Should Culture still determine borders?

hewhoknowsall · Dec 2, 2009

I mean, it doesn't seem to make that much sense. How come culture determines how much land you own? If that were the case, then Athens would've taken over all of Greece, and the when Nazi Germany defeated France, Britain's culture should've just overcome Germany controlled France's now-cultureless citys' territory.

Instead, what if culture were to be more of a passive bonus? Like having more culture causes tourists to visit your cities which provides income, foreign cities close to a high culture city may still be subject to flipping over, and units in a high culture city may get even more bonuses than before because they are inspired to fight for such a great city/get more patriotic.

Of course, this might not work well, just suggesting it.

weekend_warrior · Dec 3, 2009

Culture is a very powerful thing in real life. The problem with Civ is that seems to confuse culture with art and religion. If that makes sense.

Military and politics have as much to do with culture as theaters and monuments. A strong military should spread culture too. Or at least reinforce it, so for example I can plant some military units on a resource or city that's in danger of being overtaken by another civ's "culture."

rysmiel · Dec 3, 2009

Yes, it should. It does, in fact, need to be strengthened as an aggressive option, because military is still too strong.

w2w2w · Dec 4, 2009

I was thinking make it moer realistic. maybe like a scout unit but has a *claim land* function and get boundries that way. this would also make a scout more useful but would need to be worked on to avoid un balencing the game.

bob rulz · Dec 5, 2009

Culture should still determine borders but I would like to see a way to "claim" land as well. For example, I do not want to see my resource flip over because their nearby city has more land. I should be able to garrison units on a specific land tile to keep it from flipping. Obviously you shouldn't be able to go into enemy territory and "take" their land by garrisoning military units, but you should be able to do it to keep your land from flipping.

I think an interesting idea is that if there's a resource that's on the immediate tile nearby in a neighboring civ, you should be able to send military units there and "claim" that resource (it would be like an actual command, just putting units there wouldn't do anything). Claiming resources would likely (although not necessarily, it just depends on how much the AI values that specific resource) ignite a war with that civ but in some cases it might be worth the cost.

This would encourage more skirmishing over resources than there already is, and would also force you to defend your resources (which is what real civs do).

Terrance888 · Dec 5, 2009

There should be three boarders, as I have said before.

Culture borders are as now, but only influence pre-medieval borders and after war borders. They will also influence revolts and invasions.

National borders are drawn in treaties.

Military borders are how far away people are more respecing/scared of your military that if it walks in they surrender.

Camikaze · Dec 6, 2009

Culture makes sense, so long as it is not the sole determining factor. I think there should be a limited annexation system, whereby individual tiles can be taken away from their cultural owner, but if this is too easy, or too widespread, it would become severely overpowered, and would only result in an increased ease of victory for those with great militaries.

See this thread for (what I think is) a good discussion on the issue. I like my ideas for border wars, or varying degrees of wars, but perhaps I'm biased.

rysmiel · Dec 8, 2009

w2w2w said:
I was thinking make it moer realistic. maybe like a scout unit but has a *claim land* function and get boundries that way. this would also make a scout more useful but would need to be worked on to avoid un balencing the game.

I strongly disapprove of this, because allowing units to claim land just makes military more powerful; it's a step diametrically away from the direction Civ should be going in.

Camikaze · Dec 9, 2009

You do have a very good point rysmiel, but I don't think we should forgo things that make sense because a related aspect of the game is too prevalent. It would better to reduce the power of military in other ways, whilst still allowing for some form of military annexation, rather than not allowing military annexation (which makes sense) sheerly because the game is too militaristically-centric (?).

rysmiel · Dec 9, 2009

Camikaze said:
You do have a very good point rysmiel, but I don't think we should forgo things that make sense because a related aspect of the game is too prevalent.

It seems to me that if military is too strong, even good ideas that make military stronger should be rejected on grounds of balancing the game sas a whole - unless the other aspects are getting even greater strengthening.

It would better to reduce the power of military in other ways, whilst still allowing for some form of military annexation, rather than not allowing military annexation (which makes sense) sheerly because the game is too militaristically-centric (?).

I am inclined to reverse that notion, actually; if you station a military unit in someone else's space, the logic there for me is a cultural conversion of the unit, not the space being nabbed.

Trias · Dec 10, 2009

rysmiel said:
I am inclined to reverse that notion, actually; if you station a military unit in someone else's space, the logic there for me is a cultural conversion of the unit, not the space being nabbed.

