Cultural reset for captured cities

[moro101]

Is anyone else annoyed that captured cities have their cultures reset to zero? It made capturing the cities pointless if there are neutral neighboring civs with very high culture cities. Even if you gold-rush all culture producing buildings and using Great Artist, no way you can catch up and push back your border.

Like this last game I played. After a long and bloody war with Napoleon, I managed to capture the glorious 25 pop Paris and its many wonders, only to have it starved to a mediocre 8 pop city because it can't push back the cultural boundary against a Gandhi city 7 tiles away! Even worse, out of the 4 other French core cities I captured, 2 of them revolted and joined India because of cultural pressure.

The easy way is of course to declare war on India, but with the French-Greek alliance war just ended, my army is in no-shape for another campaign, and Gandhi is ahead in military technology. Nothing I could do but spitefully watched Gandhi picked up my war spoils.

Any comments/suggestions?

 

[The Keeper]

When I capture a city that is likely to have border troubles there are 2 options:

1: raze it

2: keep it. Stack military personnel there and rush a theater so you can get the artist specialists. But you cannot stop there, you must continue on to conquer to give your new city some time to grow.

Usually, if another city is over 5 tiles away, you can keep it from revolting. Quickly get some culture in there and in a few turns, you should be able to push it back.

 

[Colossian]

Use Great Artist, Hereditary Rule and Missionary.

 

[kjaye]

It's not a very realistic state of affairs though is it. I don't remember Julius Ceaser or William the Conquerer rushing to build theaters and trying to flood conquered cities with Elvis impersonators and painters in a bid to win over the natives.

 

[King Flevance]

I can understand why it is like this. IN this scenario, Paris and whatever nearby Indian city were having cultural wars so to speak. With Paris probably winning. In this imaginary world, the common people of the area regarded Paris as a well cultured city as it was the capitol of France. When it was taken over in warfare the people in favor of France over India became uncertain of the new rulership over them and probably a bit angry making it a rather "unprided spot" on the map. Culture emphasis in the game is nothing more than national pride so to speak. Who the common people prefer. Before the invading army showed up it was India or France. Now a 3rd has stepped in with military force. Culture SHOULD be lowered in conquest as you have done nothing for the people but kill their relatives and destroy their culture.

Now, I don't think it should be as harsh as it is though. Considering that Paris is a big deal no matter what. I believe that the culture should be cut to 1/4 of its original culture value on conquest. and returned to 100% if it is recaptured within X turns. The further the original owner gets from X the mopre culture they will permanently lose out on upon recapture.

For example X = 50 turns. Paris has 10,000 culture.

Turn 1: Moro captures. 1/4 culture = 2,500
Turn 38: Napolean recaptures. Original Culture = 10,000 restored

Later: Cultures builds up to 12,000
Turn 1: Moro Captures again. Culture Value = 3,000
Turn 75: Napolean recaptures. Loses a permanent 25% culture due to long separation from empire. Culture goes back to 9,000.

Something along those lines. Those numbers are pulled out of thin air and there are many situations that conflict with that precise example but I dont think the culture should be taken to 0 on city capture as it makes no sense. Although a huge cultural difference makes total sense.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Like the idea Flev; another almost even more annoying scenario, is when you fight a big war against a nation, let's say Mali (last 2 games have been like this)..now I fight the initial battles take half a dozen cities, then take Timbuktu, and raise everything within half a dozen squares of it..leaving Mali with say just 3 cities..

Fine, as yet, its still a big city, and I build a theatre, multiple monasteries, temples, my forbidden palace, and even a quick wonder in it, plus leaving a couple of artists specialists in there...

It's already producing serious culture, but then Mali build a city 4 squares away from it, and the second that new city has enough culture to expand, I've lost half the land to that side...so I declare war again and raise it...and as soon as peace is declared a new one's there again...cycle repeats again and again..

This is more than just annoying, its something thats caused me to say "I really can't be bollocksed with this anymore"..and go and watch the World Cup instead. Why on earth its been designed that bare land retains culture, yet if you destroy the offending civ completely it immediately vanishes, beats me. If you destroy the city concerned, all culture values for tiles involved should drop to zero, as there's nothing there anymore to influence the tiles, they shouldn't retain any "cultural memory" which is reinstated in full the second a big village is built near the spot..

If anyone has modded anything like this, or knows exactly what I need to change, pls let me know...

Thanks.

 

[Zombie69]

I like it exactly the way it is now. Also, remember that a tile without a city on it still has people living there, and those people still hail for the other nation. That is, until the other nation is no more. I find it very realistic.

 

[King Flevance]

I like the idea of razing to reset the cultural values of all tiles influenced by that city. This would mean that when you raze, you are ordering your men to go around and burn houses and pillage country side and murder the inhabitants. Guess what warlords did in history if you opposed the new leader?

Also, what if some of the population thought of Mansa as a jackass? It wouldnt be the majority but I bet there would be some. These people would take a likeing to you, some would be indifferent. Maybe 10-20%? What do they think of Mansa now that he allowed the capitol to be taken - esppecially if he declared war initially? This would certainly make me think of my King as a jackass.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I like it exactly the way it is now. Also, remember that a tile without a city on it still has people living there, and those people still hail for the other nation. That is, until the other nation is no more. I find it very realistic.

Agreed, that in the example I used, there are still some people living on and around the tiles associated with the razed cities. Agreed that they most probably still support the nation from which they originally hail.

But they are producing no culture.

