An elegant solution to the culture flipping controversy...

Windwalker

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 2, 2002
Messages
76
I have read the various culture flipping threads around and it seems that people are quite vehement in their pro or anti stances on the issue. However, I have a proposal for improving the "culture flipping" feature that may work to satisfy both sides, and perhaps be possible to implement in Civ 3:

The Popularity Quantity (for both cities and whole civs)

Popularity would be helped by the total culture of a civ (or city), the ratio of happy citizens to unhappy citizens in the empire (or city), the number of great wonders built by the civ (a city's popularity # would gain a special bonus if it produced the great wonder itself), and the size and quality of the military (people want to be on the strongest team!)

Popularity would be hurt (permanently) by the number of times a pop-rush sacrifice has been made by the civ (or city), the number of citizens drafted by a civ (or city), and the number of citizens in a city of foreign origin (only count the nationality that has the highest representation... note that this factor can decrease as citizens are assimilated). Also, if the govt were republic or democracy, the popularity would be hurt by the number of times the civ has declared war (when it was not declared on them).

The Popularity of a civ would be a weighted average of the popularity in all of the cities (weighted according to population, so that the popularity of a size 10 city would count twice as much as the popularity of a size 5 city).

Popularity flipping would basically be culture flipping, with the same rules (distance to capital, # of garrisoned troops can help prevent it, # of tiles in city radius, etc.), except using popularity quantity, which should make more sense, IMO. The base chance of popularity flipping is zero, so that a city can popularity flip only if a neighboring civ has greater popularity than its civ, and if the city's own popularity is lower than the opposing civ's. Therefore, your core cities will almost never flip, because you've probably built up so much popularity with wonders that no whole civ's popularity can match the popularity in those types of super cities. Also, extensive use of the whip or draft would make popularity flipping more likely, which definitely makes sense, no? Culture would still be a factor, as would distance, garrisons, etc.

OK that was the basic change I had in mind. However, here's an optional corrolary that would make sense (but be harder to implement): If the popularity of a given city or of the whole civ ever goes below zero, then that city has a chance of just revolting (regardless of other civs), and becoming its own city-state (mini-civ), due to the extreme oppression of the mother civ. From then on, the mini-civ would act like any other civ; the mini-civ could actually conquer other cities and become a big civ, if it wanted to. It would be given the same civ-traits as the mother civ, but with a blank (or generic) AI picture. Of course, the mother civ could always reassimilate it or recapture it, as history has taught us...

In any case, I think the popularity model makes more sense than the current culture model, though it would complicate things a bit. The city-rebellion --> independence movement would be really cool, and it could simulate the founding of America (breakaway from English mother civ); however this is probably an idea for civ 4. Just felt like tossing it out there with the main popularity idea :)

What do y'all think?
- Windwalker
 
i think how it is now is fine, its just id like to see it when you ahve the same number of troops as population the city wont flip, not some wierd formula we'll never know. And also i dont see why declaring war would be a problem for democracies or republics. Now is it just me or isn't that what the americans did in afghanistan a war that was completly backed by the people. But its true afghans did attack or rather support attacks on America. ugh what ever i forget what i was talking about :crazyeyes
 
Originally posted by Furry Spatula
i think how it is now is fine, its just id like to see it when you ahve the same number of troops as population the city wont flip, not some wierd formula we'll never know. And also i dont see why declaring war would be a problem for democracies or republics. Now is it just me or isn't that what the americans did in afghanistan a war that was completly backed by the people. But its true afghans did attack or rather support attacks on America. ugh what ever i forget what i was talking about :crazyeyes

Right now the culture flipping is already based on some weird formula we'll never know (i.e. distance to capital, # of total culture, # total culture accrued in city, # garrisoned, WLTKD, etc.). I think that a more comprehensive system that would take into account a player's direct action (such as pop-rushing and drafting) makes more sense, and since the system is already complicated, it's not like it would ruin players' calculations of their % chance of flipping (since who actually can calculate it?).

BTW, I do believe that America was declared war UPON, and America did not declare war itself, which would mean no popularity loss under my proposed system. However, America did essentially (if not officially) declare war in Vietnam, which caused GREAT popularity loss over here... The war weariness is a good model for it, but the popularity would affect the opinions of everyone (including other nations' citizens) when it comes time for popularity flipping...

