Civilization culture border concept is broken

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I have seen Great Artists in action and-if anything-they seem a little OVERPOWERED to me. Don't know why they aren't working for you, Yoshi, but they are actually a good way of securing the borders of a newly captured city and/or surrounding 'enemy' cities near your borders with your own culture-thus pushing the city into a potential 'culture flip' or AI surrender of said city. Maybe there is something wrong with your paritcular copy of the game, Yoshi? Just a thought.
Oh, on the Earth 1000 AD game, I recently captured the city of Jerusalem-a city surrounded by both Byzantium and Arabia, yet I have a decent sized cultural border around the city (though not the 'fat cross' border yet!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aeson]

What if France and Germany have been bitter enemies throughout the game, and France was in great relations with myself before I took their land. I think they would prefer me to Germany.

You are ignoring the fact that those tiles are not simply French. If they were, the tiles would be claimable by you very easily. They are "disputed" tiles with both French and German influence.

The French population will hate you (backstabber) and the Germans. The German population will like Germany much more than you or the French. You on the other hand only have your military might to force the region into your hands. No loyalty in the population until you earn it. As it should be.

 

[Dida]

Not neutral. Loyal to those that have built up loyalty there. Sure, if they can stay with French control, they will. If France has an "administrative" influence (ie. a city) within the area the tiles will remain French. But if you remove the French "administrative" influence on the tiles by conquering all French cities within range, then it reverts to the second most influencial "administration". In this case, it's the Germans, as their cultural influence on those tiles is much stronger than yours. You can still claim them, but it will either take effort culturally, or militarily.

That's far more realistic than if they were to simply go to work for you now, ignoring their German heritage and the fact that you have little or no support in the region.



You are trying to claim tiles that not only are French, but somewhat German too. They are certainly more German than they are "you". It's disputed territory among the countries involved, and a third party, taking out one side, isn't getting rid of the claim of the other side so easily. Fight them both (or all) for it, militarily or culturally. It's not just going to be handed over to you, nor should it. That would be unrealistic.

No, the lines aren't realistic. Using a tile system they just can't be, as disputed territory is very rarely box shaped. But the abstract of what is being represented actually is realistic.



Well, perhaps you can't stop it. I can. So your statement "You cannot" is wrong. "I cannot" would have been correct. Your being inept doesn't make me wrong.

What I was saying though, which you have misunderstood, is that you have military recourse to do what you say should be possible to do, militarily claim the land for yourself. You say you've militarily claimed the land? Then go enforce that claim. Go remove the German influence militarily. They are claiming that land, and have a stronger "peaceful" claim to it than you.

Otherwise, if you want to peacefully claim the land, you need to have a stronger "peaceful" claim to it than they do.

I will refuse to post any more reply to your posts, because you obvious do not have an idea what you are talking about.

 

[bogh]

Part of the attraction of Civ is the historical flavour. A game can be fine without historical emphasis - chess is great and very abstract. Civ is not such a game. Concepts are abstracted out of necessity, but clearly historicism is enjoyable. Outright nonsense detracts immensely from the overall experience.

I find the cultural borders system inadequate because it conflates three different types of control into one:

1. Formal control. Claiming an area as part of your home country legally, whether or not you actually can control it.

2. Bureaucratic control. Areas where taxes are levyed, laws are enforced and the ruler is recognized as such.

3. Cultural make up. What ethnic groups, languages and customs dominate in the area.

Numerous examples of these not coexisting can be pointed out: Basque country is formally and bureaucratically under Spanish control, but no culturally integrated. Many areas in African states are not under the bureaucratic nor cultural control of the government, despite being formally recognized as such. And the Vojvodina is culturally Hungarian, but under the bureaucratic and formal control of Serbia.

Military conquest will result in formal control and, given a sizable military presence also bureaucratic control. During WW2 Germany had bureaucratic and formal control of Denmark, but mostly formal control of Yugoslavia.

