Gamedesign logic: Culture

[Tomice]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No claiming enemy tiles? So no more culture wars, just whoever gets there first gets the area? That's ridiculous.

 

[Louis XXIV]

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]

You can't buy or culturally take tiles automatically any more. The culture bomb is now the only way to do so.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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

 

[Seven05]

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]

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

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]

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.