Gamedesign logic: Culture

[guinsoo]

I actually think culture wars for squares is interesting and accurate. You can occupy a city with force, but you cannot control the whole region unless you assimilate them culturally. That behavior seems to match real life.

Please don't take this to mean that I think that how Civilization does it is the best way. I do think that some mix of cultural and military methods of controlling territory should both be applicable (ideally in a roughly equivalent manner).

And of course almost every system is going to end up failing in some degree of realism. But I think that within the scope of other design decisions made, this seems to follow logically. I don't see a huge problem with it.

 

[Polobo]

I actually think culture wars for squares is interesting and accurate. You can occupy a city with force, but you cannot control the whole region unless you assimilate them culturally. That behavior seems to match real life.

Except you describe control in terms of productivity as opposed to "these are our lands/borders". Without a finer degree of classification of "owned/controlled" any system is going to end up failing in some degree of realism. This system simply says that the first city to claim a tile owns that tile and ignores any ability for the city to relinquish (or be stripped of) that claim. An owned tile can be worked to full productivity at any time; and it also provides full military benefits at all times as well.

While some games do introduce the concept of "revolt risk" I would not say it makes the game more fun even if it is more realistic; manually playing whack-a-mole is an un-fun way to constrain military expansion.

 

[Elenhil]

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 is IMO quite logical that you could not use solely military power to conquer territories in CIV. You can rob, pillage and burn, but you can not exploit natural resources by military units. You need influence (=culture) which is essentially non-military (and city-centered).

The notion that military power alone can bring control of resources (territory) is proven time and time again to be wrong. Latest Middle Eastern history is but the latest example. It is influence that counts, and it is not military in its essence. You won't get oil by fortifying a, say, Navy SEAL unit on top of an oil well. You might get it by projecting cultural notions like representation, capitalism, etc. It is just the side effect of modernity that America's influence is projected through other buildings besides theatres and temples.

However, Alexander the Great's example comes to mind when it comes to temples and theatres. He tried to control the lands he conquered by building these very seats of Greek culture.

As an intermediate example, take Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe. Once again, in eerily CIV-like terms, having retaken the cities constituting what would become their satellites (by military strength, no doubt), they kept them relatively "happy" through garrisoning them with military units (enabled by a certain novel type of Hereditary Politburo Rule) while constantly pumping out all sorts of cultural buildings producing propaganda-culture. And the loss of Soviet influence over Eastern Europe which anniversary we had a happy opportunity of observing last year came about not through military strength but through what may best be described as culture. Which had been building up until certain cities flipped (and yes, not without the help or some culture-planting and revolt-inciting Espionage missions).

Which, by the way, might have been a perfect non-military and non-city-centered way of flipping tiles, had Espionage made it into CV.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

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...

For what its worth, I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns-even though I didn't have quite the difficulty you seemed to have. As I said above, though, modders were able to to create what I think was called a Culture Conquest Mod, where you could spread your culture to a tile by militarily defeating the unit on the tile. In a 1upt system, such a rule could work well as an non-diplomatic source of spreading culture-& I think is much better than the Culture Bomb!

Aussie.

 

[Elenhil]

For what its worth, I'm not unsympathetic to your concerns-even though I didn't have quite the difficulty you seemed to have. As I said above, though, modders were able to to create what I think was called a Culture Conquest Mod, where you could spread your culture to a tile by militarily defeating the unit on the tile. In a 1upt system, such a rule could work well as an non-diplomatic source of spreading culture-& I think is much better than the Culture Bomb!

Aussie.

Ahem. How realistic do you think is that? Farewell, insurgency, lots of troops make any Middle Eastern country western?

I can't think why should so many players think that units must capture tiles. Tiles are not just uninhabited land. They clearly represent the coutnryside (well, not quite the idyllic English one, but still - real country with people) in which the people of the country are free to decide which nation they sympathize (=identify) with most. They can't be "flipped" by military units, neither can cities. It takes economic - and yes, cultural influence, too, to pull them over. It is just a minor shortcoming of gameplay mechanics that revolts, insurgency and assimilation are dealt with within cities only. Hardly possible to be dealt with on a general per-tile basis.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, the idea of troops causing tiles to flip isn't quite realistic. I would argue that they should allow a neighboring city to work tiles that your troops are on just across the border if you have units on them, but, once the units leave, the tiles go back to their cultural owner. That would probably be the most realistic.