The cultural and military-political borders do not match in modern states. Before the concept of nation states this there was a much stronger disjunction between these (Habsburg Netherlands for instance). Civ4 makes the nation state the model of statehood, when in fact it is not so today, nor has it ever been. Basically, cultural make up is made the sole determinant territorial possession, which is completely absurd. The only place where bureaucratic/formal control is recognized is in cities. Cities can be conquered, territory cannot. This is both historically meaningless, but also gameplay really bad. The system seems very illogical.

So for the people defending that "the population just refuses to play along with your conquest", here is a question: Why do you think cities should be conquerable? Why can I institute formal control over a this single square, simply because there is a city there? If cultural borders are an abstraction of the rising and wanning influence of an empire, should these not be the sole determinant of territorial expansion? It would become a game of cultural competition, as military conquests would be abstracted into cityflipping, but it would at least be internally coherent.

I for one, would much prefer a combinatory system: The city of Judea and the surrounding lands are formally in the hands of Russia, despite being ethnically overwhelmingly Incan. This causes significant unrest, which could become bad enough for bureaucratic control to be lost and ultimately rebellion and joining with the motherland. Alternatively civics and policies could be instituted to appease the minority population. This would also allow the Incans to demand the areas from the Russians.

Trading territory was done extensively throughout history and the borders should be politically defined, not culturally. These almost never matched in real life and this in fact sparked much of what we would label "history". In Civ this is not so.

Ruins my immersion and gameplay experience.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well done Dida, when you are losing an argument, just sulk and say 'you don't know what you are talking about!' Sheesh, if that is the best you can do, then maybe you shouldn't contribute any more to this debate-PERIOD!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Dida]

So for the people defending that "the population just refuses to play along with your conquest", here is a question: Why do you think cities should be conquerable? Why can I institute formal control over a this single square, simply because there is a city there?

I for one, would much prefer a combinatory system: The city of Judea and the surrounding lands are formally in the hands of Russia, despite being ethnically overwhelmingly Incan. This causes significant unrest, which could become bad enough for bureaucratic control to be lost and ultimately rebellion and joining with the motherland. Alternatively civics and policies could be instituted to appease the minority population. This would also allow the Incans to demand the areas from the Russians.

I agree with your points. I would like to ask: if the reason we don't get to control the suburbs is because there are hostile populations, why can't we station some military units there to surpress them? If the city can be captured, why not the suburbs?

If I capture a French city, would the French resistance be better simulated by constant rioting population than a population that flips to Germany?

 

[Dida]

Well done Dida, when you are losing an argument, just sulk and say 'you don't know what you are talking about!' Sheesh, if that is the best you can do, then maybe you shouldn't contribute any more to this debate-PERIOD!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

He obviously doesn't know what he is talking about, well...he doesn't know what I was talking about.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh and, Bogh, that is not entirely correct. In civ4, a tile can have a varying % of 'cultural influence', but the dominant culture will effectively control that tile for the purposes of working it. Additionally, a city can have a very different ethnicity to the person who currently controls the city. Lastly, you can 'trade' land diplomatically, by trading the city to another civ. I will admit, though, that an ability to trade 'contested land' would be a good additional feature-perhaps in a mode/XP?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[bogh]

Oh and, Bogh, that is not entirely correct. In civ4, a tile can have a varying % of 'cultural influence', but the dominant culture will effectively control that tile for the purposes of working it. Additionally, a city can have a very different ethnicity to the person who currently controls the city. Lastly, you can 'trade' land diplomatically, by trading the city to another civ. I will admit, though, that an ability to trade 'contested land' would be a good additional feature-perhaps in a mode/XP?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yeah, but this is really my main complaint: In real life control and dominant culture has not been correlated in the majority of history. It is a very modern ideal, that the game applies to all ages - and even that ideal had to be fought for using military force. I don't mind seeing provinces split off and declare independence or attempt to rejoin their motherland, but any acceptance of such would immediately place you at war with the previous owner. It's been like that in history, it would be great gameplay-wise and all around a better concept. In Civ IV a cultural empire can easily win the game without any real military strength. For examples of culture vs. military power see Rome and Greece.