The two are not really mutually exclusive (and in fact complementary). You can give units the ability to resist the cultural conversion of a tile (or even occupy an opponent's tile) with a certain strength. A single unit can only counter some much cultural pressure, and if the cultural pressure is more than the units on the tile can counter it would convert anyway.
As a flipside you could introduce a probability (between 0 and 1) of the units on that tile defecting when it is converted.

This allows for a much more interesting dynamic between culture/influence and military. Since there is a much more effective counter to cultural pressure, you can safely increase the effect of cultural pressure making it more effective/viable.

For example, by using cultural pressure you can pin down a large part of your opponent, effectively weakening his military. (Even more since you are also forcing him to spread out his forces along the border.)

If you want to increase to potency of culture in this context, you can also give a strength penalty to units that are currently fighting culture, make support costs dependent on the amount of cultural influence in the tile, etc.

rysmiel · Dec 10, 2009

Trias said:
The two are not really mutually exclusive (and in fact complementary). You can give units the ability to resist the cultural conversion of a tile (or even occupy an opponent's tile) with a certain strength. A single unit can only counter some much cultural pressure, and if the cultural pressure is more than the units on the tile can counter it would convert anyway.

I would think that strength should depend on the culture of the unit's home civ, though.

As a flipside you could introduce a probability (between 0 and 1) of the units on that tile defecting when it is converted.

Cumuilatively increasing over time a unit spends on foreign soil.

This allows for a much more interesting dynamic between culture/influence and military. Since there is a much more effective counter to cultural pressure, you can safely increase the effect of cultural pressure making it more effective/viable.

The thing is, i do not think cultural pressure needs a more effective counter, I think it is not anywhere near strong enough in any Civ so far.

For example, by using cultural pressure you can pin down a large part of your opponent, effectively weakening his military. (Even more since you are also forcing him to spread out his forces along the border.)

If you want to increase to potency of culture in this context, you can also give a strength penalty to units that are currently fighting culture, make support costs dependent on the amount of cultural influence in the tile, etc.

I like these notions, though.

Trias · Dec 10, 2009

rysmiel said:
I would think that strength should depend on the culture of the unit's home civ, though.

Not sure what you mean. (or how it relates to the quoted text.)

The thing is, i do not think cultural pressure needs a more effective counter, I think it is not anywhere near strong enough in any Civ so far.

The things is that currently there is very little you can do about cultural pressure (except invade), as a result the cuture mechanism should be slow to act, otherwise it would quickly become overpowered. If there is no effective counter cultural pressure is either going to be weak and meaningless or overpowerd there is very little middle ground. If there is an effective counter, there is a much bigger region (of game parameter space) in which the whole thing is balanced.

rysmiel · Dec 10, 2009

Trias said:
Not sure what you mean. (or how it relates to the quoted text.)

Sorry for the inclarity. I mean, I think a unit's strength to resist cultural conversion should depend largely on the culture of the unit's home civ.

The things is that currently there is very little you can do about cultural pressure (except invade), as a result the cuture mechanism should be slow to act, otherwise it would quickly become overpowered.

I far prefer the notion that, if one's borders are culturally threatened, one meaningfully resists it or even goes on the offensive with culture-generating buildings of one's own in whichever cities are nearby.

If there is no effective counter cultural pressure is either going to be weak and meaningless or overpowerd there is very little middle ground.

That seems to me like saying that military is either meaningless or overpowered depending on whether you build military units or not.

Camikaze · Dec 11, 2009

rysmiel said:
It seems to me that if military is too strong, even good ideas that make military stronger should be rejected on grounds of balancing the game sas a whole - unless the other aspects are getting even greater strengthening.

Fair enough, but that doesn't make this idea a bad one, or an idea that doesn't warrant inclusion. It's just that it's exclusion may be more warranted given other circumstances.

I am inclined to reverse that notion, actually; if you station a military unit in someone else's space, the logic there for me is a cultural conversion of the unit, not the space being nabbed.

Hmm. I've never thought about it that way. :think:

Nah. I think it makes sense the other way.

Trias · Dec 11, 2009

rysmiel said:
Sorry for the inclarity. I mean, I think a unit's strength to resist cultural conversion should depend largely on the culture of the unit's home civ.

I far prefer the notion that, if one's borders are culturally threatened, one meaningfully resists it or even goes on the offensive with culture-generating buildings of one's own in whichever cities are nearby.

Click to expand...

The things is that such counters take a relatively long time to put in place and take effect. This necessitates that culture in it entirety acts slow. (other wise an opponent has little or no chance to react and it thus becomes overpowered.) and thus is very static.

Adding a more dynamic/temporary way of countering cultural pressure, allows the effect of increased cultural pressure to be much more immediate, and be more of a factor in gameplay.

That seems to me like saying that military is either meaningless or overpowered depending on whether you build military units or not.

Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I hope my response above makes my point more clear to you. The current weakness of culture is made necessary by the fact that there is often little you can do about it when your opponent is pressuring you culturally, and the things you can do (like building cultural buildings) usually take a long time. As such if culture acts faster and more aggressively there is little anybody can do about it once you have a cultural lead and it becomes overpowered.

The current alternative is that culture acts so slowly that it is underpowered and has only a small role in the game. There simply is no "sweet spot" of the game parameters that allows culture to be effective as an aggressive option and still have an appropriate counter strategy.

Its like say that a "I win" button is overpowered (duh!) unless you make it impossible to use (in which case it is meaningless).

rysmiel · Dec 11, 2009

Trias said:
The things is that such counters take a relatively long time to put in place and take effect.

This could be balanced, though. Making certain culture-only buildings that have no other effect cheap enough to readily rush buy as needed, perhaps ?

The current weakness of culture is made necessary by the fact that there is often little you can do about it when your opponent is pressuring you culturally, and the things you can do (like building cultural buildings) usually take a long time. As such if culture acts faster and more aggressively there is little anybody can do about it once you have a cultural lead and it becomes overpowered.
The current alternative is that culture acts so slowly that it is underpowered and has only a small role in the game. There simply is no "sweet spot" of the game parameters that allows culture to be effective as an aggressive option and still have an appropriate counter strategy.

I just don't see this.

It's a question of balance, in exactly the same way that the choice between a large military of older units and a smaller military of more advanced units is in the current model a question of balance. You're talking about it as if it were a switch between two options rather than a continuum of possibilities in which things could be adjusted to find a point of balance.

Trias · Dec 13, 2009

rysmiel said:
This could be balanced, though. Making certain culture-only buildings that have no other effect cheap enough to readily rush buy as needed, perhaps ?

That has several problems. One being that rush-buy is not available for significant parts of the game. Moreover, if such cheap buildings exist a player on an aggressive culture strategy will have already built it as well by the time the "defending" player sees the effect of the culture push.

If the culture system is to be more dynamic we would some sort of other non-city based mechanism for influencing culture. Unit garrisons resisting the culture flip of a tile is one such mechanic.

It's a question of balance, in exactly the same way that the choice between a large military of older units and a smaller military of more advanced units is in the current model a question of balance. You're talking about it as if it were a switch between two options rather than a continuum of possibilities in which things could be adjusted to find a point of balance.

My point is that in the continuum of options, options either make culture over- or under-powered.

Naokaukodem · Dec 13, 2009

hewhoknowsall said:
I mean, it doesn't seem to make that much sense. How come culture determines how much land you own? If that were the case, then Athens would've taken over all of Greece, and the when Nazi Germany defeated France, Britain's culture should've just overcome Germany controlled France's now-cultureless citys' territory.

Instead, what if culture were to be more of a passive bonus? Like having more culture causes tourists to visit your cities which provides income, foreign cities close to a high culture city may still be subject to flipping over, and units in a high culture city may get even more bonuses than before because they are inspired to fight for such a great city/get more patriotic.

Of course, this might not work well, just suggesting it.

Culture could prevent a city being razed, just like it was the case with this Hitler officier who refused to raze Paris.

But it should not go farer. Culture should not give more territory than what have been settled. It should stay to the original Big Fat Cross. Unless the BFC to expand with culture, but it should not depend on culture, but on the capacity to rule a bigger land, like an administrative technology, or maybe the settlement of roads. (it could be fun to see the land owned to rise with roads, not in all directions but only in direction of the roads - there should be a limit to the territory acquirable by that mean though)

Anyway, culture should not allow to convert military troops, because it is not realistic, and as to gameplay, it would just forbid to invade the big culture asses, what would be unbalanced.

Argetnyx · Dec 13, 2009

I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my idea:

Yes, culture is important, in the early game. So it should be, but only for developing civs. Once a civ gets to a certain point, it can expand its borders in a purely military fashion; and, when more advanced diplomatic techs are researched, by treaty. For example, before WWI, especially in Europe, borders were determined by the nation with the strongest military. After WWI was won, every country was trying to get as much land as they possibly could before the borders were frozen for almost the rest of history. It was a purely diplomatic (but not necessarily peaceful) process.

Should Culture still determine borders?

Warlord

Warlord

Emperor

Warlord

Prince

Discord Reigns

Moderator

Emperor

Moderator

Emperor

Donkey with three behinds

Emperor

Donkey with three behinds

Emperor

Moderator

Donkey with three behinds

Emperor

Donkey with three behinds

Millenary King

Emperor

Similar threads