Culture bombing in multiplayer

Bad Player

Deity
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
3,534
Location
(Bris)Vegas!
With the re-introduction of the oblisk to the Balseraphs this certainly helps their culture attack.

Yes, culture attack!

Culture is a type of diplomatic weapon, in real life and in FFH2.

However I noticed that multiplayer players don't like having the option of culture flipping on. This really limits the Balseraphs who, having no real heros for battles or particularly powerful units, fight be means more subtle!
 
Bad Player said:
With the re-introduction of the oblisk to the Balseraphs this certainly helps their culture attack.

Yes, culture attack!

Culture is a type of diplomatic weapon, in real life and in FFH2.

However I noticed that multiplayer players don't like having the option of culture flipping on. This really limits the Balseraphs who, having no real heros for battles or particularly powerful units, fight be means more subtle!

It would not be particularly subtle if everyone in multiplayer KNOWS that the belseraphs are going to be culture-whores. And the players will always take appropriate messures to counter a vary obvious strategy.
-Qes
 
Badplayer, I think you're confusing Culture Flipping with Culture Flipping After Conquest

Every game has had Culture Flipping on but some don't like Culture Flipping After Conquest to be on since then its hard to capture a city from an enemy (since it will often just revert back to its owner due to culture). Personally I like that on, but some do not.
 
I believe it is intended that if a swarm of sword-bearing brutes come rushing into an enemy city, then they can't be forced to leave simply because Picasso made a masterpiece a few miles away.
 
what if those swordsmen take over the city and find that the previous culture was just far superior and they want to join it? and if all the people revolt against them and create their own new armies? i can see reason for why it can happen, but i can see why some might not want it
 
I guess my biggest gripe with it is the gameplay effects. If you've taken the enemy capital, do you really want it to switch back in a few turns? Rebellion is fine, but the enemy should have to send some troops to dislodge you. Keep in mind also that rebellion in a city cuts the troops' in it strength in half.
 
The city flipping after conquest was at is worst in Civ III. There was no way to have peace after a war and be certain that you can keep your cities (except having insane numbers of units as military police) - so the only way was extincting (sp?) the opponent.
 
Yes, culture flipping was alright, but cities could not be culture flipped back to the original owner after they were taken by force of arms (though they could still get culture flipped by a third party... don't get me started on that). I remember turning on culture flipping after conquest in my second game of CIV... took a city from tokugawa on a peninsula, then it flipped back to him and evicted my swordsmen. Very souring experience...
 
I've still not tried city flip after conquest (it's next on my list, now that I've got used to no tech trading :D), so I can't give actual numbers or anything, but the chances for a city to revolt/convert depend on the number of troops in it. Basically, it means that you CAN keep conquered cities so long as you keep enough troops in them. You would eventually move those troops out of the city when you've set enough of your own culture into it.
 
I always play with Flipping after Conquest on and, since I'm either winning the game or I get wiped out completely in short order, I've never benefitted from it. I feel it's good for slowing down my own conquests, as I know that I can't take that stack of units and head for the next city right away - I need them there to quell the populace.

- Niilo
 
Back
Top Bottom