Culture-Flipping Exposed

Originally posted by Cruiser
The Mongols, historically, held cities through physical intimidation NOT culture
Click to expand...

Actually, the Mongol Empire disintegrated within a few "turns," and the Khan's conquests were absorbed back into their original cultures. Indeed, I am sure the game makers were well aware of this fact, and designed the cultural aspects of the game accordingly.

Conquering the world is one thing, but holding it is another matter entirely.
 
Very good. Conquering is just physically overruling the other. Not that that is always easy, :)
Holding on to your conquest should not be assumed. I am American, and I know if someone conqueres us, we would fight back. I presume that is true for all or most countries. The culture flip adds that flavor to the game and is good.
I jsut conquered the world. -- not that I am the first gamer to do that:) -- and had over 100 cities in my empire. Cities from 7 different cultures. In RL, it would have to be difficult to meld this into a single empire. Without the culture flip, it would just be automatic.
Sure I lost a few back from time to time.Nothing wildly unpredictable, like losing one of my original 12 cities. I think it caused my government to collapse twice. In war, the captured cities were most likely to go into chaos.
They were not productive, so my orriginal 12 had to carry the weight of the empire. Actually, some became productive. Babylon was closer than some of my own cities.. and never produced more than one shield. Beijing was twice as far as babylon, and had not been caputured nearly as long, but at the end she was producing 73 shields, with a loss of 20 to corruption.
 
Originally posted by Zachriel


Actually, the Mongol Empire disintegrated within a few "turns," and the Khan's conquests were absorbed back into their original cultures. Indeed, I am sure the game makers were well aware of this fact, and designed the cultural aspects of the game accordingly.

Conquering the world is one thing, but holding it is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Mongols ruled China for more than a century, and the Mongol Khanate of the Golden Horde ruled Russia and beyond for several centuries.
 
Originally posted by Troyens


You have no idea what you're talking about. The Mongols ruled China for more than a century, and the Mongol Khanate of the Golden Horde ruled Russia and beyond for several centuries.
Click to expand...

Isn't that only a few turns in game time?
 
Yes but...timeframes in Civ III do not relate to real life, especially with regards to combat. It doesn't take two years to launch a single modern attack, or 200 years to build a unit of knights! (And another 30 years to get them to the front...)
 
Unless you destroy every last unit of a civ, including ships, you may find their cities flipping back to their former civ. This can happen even if you are by far the leading culture on the planet. I consider this a bug.
 
Destroying all their cities really shouldn't make a difference...for instance, all French cities were under German control (direct or indirect throught Vichy) during World War II, but there was still resistance...quite a bit, in fact.
 
Where's there hope there will be resistance. So the two main strategies are to destroy hope, or to give them a new hope, that is to win their hearts and minds.
 
RESURRECT RESURRECT RESURRECT

I`ll just get this one up front again since culture flipping is a hot item right now.

Thnax for reminding me of it, eyrei!!!
 
At least this one starts out with an informative post, rather than a whine.
 
From Dan's post, it seems garrisons don't directly affect flipping all that much. But I guess if you reload, the RNG may be affected.

Personally, I have never reloaded when a conquered city flipped (this does kind of make sense), and cities I have founded never flip.
 
I posted a thread about a freshly conquered city that flipped to a third part, despite lower culture and no citizens from that civ in the city ever. (I can guarantuee that since I was closeby and watching all time - tiny map). Rather strange. I reloaded that one and also here the removal of forces helped. I only tried removal because that usually is the only option left at end turn. So it must be the RNG.....

Just realzid: what made that city unhappy (even though it only had one "happy" citizen left) was poprushing by the (then almost late) defender..... I hate it that someone elses cruelty makes my conquests flip! Usually back to HIM/HER!!!!!
 
Great, informative thread! I am of the fairly common opinion that culture flipping adds a good challenge to the game, but losing a large military force is not reasonable in either pure gaming terms or in 'reality.' :sniper:

Suggestion: Has anyone played call to power? Ever had a slave revolt? I think that culture flipping should use a similar concept. It would probably have to be more complicated than I make it out to be, but something like this:

Have individual citizens create rebel military units that attack the occupying military units like a barbarian horde. In other words, partisans rise up from the ranks of the people. If the partisans/rebels defeat the local garrison, then the city 'flips'.

Rather than applying the flipping formula to an entire city, tweak it a bit and apply it to each citizen (pop count) in a city. Each citizen that 'flips' adds one to rebel force. If the rebellion is put down, then that particular citizen has % chance of dying (reducing city population) or is simply quelled for a number of turns (no chance of flipping for 5 turns).

You might have several rebellions over 20 turns, but never lose the city if you have stationed a large enough garrison in the city. Similarly, a size 12 city might easily see 3-5 musket men rise up from the populace to kill the 2 cavalry garrison (or you might just lose some of your units without losing control of the city). I think this would be both more realistic and more fun.