- Windwalker
 
This is an EXCELLENT idea Windwalker (I wish I had thought of it!).

I especially like the idea of empires breaking up into independent countries because (I know, I know, I've said this before!) the one thing about civ3 at the moment that is totally 'unrealistic' is the fact that the world today consists of many small counties, NOT a few vast empires.

Your idea is of popularity is logical, realistic and....yes....'elegant'. I LIKE it. And it makes much more sense to have cities and regions changing control because of popularity than to the vague notion of 'culture'. I for one would very much like to have this in the game.
 
The current system would be fine if we all understood how it worked a little bit more.

Our understanding could be helped by including a 'culture flip' bar in the city screen. The more vulnerable a city is to being flipped, the more of the bar is filled in. That way, people can see whether piling in loads of troops is actually significantly reducing the probability, or just a lost cause.
 
Fantastic idea, i wholeheartedly endorse it. Other things i would like to see is that culture flipping should not be able to occur if you have ever declared war on that nation, it's people see you as the evil empire who seeks to subjugate rather than co-exist with others. An empire whos people are more inclined to war/ peace/religious leadership etc.. should have penalties and bonuses applied when resisting another culture.

I do love the city-state idea.
 
Originally posted by Brodieman
Fantastic idea, i wholeheartedly endorse it. Other things i would like to see is that culture flipping should not be able to occur if you have ever declared war on that nation, it's people see you as the evil empire who seeks to subjugate rather than co-exist with others. An empire whos people are more inclined to war/ peace/religious leadership etc.. should have penalties and bonuses applied when resisting another culture.

I do love the city-state idea.

Good idea! Perhaps the factor of whether a civ has declared war on a given civ would affect the given civ's cities' chances to be assimilated by the first civ.

- Windwalker
 
There should NEVER be flipping on the improved tiles of a city that itself is not flipping.

Garrisons must play a major role in preventing flipping.

As for capitals, the proximity of an enemy capital is overrated. Example: a civ I had just creamed in a war, with two small cities, compared to my 17, had a city flip simply becasue it was filled with nationals of that country and their capital was only five tiles away! That despite my massive superiority in everything - and the obvious fact that I could easily destroy them.

POINT: the overall scores of the entire civ must vastly overwhelm the nearness of a capital in considering the possibility of a flip, assuming we still want flips.

Additionally, the length of time one city has been part of a civ (all the same nationality) has to be considered. I once saw Actium (a 12) flip to me (Iroquois) despite the fact it had been Roman for 5,000 years - not realistic.
 
I don't think unhappy people count in the equation or city size but they should. In my current game most of the enemy cities have like just under half people unhappy. While all of mine are either happy or specialists (content). That should affect flipping somehow.
 
the only cities i've ever lost to a flip are those i take over, and i usualy only leave one troop or not even one in a city i take over, i station them outside. I know how to combat flipping so its no biggy for me, maybe thats why i think its fine. It's all a matter of building libraries, temples, cathedrals, universities, and if you dont have anything better to build colleseums. I usualy take 3 cities a game from culture. and i usualy win culturaly, this is because i wage war, then kick the crap out of my enemy, to prevent flippage i stick temples and such in the newly conquered cities, thus i end up with mega culture, and i turn off the culture victory.
 
ANY solution is better than this crock we get in Civ III:

I just finsihed off the Babs, leaving them only a '3' town on an island they previously took from the French. I had 20 cities and towns.

So what happens? Within six turns, despite garrisons, two large towns flip, that despite the fact I have large forces ready to raze them. And I do raze them.

Worse, almost immediately the French appear with a horde of settlers and workers, even though they had no way of knowing of the flip - and no reason to instantly exchange maps with the one island Babs.

I tried to rush settlers there, but nope. Next thing I knew two French towns had appeared cutting roads, flipping on my improvements, and being a pain. I was too far behind in Science to go to war then.

Culture Flipping is a total crock and any solution would be better.
 
Originally posted by Zouave
ANY solution is better than this crock we get in Civ III:

I just finsihed off the Babs, leaving them only a '3' town on an island they previously took from the French. I had 20 cities and towns.

So what happens? Within six turns, despite garrisons, two large towns flip, that despite the fact I have large forces ready to raze them. And I do raze them.

Worse, almost immediately the French appear with a horde of settlers and workers, even though they had no way of knowing of the flip - and no reason to instantly exchange maps with the one island Babs.

