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.
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)?