You might end up having to station a large garrison on the border with a friendly civ just to keep the citizens from rebelling and flipping...

You could end up with defeated civilizations coming back...

I could go on and on about how this might work, but I think you can get where I am coming from with this.

I really like Civ3, but I think the culture flip idea could be enhanced to improve the game. As for someone's question earlier in the thread about jobs... I manage large-scale (10-30 programmers: 6mos-3years), custom software development (system integration) projects (not games). And no, that doesn't make my any kind of an expert, but the implication somewhere along the way that gamers shouldn't question the almighty programmers was just silly.

:beer:
 
Originally posted by MightMakesRight
Have individual citizens create rebel military units that attack the occupying military units like a barbarian horde. In other words, partisans rise up from the ranks of the people. If the partisans/rebels defeat the local garrison, then the city 'flips'.
Click to expand...

Isn't that equivalent to a "flip," but without the intermediate steps? And what if the garrison decides to join the other side?

In the Feudal period, each town or county was a country unto itself. If the Lord decided to change sides, then the town and the garrison would "flip."

I did like the partisan model in Civ2. It accounts for resistors, but not for an out-and-out betrayal.
 
Well, frankly, my suggestion is really just focused on balancing out the loss of large armies without losing the tempering effect that flips have on military conquest. :cool:

That said, it would be much like the current flip, except that by making it per citizen, the damage done to the army and the chance of losing the city is proportional to the size of the city and the number of rebels. In other words, the larger and more rebellious a city, the greater the chance of losing it or at least taking casualities... as opposed to right now, a seemingly quiet city can potentially destroy an infinately large garrison instantly. :confused:

As for the garrison themselves flipping, I think that gets into another layer of complexity that I am not sure how best resolve. What I mean by this, is that there is only 1 military system in Civ 3. In 'real life' there have been many. Civ 3 is basically set up with a national military. The chances of national troops joining another country seem slim... local militias, troops loyal to a feudal lord or city-state are more likely to turn with a local leader. But the game isn't set up for that, nor does it have to be.

Real World pseudo example: WWII- Germans occupied various Europian nations, sometimes pulling recruits from the population. Also, you would see groups like the French Resistance rising up to oust (or attempt to) the aggressor. But to my knowledge, there were not many German regulars joining the resistance. (see also, Roman Empire).

At any rate, I'm not one that is stuck on making games exactly like the real world nor do I care to argue the semantics of history; I'm just looking for the best gaming experience. So I repeat, Civ 3 is great, I would simply recommend that something be done about troops garrisoned in cities evaporating when the city flips. And I have made a feeble attempt at a recommendation in my previous post.

:beer:
 
Lets get back to basics. Your mighty army has just conquered one or more cities. You stack some garizon there in order get rid of resistors and you plan to build some culture with the whip asap.

Before that it flips. During your turn. It gets one defender. Your mighty army is still around.

The €1,000,000 question is?

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO!

:ak47: :rocket:
 
I have just changed my mind about culture flipping (especially after just reading this thread today).

Last night, in one of my games, I had a city culture flip back to the AI (playing India) despite:

a) Occupying it for about 600 years
b) Building a temple and library in it straight away (which I now know probably didn't help me one jot)
c) Having at least 2 units in the city at any time
d) Not being a 'border' city (there were 3 more of my 'captured' cities between this city and the border of India
e) My total culture was almost twice that of the AI
f) The AI only had 2 cities left (I had approx. 40)
g) All the citizens were either happy or content
h) I had built up the population so it was predominantly my own citizens in the city
i) Having a courthouse in the city

So how on earth did this city flip back?

I have a couple of ideas why it happened, and why it happened so far down the line and not immediately:

1. The 'memory effect' of the previous AI culture kicked in. This wasn't enough to flip the city on its own at first until

2. I destroyed the AI capital city, at which point the AI moved its capital to a city closer to the city that flipped (thereby moving the calculation of distances from the flipped city to the respective capitals in the AI's favour).

I therefore think that the culture flipping should be tweaked (not abandoned completely) to:

a) give more credit to garrisoned troops
b) give more credit to the relative total culture of 2 civs
c) give more credit to the presence of cultural and corruption reducing buildings
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Palace and city view when using edited/modded maps.
Replies
1
Views
90
Arexander
Arexander
M
How to tell if AI cities are in civil disorder?
Replies
10
Views
397
tjs282
tjs282
M
Size 2 city being auto-razed after attacking
Replies
18
Views
642
justanick
J
M
Broken Granaries?
Replies
8
Views
535
Spoonwood
S
C
Why always American civs?
Replies
3
Views
750
Ceithernach
C
Top Bottom