I tried to rush settlers there, but nope. Next thing I knew two French towns had appeared cutting roads, flipping on my improvements, and being a pain. I was too far behind in Science to go to war then.

Culture Flipping is a total crock and any solution would be better.

Seems to me you should have had settlers ready. Sometimes, we can learn from the AI. And what happened to being constructive. This seems like a pretty worn out rant.
 
Culture flipping is the mutt's nuts, I disagree with you Zouave and all you others out there who slander it's good name.
The popularity idea is excellent and perhaps is just a more in depth version of the current culture-flipping rules (who knows what they are...?)
Anyway, I don't agree with the idea that a city could not culture flip if you have ever been at war with it. So because Macedon and Persia fought over 2000 years ago means that the current inhabitants of Macedonia and Iran/Iraq still hold grudges?! This is perhaps a bad example but you can see what I'm getting at.
And as for garrisons not preventing the flip, well that seems fine to me. If the inhabitants of the city are so annoyed with you and impressed by their neighbour to switch allegiance, then why not the troops. They probably have family in the city and don't want to be seperated from them, or are just as easily attracted by the bright lights of neighbouring Zululand as Joe Average is. So you have 12 units there to ensure the loyalty of the citizens - surely you can see this would make the situation worse. The troops forced into subjugating their own people when they could very easily agree to join another nation and live happily ever after with plenty of luxuries. I find that ensuring the citizens are happy to the point of reducing productivity works far better (never a perfect solution though).If you have read the Aesop's Fable about the Sun and the Wind then you will understand.
Anyway, this subject id way past it's 'consume by date' - I just wanted to have the last word.
 
I like your idea.:)

I do take slight exception to one of your earlier statements, though:
Originally posted by Windwalker
Right now the culture flipping is already based on some weird formula we'll never know (i.e. distance to capital, # of total culture, # total culture accrued in city, # garrisoned, WLTKD, etc.).
In response, I point you to Dan Magaha's thread a little below this one.

You're right, exact numbers for the formula are never given, and it was the pre-1.17f patch formula, but never say never!:D Dan at least tried to give us what information he could (and opened the floodgates for criticism:rolleyes: ). It did possibly have the effect of people pointing out that garrisoned troops should have a stronger influence.

In anycase, like I said at the top, I like your idea. Maybe in the next patch?:enlighten
 
Originally posted by Furry Spatula
i think how it is now is fine, its just id like to see it when you ahve the same number of troops as population the city wont flip, not some wierd formula we'll never know. QUOTE]

At 'Poly, Soren mentioned that if you were to use 2 troops per population, then you'd probably be able to avoid a flip.
 
Originally posted by Padma
I like your idea.:)

I do take slight exception to one of your earlier statements, though:

In response, I point you to Dan Magaha's thread a little below this one.

You're right, exact numbers for the formula are never given, and it was the pre-1.17f patch formula, but never say never!:D Dan at least tried to give us what information he could (and opened the floodgates for criticism:rolleyes: ). It did possibly have the effect of people pointing out that garrisoned troops should have a stronger influence.

In anycase, like I said at the top, I like your idea. Maybe in the next patch?:enlighten

Hehe, if this concept makes into the next patch, I may just eat my hat... :crazyeyes:

I see what you're saying about how they did elucidate the rules behind culture flipping. My point was just that most people would not actually calculate the % chance of flipping themselves for a given city, so adding further complications would not change that. The complications (i.e. the popularity idea) could be spelled out in the same general terms that they've used before. It wouldn't really be that much harder to remember, as most of the popularity idea is fairly intuitive. Glad to hear you like it, though!

- Windwalker
 
Of interest i think is that Garrisons should improve the chances of a city not culture flipping, but it should also be balanced so that your cities just aren't stocked with archaic warriors and archers until the year 2050. The Garrison should be up to date (within your civilisations other troops/units) and never have been used in the role of military police. Obviously your people will be impressed with a nearby civ's improvements and units, ergo border cities should have to protect themselves from cultural incursion more, so even if a cultures cultural rating may be low, a city should technically be able to resist, if it maintains itself fairly well.

I guess this sytem is in effect in Civ3 to a degree, but i would like to see it expanded as the peaceful/cultural victory is far harder (and more rewarding) than the military victory.
 
Top Bottom