to nklatt: I agree that it could be seeds, accumulated randomness or some other fun... I just like this flipping and tried to use it as a part of my strategy, and it was fun for me to study the effect. But, actually, I am not Hercules, and now starting to wonder, how it would be possible to encourage the real creators of this CIV to reveal this mystery to public? I believe, that a sort of appendix to Civillopedia, where they show the math of basic events, like fighting, flipping cities etc. could be very helpful and appreciated by guys like us.
Attacking Cities with Culture
- Thread starter RAL2000
- Start date
Polonius
Warlord
That's a very good point about reloading and trying tests. The seed notion was apparently used to stop people just reloading and doing the same fight a few times until their guy won, but I'm sure it has an effect in all sorts of situations. In my example (a few posts above) I reloaded a few years back so the seed probably hadn't been sown yet.
In my case a city flipped (that hadn't before) after I'd actually removed culture points in the immediate area. I also had not moved troops nearby, so there either is some randomness, or another factor that I haven't spotted yet (highly possible!). It probably doesn't matter all that much - it's just an intriguing puzzle!
In my case a city flipped (that hadn't before) after I'd actually removed culture points in the immediate area. I also had not moved troops nearby, so there either is some randomness, or another factor that I haven't spotted yet (highly possible!). It probably doesn't matter all that much - it's just an intriguing puzzle!
It is a puzzle, that is what it is.
In hard facts, culture is measured in hard numbers, yet the chance of a city flipping depends on numerous things. It indeed includes diff. level, cultural value, proximity, gov. type etc. I did not find a predictical way for a city to flip however. Yet culture can be applied in other ways.
In a game I played on Regent level I found a Divine et Divide approach where the actual flips were fairly limited but Diplo was used to make sure AI civs were battling each other most of the time. Result, limited cultural development for AI civs since they spent their resources mostly on units. Then at a point where the English were not particularly popular I started a war. The English got no friends or allies so it was them or us!!! All but one English city conquered never went back to their roots and the one who did did have insufficient garrison from my side and was taken back easily and garrisoned sufficiently.
To conclude, culture does not seem to be the new killer, but more a key aspect that has to be applied with other strategies!
In hard facts, culture is measured in hard numbers, yet the chance of a city flipping depends on numerous things. It indeed includes diff. level, cultural value, proximity, gov. type etc. I did not find a predictical way for a city to flip however. Yet culture can be applied in other ways.
In a game I played on Regent level I found a Divine et Divide approach where the actual flips were fairly limited but Diplo was used to make sure AI civs were battling each other most of the time. Result, limited cultural development for AI civs since they spent their resources mostly on units. Then at a point where the English were not particularly popular I started a war. The English got no friends or allies so it was them or us!!! All but one English city conquered never went back to their roots and the one who did did have insufficient garrison from my side and was taken back easily and garrisoned sufficiently.
To conclude, culture does not seem to be the new killer, but more a key aspect that has to be applied with other strategies!
I just meant that, since you seemed to keep getting the same results every reload that maybe you weren't truly testing anything because the results are, because of the saved seed, expected. That stored seed can really screw up this kind of testing... I wonder if the stored seed could be put to use, though, for this very sort of testing.
I agree, it would be nice to have a paper on the number crunching behind all this! Not that I'd probably read it, though.
Polonius
Warlord
I just spent a few hours testing out city defection. Ill post some of the findings below. On the point of what controls whether they flip back again, I dont know the full story, but there is definitely a random element involved in how they behave after capture. If you use the game editor you can see a section under the Culture tab marked Resistance Chance. There are two sub-sections marked Initial and Continued.
The more powerful your culture, the better chance you have of establishing a successful rule over the new city. Changing the culture rating from In awe of downwards makes the chance of chance of the citizens resisting your rule (and rebelling) increase. You have the option to edit the chances down to 0%. The editor includes some explanations.
Capture tests results follow.
The more powerful your culture, the better chance you have of establishing a successful rule over the new city. Changing the culture rating from In awe of downwards makes the chance of chance of the citizens resisting your rule (and rebelling) increase. You have the option to edit the chances down to 0%. The editor includes some explanations.
Capture tests results follow.
