders and it would do nothing to prevent that Elvis concert from taking half your land. You could be conquering cities only to lose the land to a neighboring civ that wasn't involved in the conflict and had absolutely no military presence in the area. Thus, military conquest was devolved into attacking and defending cities as they could do NOTHING to secure your borders.

It was sloppy at best.

If it was there to simulate dissent why couldn't it be influenced with espionage? Again, it's sloppy when a theater can expand your borders "to simulate insurgency" but that "insurgency" couldn't be dealt with in any way by military units or espionage. Once you reached the modern era it was almost comical. In Civ 4 terms Woodstock should have flipped half of Quebec over to US control, Palestine would have succumbed to Jerusilum long ago and Egypt should certainly control all of North Africa by now. I could care less about the realism of it myself, but you actually brought it up to defend the mechanic. :lol:

The simple matter is that it was a single game mechanic that rendered others effectively useless. Military conquest was not the only way to gain cities, espionage was not the only way to see what your opponents were doing, research was not the only way to learn new technologies, trade routes were not the only source of gold income and yet... culture was the ONLY way to gain territory or to hold it against neighboring civs. Sloppy, very sloppy.

KrikkitTwo
Sep 09, 2010, 11:38 AM
Or they will laugh at the rebels and be happy to gain some more experience points (thats what I did with civ4 guerrillas out of razed cities)
Well the guerillas need to be actually effective...and possibly provide 0 XP. Essentially meaning your troops are tied down and you can't move forward.


What I always liked about culture in civ4:

I usually settle with some gaps between my cities where there is bad terrain and I sometimes build cities far in the distance just to get that early marble. The land grabbing from massive culture was good to deny my enemies building cities in close proximity of mine.

With new smaller Borders I fear that I will be placing my cities on strategic points early but a bit scattered and the other civs will then put small cities all between my cities and on the borders.

Well you can tell your enemies you don't want them founding cities near yours... of course they can say the same.

Elenhil
Sep 09, 2010, 12:04 PM
My issue with Civ 4 culture is that it trumped EVERYTHING ELSE. You could have twenty stacks each with a hundred tanks in them lining your borders and it would do nothing to prevent that Elvis concert from taking half your land.

Though I would not try to advocate instant culture bombing as realistic, I see absolutely nothing wrong with actual control slipping through your armoured fingers no matter how many tanks you have stationed there. Remember that hundreds of tank "units" did not help the Soviets to keep Eastern Europe. So, what would you expect from your ones (even if it's Modern Armor)?

You could be conquering cities only to lose the land to a neighboring civ that wasn't involved in the conflict and had absolutely no military presence in the area.

Oh, that is SO unlike real History!

If it was there to simulate dissent why couldn't it be influenced with espionage?

Incite Rebelllion and Spread Culture espionage missions may have been improperly tuned but no doubt aimed at that effect, weren't they?

Again, it's sloppy when a theater can expand your borders "to simulate insurgency" but that "insurgency" couldn't be dealt with in any way by military units or espionage.

I see nothing in the modern world that would make me think that even the strongest military (or intelligence) on Earth is capable of defeating insurgency.

The simple matter is that it was a single game mechanic that rendered others effectively useless. Military conquest was not the only way to gain cities, espionage was not the only way to see what your opponents were doing, research was not the only way to learn new technologies, trade routes were not the only source of gold income and yet... culture was the ONLY way to gain territory or to hold it against neighboring civs. Sloppy, very sloppy.
THAT might be a valid point gameplay-wise. However, merely trading culture-driven tile grabbing to money-driven one (with the exception of GA c-bombs) does not appear to be a viable solution.

SuperSmash5
Sep 09, 2010, 12:12 PM
Why are you guys using the last 200 years as the basis for how realistic culture flipping is? There's a lot of history before that.

Seven05
Sep 09, 2010, 01:04 PM
Better yet, why is anybody debating how 'realistic' the game mechanic is/was/will be in the first place?

It was not a good mechanic, it took away more than it added and for all of the arguments scattered around the forum about how Civ 5 is turning into a wargame people seem to have forgotten what the Civ 4 culture mechnic did to the game as a whole. If it is so bad that have to use a military unit to do something why is it not just as bad that you had to use culture? If the game is going to suffer because players fear they will be forced to wage war why was it ok to be forced to play the culture game?

I think the changes in Civ 5 will be good because they provide options that didn't exist in Civ 4 due entirely to the way culture worked. Rather than culture being the only way to influence borders you now have culture through the 'natural' tile expansion, conquest through capturing cities and their surrounding land, gold for purchasing unclaimed tiles and Great Artists via their 'culture bomb' (which I still dislike). Culture itself will still be valuable, but no longer the sole method. If you prioritize it you'll gain 'free' tiles quicker and you'll progress through social pollicies faster than you would without the same culture output. However, you can still progress without putting much emphasis on it- something that was virtually impossible in Civ 4.

At the very least, the people who dislike 'warmonger' strategies should be rejoicing over the change that will eliminate the forced mechanic of no war or total war in Civ 4. Since caputuring a city will also grant you the land owned by that city you no longer have to keep pushing onward to capture the next city, and then the next city, and so on and so forth until your opponent was completely eliminated. In Civ 4 if you stopped after capturing a single city that city was likely completely worthless as it would frequently be cut down to only a small handful of surrounding tiles (if that)- unless you had a great artist to throw in there of course.