Gamedesign logic: Culture

[Tomice]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

....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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

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!

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]

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 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]

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).