The culture associated with the tiles on which this now sparse population live is long gone. It has been eradicated. The temples, theaters, monastries, libraries; all gone. The wonders destroyed. They are already nothing more than a distant memory to the old, the stuff of legends to the young.

Now a generation or more later, some brave souls venture forth and build a fledgling city not far from the ruins of one of their once sparkling citadels, and a generation after that, finally complete and dedicate a temple to their chosen god. Noone remembers what their once proud city was like by now, in fact most struggle to place its exact site. They only hope that their new city will one day rival the foreign 2nd capital to the east in its magnificance...

And yet a few years after the temple is completed, people flock from miles around to view it, spurning the huge foreign city with its gleaming palace, its wonder of the world, multi-denominational temples, theatre, playwrites and library.

No of course they don't, that would be complete nonsense..no city equals no culture, once its gone, its gone, it only comes back from currently culture producing buildings, or a leaders trait.

 

[wiseguy101]

I know that the game tries to be as realistic as possible, but I agree with the OP in that it still is very annoying to have a city's culture go back to zero once it has been conquered. I like King Flevance's idea much better, and would love to see it implemented in a mod of some sort.

 

[Zombie69]

Agreed, that in the example I used, there are still some people living on and around the tiles associated with the razed cities. Agreed that they most probably still support the nation from which they originally hail.

But they are producing no culture.

They're not producing culture, but they're keeping alive the culture that they had. Or, in Civ 4 terms, the cultural points assigned to the tile will neither increase nor decrease, they just stay there.

The culture associated with the tiles on which this now sparse population live is long gone. It has been eradicated. The temples, theaters, monastries, libraries; all gone. The wonders destroyed. They are already nothing more than a distant memory to the old, the stuff of legends to the young.

If you think a culture is so easily eradicated, you should come to Quebec, where centuries after the French were defeated by the English, and subsequently we became part of the British empire, people here still speak French, have old french habits and culture, and basically display no sign of british culture whatsoever (yet to this day Quebec is still part of the Commonwealth).

 

[Sohan]

Culture is a big deal for most people, and in this case it is closely related to national pride. If you conquer a very cultured people who have an abundance of national pride, be prepared to pay the heavy price for that conquest. It's not easy governing other people that think they're awesome. And in Civ, where culture has numerical value, they KNOW they're awesome.

 

[Zombie69]

Why do you feel the need to post Bible quotes saying how great your god is? I'm sorry but i find that extremely annoying.

 

[Sohan]

Sorry, it's my signature. I'll take a few out. I don't want to be offensive, just want to be clear about my identity. Sorry for the annoyance. To be honest though, I won't take all the quotes out. It's the bible. It's more important than anything else to me. And it's God with a capital G. Not god with a lower case.

 

[Esox]

I find the 'culture problem' to be serious sometimes, but still realistic. Similar, maybe, to Soviet-bloc occupation after WWII - they never did squeeze out the local cultural identity anywhere, AFAIK.
In my games, it just means I end up razing some cities that would have been nicer to keep. Sometimes I raze the city, though, and then take my sweet time pillaging the "city-less" towns for the cash. I think in that case, much of the local culture should be, um, lost.

 

[Zombie69]

Sorry, it's my signature. I'll take a few out. I don't want to be offensive, just want to be clear about my identity. Sorry for the annoyance. To be honest though, I won't take all the quotes out. It's the bible. It's more important than anything else to me. And it's God with a capital G. Not god with a lower case.

I said your god. That requires a lowercase "g". It's one god among others. Other faiths have other gods. Some have more than one. Your faith only has one god, which you call God, and the existance of which i don't even recognize.

The sig is still annoying, but at least now it doesn't jump at you quite as much.

 

[Sohan]

I was taught that the proper English spelling of the deity of all monotheistic faiths (as opposed to polytheistic ones) required capital spelling. For example, if I spoke of Allah in the generic English term (ie: god), I would have to write God. Same with any monotheistic faith. That was what I was taught in school though, and that was a while ago, so it's possible things changed or I was taught incorrectly.

Edit: Hmm, this is very off-topic. I'm very sorry about that.

 

[King Flevance]

Why do you feel the need to post Bible quotes saying how great your god is? I'm sorry but i find that extremely annoying.

What does it matter if he quotes the bible in his signature? Some people use quotes in the game in their signature. Your signature holds a link to what you would consider good advice. Whereas your "advice" is said by yourself. Sohan's "advice" is from God.

 

[glokkonn]

In games where I have a tech advantage from the beginning (this is possible for me because I am finally learning to beat Noble level) I take a detour to Music and save up the free Great Artist I get from that. So for one captured city I culture bomb it which pretty much takes care of my culture problems for that city and any cities nearby.

When I conquer new areas, for the time that my newly captured cities are near cities controlled by other civs I make culture my only priority in these cities until either there are no more culture items to get or I capture all nearby cities, in which case culture is no longer necessary. Maybe at higher levels I'll raze more cities than I keep but for now I am able to keep them, and the initial investment in culture items pays off over time (but over a LONG time) as the gold output per turn of these cities eventually becomes enough to pay for the increased maintainance of having this city as part of my empire. There are also other costs associated with keeping the city as part of the empire - like having to assign units to just sit in the city for example. So maybe as I move up in levels I'll do more razing and less keeping. But for now I am content to use great artists to overcome the cultural difficulties associated with capturing cities near established cities of opposing civs.

 

[Zombie69]

The difference is that i'm not trying to convert anyone. The other difference is that i'm not asking anyone to worship me. Maybe i should counter his signature with one of my own claiming i'm the only true god and if you don't worship me you'll burn in eternal flames?