But it's a minor detail. It doesn't really matter much in big picture gameplay.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually I'd like to see 2 'levels of control'

1. Military control... either a unit present or military control of the city. Allows production

2. sociocultural control... if this is in conflict with military control it 'forces it back' ie if an empire militarily controls a city that they don't 'culturally control' then Rebel units will be generated... one's that are serious threats.
Military units on tiles they don't cuturally control would require massive maintenance or they would take damage... or they would fight at a disadvantage.

 

[Elenhil]

Actually I'd like to see 2 'levels of control'

1. Military control... either a unit present or military control of the city. Allows production

2. sociocultural control... if this is in conflict with military control it 'forces it back' ie if an empire militarily controls a city that they don't 'culturally control' then Rebel units will be generated... one's that are serious threats.
Military units on tiles they don't cuturally control would require massive maintenance or they would take damage... or they would fight at a disadvantage.

It is almost exactly as it is in CIV. You have to garrison a captured city to bring down rebellion. Unfortunately it is strictly economical by nature (unhappiness, zero production), however, I seem to recall a guerilla or rebel random event which might be tweaked a bit to produce a regular mild military uprising mechanic. And military units in foreign lands do incur higher maintenance costs.

Unfortunately, there is little of that glimpsed from CV previews so far.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It is almost exactly as it is in CIV. You have to garrison a captured city to bring down rebellion. Unfortunately it is strictly economical by nature (unhappiness, zero production), however, I seem to recall a guerilla or rebel random event which might be tweaked a bit to produce a regular mild military uprising mechanic. And military units in foreign lands do incur higher maintenance costs.

Unfortunately, there is little of that glimpsed from CV previews so far.

The 'economic rebellion' is one serious problem that all the civ series have had. An actual 'military rebellion' is needed, especially for the late game.

And here the "foreign" means "not under Military control", rather than "not under cultural control"

 

[Cyberian]

Military units on tiles they don't cuturally control would require massive maintenance or they would take damage... or they would fight at a disadvantage.

Or they will laugh at the rebels and be happy to gain some more experience points (thats what I did with civ4 guerrillas out of razed cities)


What I always liked about culture in civ4:

I usually settle with some gaps between my cities where there is bad terrain and I sometimes build cities far in the distance just to get that early marble. The land grabbing from massive culture was good to deny my enemies building cities in close proximity of mine.

With new smaller Borders I fear that I will be placing my cities on strategic points early but a bit scattered and the other civs will then put small cities all between my cities and on the borders.

 

[Seven05]

It is IMO quite logical that you could not use solely military power to conquer territories in CIV. You can rob, pillage and burn, but you can not exploit natural resources by military units. You need influence (=culture) which is essentially non-military (and city-centered).

You missed my point... almost completely

My issue with Civ 4 culture is that it trumped EVERYTHING ELSE. You could have twenty stacks each with a hundred tanks in them lining your borders and it would do nothing to prevent that Elvis concert from taking half your land. You could be conquering cities only to lose the land to a neighboring civ that wasn't involved in the conflict and had absolutely no military presence in the area. Thus, military conquest was devolved into attacking and defending cities as they could do NOTHING to secure your borders.

It was sloppy at best.

If it was there to simulate dissent why couldn't it be influenced with espionage? Again, it's sloppy when a theater can expand your borders "to simulate insurgency" but that "insurgency" couldn't be dealt with in any way by military units or espionage. Once you reached the modern era it was almost comical. In Civ 4 terms Woodstock should have flipped half of Quebec over to US control, Palestine would have succumbed to Jerusilum long ago and Egypt should certainly control all of North Africa by now. I could care less about the realism of it myself, but you actually brought it up to defend the mechanic.