Agreed that ethnicity is in there, but it serves no other function than factor how long your permanent take over will take. Why not allow us to retain conquered populations as an integral part of our empire? I want the Austro-Hungarian empire, Czarist Russia and Ottoman Empire. Cleansing the population should definitely be an option, but a painfull and drastic one. It might be better than having a potentially mobilizable minority in your country, but that should be a decision for you to take. Proper management could remedy the negatives of multicultural empires.

The trading of cities is again part of the inconsistency of the model: Again a clear distinction is drawn between cities and territory in general, where one does not exist. Cities represent population centers for crying out loud - if the US did the Louisiana purchase in Civ IV, they would end up with a multitude of settlements with French controlled hinterlands. This is what I mean by the model being incoherent.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

The current model is ideal for the early game providing an acceptable level of accuracy while serving the main goal of maintaining game balance. Problems with the system only occur in the mid to late game where Cultural powerhouses, unrelated to the conflict at hand, can severely limit conquest.

This is my solution: in the early industrial era there should be a change in the cultural dynamic. Nationalism (or whatever it's called in CIV), methinks, seems the ideal candidate for this as it expresses the ideals that are causing the disagreement. Once a Civ acquires Nationalism the land it currently holds should become it's country say, for example, France. The people of France cease to think of the boundries as the land controlled by the French leader and now identify those boundries as being France . From that point on it should be much more difficult to gain control of French territory culturally, military aggression should be met with much more heated resistance (perhaps doubling resistance time and unhappiness afterward) and all of France's allies should recognize the land as rightfully belonging to France. (Will return it after a war, etc). Cultural influence would continue to be present and even to spread but would have to manifest itself in other forms.

While this would make life difficult for the warmonger there would be benefits, once you managed to quell the rebellion cultural borders would immediately recover to their previous levels BUT it would still be FRENCH culture. England would have to begin building its culture in the area from scratch so the conquered territory would not really be part of England yet, it would merely be English controlled France.

Let us say that Marsailles is captured by the English while haveing 3000 culture points. After 10 or so turns the resistance is quelled and the borders restored to their previous 3000 culture postion. The city will now begin to generate English culture but in everyone's minds it will remain France. Only after Marsailles acquires 51% English culture will it finally become part of England.

Obviously this idea cannot be implemented in the current game because it would involve fundamental changes to the game mechanics but perhaps a smaller version of this could be put in. Can acquiring nationalism be set so that it enables retention of previous culture levels? I don't know if balance would be served this way but it would be worth a playtest or two.

 

[Dida]

That is a good model Cu Chulainn.

 

[SonicX]

I agree the concept is seriously flawed ...
There should've been a new option to counteract these huge problems when conquering lands, like a military occupation instead of a cultural one.

F.i. wouldn't it be a lot better if you had to leave 1 unit per 4 inhabitants behind to secure a city radius perimeter and force the local population to work those lands ? So the 5x5 with out corners radius would be in your hands, you need to leave 3 to 6 units behind to secure the land and in that time of military occupation (which should be optional ofcourse) no culture is produced in that city.

That way military occupation is harder, but also more benificial.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Personally, I think the idea of 'contested land' is a HUGE step forward in the cultural component of the game, much better than civ3's 'All or nothing' system. True there should be more nuanced ways to obtain land seperate from culture (trade, diplomacy and-to a lesser extent-military) but I think they are definitely on the right track. Another point though is that culture is still 'soft' power. There is only so far that two nations of roughly equal power can extend their 'borders' into each others territory (which is where contested land comes from), in order to REALLY push your culture out, you HAVE to go in and take individual cities (the seed of the other nation's culture) and insert your own into it. Now, if they could only have trade, immigration and diplomacy as a means of 'extending' cultural influence beyond your own borders, then I will be completely happy (again, see my Sig for more info).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[snepp]

A couple observations from limited testing (thanks to Aeson for pointing out the debug):

Culture built up in a tile is permanent. There is no decay even after a particular civ's culture is no longer being accumulated. (accept with a grain of salt, only observed over 50 turns or so)

Fun but unimportant fact... Culture accumulates in tiles faster than in the city influencing them, though there is a relation between a city's culture/turn and the tile's culture/turn. Why I mention this is beyond me.