Polonius
Warlord
For the tests, I focused on the French border city of Rennes, that had not defected to me until 1862 in my original game. I reloaded back to soon after 1200 and built a bunch of settlers and then arranged them immediately next to the city border (the city stuck out into my territory and was a modest 9 tile effort).
I put 5 hard up against Rennes border and two more a few tiles back. When they were in position I saved the game (Save A). I then had them all found their cities, and saved again (Save B). This was 1250 to 1255.
Using save B and re-running the game 7 or 8 times produced fairly consistent results a flip in around 100 years (20 turns, as opposed to the original 600 years and 150 or so turns). Re-running under the same conditions gave flips within a turn or two of the same time.
Varying the amount of culture also seemed to have an effect obviously the more overall culture points the faster the flip. However, I couldnt prove either way whether extra culture in the besieging cities helped much or whether building temples etc there helped by simply adding to the empires total culture. If I built no culture at all in the besieging cities, Rennes still flipped it just took a few turns longer.
However, if I reloaded using save A (pre actually settling the sites) the results came out differently. Not only were the flip times different (by up to 100 more years) but the cities that flipped also varied. On one occasion Brest flipped first (close but not surrounded by the besiegers) while Rennes shrank to one tile and stubbornly sat there. On my final attempt the first city to flip was Strasbourg (which had two more French cities between it and Rennes) in 1375. Followed by Toulouse (1390) the New Tours (1500) and Bayonne (1535). Brest didnt flip and neither did Rennes which did its one tile sulk act. Finally, Rennes flipped in 1740 (nearly 100 turns from when I started the test).
Does this prove anything other than Im a nut who just wasted a whole lot of playing time? Well, Id say that it probably shows that changing your other goals to try and manipulate the situation often isnt worth all the effort. I also believe that it shows that there is a strong likelihood that a partly random decision is made about the chance of a neighbouring city contributing to a flip and that the decision is made at the time the new city is founded. Later culture additions are then added to this calculation and the whole lot accumulated. Either way, its a heck of a lot for the game to keep track of given the huge number of cities and potential inter-relationships across a whole map.
Who know? One city in one game may not prove much. Ah well, back to the game!
:crazyeyes :crazyeyes :crazyeyes
I put 5 hard up against Rennes border and two more a few tiles back. When they were in position I saved the game (Save A). I then had them all found their cities, and saved again (Save B). This was 1250 to 1255.
Using save B and re-running the game 7 or 8 times produced fairly consistent results a flip in around 100 years (20 turns, as opposed to the original 600 years and 150 or so turns). Re-running under the same conditions gave flips within a turn or two of the same time.
Varying the amount of culture also seemed to have an effect obviously the more overall culture points the faster the flip. However, I couldnt prove either way whether extra culture in the besieging cities helped much or whether building temples etc there helped by simply adding to the empires total culture. If I built no culture at all in the besieging cities, Rennes still flipped it just took a few turns longer.
However, if I reloaded using save A (pre actually settling the sites) the results came out differently. Not only were the flip times different (by up to 100 more years) but the cities that flipped also varied. On one occasion Brest flipped first (close but not surrounded by the besiegers) while Rennes shrank to one tile and stubbornly sat there. On my final attempt the first city to flip was Strasbourg (which had two more French cities between it and Rennes) in 1375. Followed by Toulouse (1390) the New Tours (1500) and Bayonne (1535). Brest didnt flip and neither did Rennes which did its one tile sulk act. Finally, Rennes flipped in 1740 (nearly 100 turns from when I started the test).
Does this prove anything other than Im a nut who just wasted a whole lot of playing time? Well, Id say that it probably shows that changing your other goals to try and manipulate the situation often isnt worth all the effort. I also believe that it shows that there is a strong likelihood that a partly random decision is made about the chance of a neighbouring city contributing to a flip and that the decision is made at the time the new city is founded. Later culture additions are then added to this calculation and the whole lot accumulated. Either way, its a heck of a lot for the game to keep track of given the huge number of cities and potential inter-relationships across a whole map.
Who know? One city in one game may not prove much. Ah well, back to the game!
:crazyeyes :crazyeyes :crazyeyes