The simple matter is that it was a single game mechanic that rendered others effectively useless. Military conquest was not the only way to gain cities, espionage was not the only way to see what your opponents were doing, research was not the only way to learn new technologies, trade routes were not the only source of gold income and yet... culture was the ONLY way to gain territory or to hold it against neighboring civs. Sloppy, very sloppy.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Or they will laugh at the rebels and be happy to gain some more experience points (thats what I did with civ4 guerrillas out of razed cities)

Well the guerillas need to be actually effective...and possibly provide 0 XP. Essentially meaning your troops are tied down and you can't move forward.

What I always liked about culture in civ4:

I usually settle with some gaps between my cities where there is bad terrain and I sometimes build cities far in the distance just to get that early marble. The land grabbing from massive culture was good to deny my enemies building cities in close proximity of mine.

With new smaller Borders I fear that I will be placing my cities on strategic points early but a bit scattered and the other civs will then put small cities all between my cities and on the borders.

Well you can tell your enemies you don't want them founding cities near yours... of course they can say the same.

 

[Elenhil]

My issue with Civ 4 culture is that it trumped EVERYTHING ELSE. You could have twenty stacks each with a hundred tanks in them lining your borders and it would do nothing to prevent that Elvis concert from taking half your land.

Though I would not try to advocate instant culture bombing as realistic, I see absolutely nothing wrong with actual control slipping through your armoured fingers no matter how many tanks you have stationed there. Remember that hundreds of tank "units" did not help the Soviets to keep Eastern Europe. So, what would you expect from your ones (even if it's Modern Armor)?

You could be conquering cities only to lose the land to a neighboring civ that wasn't involved in the conflict and had absolutely no military presence in the area.

Oh, that is SO unlike real History!

If it was there to simulate dissent why couldn't it be influenced with espionage?

Incite Rebelllion and Spread Culture espionage missions may have been improperly tuned but no doubt aimed at that effect, weren't they?

Again, it's sloppy when a theater can expand your borders "to simulate insurgency" but that "insurgency" couldn't be dealt with in any way by military units or espionage.

I see nothing in the modern world that would make me think that even the strongest military (or intelligence) on Earth is capable of defeating insurgency.

The simple matter is that it was a single game mechanic that rendered others effectively useless. Military conquest was not the only way to gain cities, espionage was not the only way to see what your opponents were doing, research was not the only way to learn new technologies, trade routes were not the only source of gold income and yet... culture was the ONLY way to gain territory or to hold it against neighboring civs. Sloppy, very sloppy.

THAT might be a valid point gameplay-wise. However, merely trading culture-driven tile grabbing to money-driven one (with the exception of GA c-bombs) does not appear to be a viable solution.

 

[SuperSmash5]

Why are you guys using the last 200 years as the basis for how realistic culture flipping is? There's a lot of history before that.

 

[Seven05]

Better yet, why is anybody debating how 'realistic' the game mechanic is/was/will be in the first place?

It was not a good mechanic, it took away more than it added and for all of the arguments scattered around the forum about how Civ 5 is turning into a wargame people seem to have forgotten what the Civ 4 culture mechnic did to the game as a whole. If it is so bad that have to use a military unit to do something why is it not just as bad that you had to use culture? If the game is going to suffer because players fear they will be forced to wage war why was it ok to be forced to play the culture game?

I think the changes in Civ 5 will be good because they provide options that didn't exist in Civ 4 due entirely to the way culture worked. Rather than culture being the only way to influence borders you now have culture through the 'natural' tile expansion, conquest through capturing cities and their surrounding land, gold for purchasing unclaimed tiles and Great Artists via their 'culture bomb' (which I still dislike). Culture itself will still be valuable, but no longer the sole method. If you prioritize it you'll gain 'free' tiles quicker and you'll progress through social pollicies faster than you would without the same culture output. However, you can still progress without putting much emphasis on it- something that was virtually impossible in Civ 4.

At the very least, the people who dislike 'warmonger' strategies should be rejoicing over the change that will eliminate the forced mechanic of no war or total war in Civ 4. Since caputuring a city will also grant you the land owned by that city you no longer have to keep pushing onward to capture the next city, and then the next city, and so on and so forth until your opponent was completely eliminated. In Civ 4 if you stopped after capturing a single city that city was likely completely worthless as it would frequently be cut down to only a small handful of surrounding tiles (if that)- unless you had a great artist to throw in there of course.