The 8 tiles adjacent to the city gain culture at the same rate as the city square itself.

Small example for kicks to show tile culture accumulation...
Test city is Influencial (meaning only 1 expansion left) and generating 63 culture/turn
City tile: 144/turn
8 adjacent tiles: 144/turn
1st expansion tiles: 124/turn
2nd expansion tiles: 104/turn
3rd expansion tiles: 84/turn
4th expansion tiles: 64/turn
5th expansion tiles: don't exist yet

When you get that last expansion to Legendary (woohoo!) the tile culture/turn gets bumped by 20 for each expansion...
City tile: 164/turn
8 adjacent tiles: 164/turn
1st expansion tiles: 144/turn
2nd expansion tiles: 124/turn
3rd expansion tiles: 104/turn
4th expansion tiles: 84/turn
5th expansion tiles: 64/turn

 

[Dida]

so each tile has its own cultural value? That is a cool feature, only if we can claim each tile with military unit or in diplomatic negotiation.

 

[Fredric Drum]

Just think of it this way. The City is the city, but the surrounding area is like the state or suburbs.

Taking over the city, doesn't mean you got the suburbs as well.

So you can just send soldiers to these 'suburbs' then? No, you can't, because the librarians of the neighbouring town decided that they wanted those suburbs

Do you hear how stupid it sounds?

 

[Jazz_Newton]

SOMETHING THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE TESTED:

For all of you who claim that military power needs to influence borders...


I was fighting a war against the russians a short time ago as the French. The fighting was focused over one particular part of our border, with a fair few troops going back and forth... now for the interesting bit...

It seemed like the borders would vary slightly depending on where our troops were positioned.

It could have been pure co-incidence because of other factors... but the AI had some troops positioned on a hill in my territory, adjacent to mine and their border. After a few turns, the tile switched to their control. I killed their troops, and then, a few turns after that, I could've sworn the exact same tile was back under my control.

DISCLAIMER: It is entirely possible that this was just a weird co-incidence.

HYPOTHESIS: Military units accelerate the growth of 'culture' in foreign/contested tiles.

That is all.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Jazz_Newton: That would be great if it were true, but if it were, I think Aeson would have told us considering he worked on the game...then again, he may be cruel - letting us argue over something pointlessly - who knows!

 

[Jazz_Newton]

So you can just send soldiers to these 'suburbs' then? No, you can't, because the librarians of the neighbouring town decided that they wanted those suburbs

Do you hear how stupid it sounds?

Try this then:

You work in Alaska. Your father is Canadian, your mother was born and raised in Alaska. You happen to be a leading technician on an oil well.

Then the russians invade. They capture the major cities, and enforce military rule. You have two options - roll over and play dead, or start siphoning your oil supplies off to the Canadians. What do you do?

Hands up all those who decide to start working for the Russian empire?

And obviously building a 'theatre' or a 'library' isn't going to make you start supporting the enemy. But the arts have long been the home of propoganda, so i don't see why it can't be the same in Civ. In about ten game turns, "you" (the canadian/alaskan oil technician) will be dead of natural causes, and your son, who has grown up reading Russian books and attending russian schools, might be a little more sympathetic to their cause when he takes over your job at the oil well.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Then the russians invade. They capture the major cities, and enforce military rule. You have two options - roll over and play dead, or start siphoning your oil supplies off to the Canadians. What do you do?

Why wouldn't the Russian military be in contol of the oil well...or should I ask, why shouldn't they be? Obviously there should be a means for the military to control it. In the Civ 4's creators opinion, that method is by building Russian theatres...and even then, it is sometimes not enough.