Culture (border interaction)

[Groff]

One of the things I really missed in CiV is the way culture could ''spill'' over between bordering tiles in CIV. It felt as there was some sort of interaction going on between different civs. I, personally, would love if this feature was brought back. Maybe even as an option that could be turned off if you don't like it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Given that Happiness is now on local level. It does open a lot of opportunities.

I'd like city flipping through espionage to be a thing and I'd actually like Cultural Tension that flips tiles back and forth depending on the Tourism/Culture thing. I'd also like the ability to trade tiles between nations, or buy/sell territory.

 

[CheeseWalrus]

what about if culture could shift borders in the early/mid-game but not the late game after borders are more established? i think that would be the most realistic option

 

[Basspower]

Yes! Buying and selling territory would be awesome.

 

[Zaarin]

Given that Happiness is now on local level. It does open a lot of opportunities.

I'd like city flipping through espionage to be a thing and I'd actually like Cultural Tension that flips tiles back and forth depending on the Tourism/Culture thing. I'd also like the ability to trade tiles between nations, or buy/sell territory.

America's Unique Ability: "Louisiana Purchase: Buying territory costs less."

 

[dexters]

I think city flipping was problematic from an RNG level. A city with even just a 10% chance to flip will eventually flip given enough turns played. This will lead to player frustration. We've seen this story before already.

I think the technology/game design isn't quite there yet for mixed border zones where both cultures have influence. From the screenshots we have. the borders look pretty solid.

Interested in possibly tiles changing hands based on culture strength but the mechanics need to be clear. Randomness with things like that in a game like Civ will drive people nuts and cause a lot of hate.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I believe pushing borders and random city flipping aren't good mechanic. These actions should be more rare, like an action of the great person. There could be still culture taking into account, i.e. to convert city you need to bring some great person AND pay the amount of money depending on the city accumulated culture. Things like this could work, but it surely depends on the rest of the game systems.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

The religious pressure formula proves there's a way to make tile control sticky after a time lapse but without discontinuities.

Random city flipping is awful, but a city with a clear cultural preference for another civilization, and enabling a Liberate diplomacy option, are fine things. This idea would not belong just anywhere, though... not without a suitable vision for the settling and expansion mechanic. Since it looks like settling is back to the city sprawl... it might fit. It would be a speedbump, which would be channeling some of CIV's design successes.


For better or worse, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty, territory selling is not in this game.

 

[Krajzen]

I am against city cultural flip because of enormous gameplay frustration/exploitability, and border cultural changes because of lack of realism.

I mean, borders on land, between established states, are a static political entity (by 'static' I mean, change only via conflicts or diplomatic treaties) and shouldn't be confused with 'cultural influence'.

Are there any historical examples of country borders changing without use of military, diplomacy or will of government just by cultural clash (???) of both neighboring empires causing settlements (here I mean not only cities in civ terms but all tiles, they're inhabited after all) switch between sides and suddenly become loyal to neighboring state? Without rebellion, conflict etc?

Probably yes, but it'd be rare cases of limited scale ethnic divisions (and I'd say government almost always used coercion in such situations), and we are talking about all empires of the world being able to casually take territory of all other alien empires not with military or diplomacy but, uhm, citizens (???) and that happening all the time across history.
Okay I can imagine Ucrainian city flipping to Russia, for example but that's one of very rare instances when such mechanic would make sense.

For me it's complete arcade nonsense. Borders are borders and shouldn't be changed "by citizens" without governments agreeing via diplomacy or war. I disliked culture_affecting_borders n civ4, civ5 great general iteration and great artist iteration. It leads to weird situations, cheesy exploits (especially in MP) and breaks immersion.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I think Krajzen has a point. But on the other hand cultural pressure on neighbouring cities (which caused tile and city flipping in civ3 and civ4) should also have an effect. What about that it should affect the hapiness of the neighbouring city to some extent? And if you are at war with that civilization that a city with more of your culture should have reduced "strength" or something?

 

[kaltorak]

Since tourism is confirmed to be back, border pressure could be added to make this useless resource a bit more desirable than just points to win the game.

 

[Ikael]

I think that culture should work like religion did in Civilization 5: not by flipping cities and tiles, but rather by giving your civilization bonuses for spreading your culture abroad.

For example, having your art present in another civilization city will increase your culture output, having your religion present in another city will make said city weaker against your units, having your language present in another city will make your trade routes more profitable, and so on.

That way, culture would be tied to the land and you would have to deal with the aftermath of absorbing enemy empires into your own, trying to accomodate and win over their unique cultures long after the empires that spawned them have gone.

 

[Battlehelm043]

I prefer the CiV approach now with a Culture flip, that is to say ideology is what can eventually cause a flip. Throughout history that is primarily what has led to rebellions and the separations of people of the same nation state. A sect or group gains enough groundswell and secedes from the host nation. Then they are either put down and brought to heel or victorious.

 

[kaltorak]

I prefer the CiV approach now with a Culture flip, that is to say ideology is what can eventually cause a flip. Throughout history that is primarily what has led to rebellions and the separations of people of the same nation state. A sect or group gains enough groundswell and secedes from the host nation. Then they are either put down and brought to heel or victorious.

Historicaly it makes sense. But gameplay wise, after doing the effort of having a lot of tourism, I couldn't care less if an AI gets -10 happiness or not. But grabbing land or even a city tho...

Or like another poster suggested above, at least some features like religion, where spreading tourism gives actual benefits to you.

 

[Battlehelm043]

Historicaly it makes sense. But gameplay wise, after doing the effort of having a lot of tourism, I couldn't care less if an AI gets -10 happiness or not. But grabbing land or even a city tho...

Or like another poster suggested above, at least some features like religion, where spreading tourism gives actual benefits to you.

Of course that would keep it interesting and keep those elements and features relevant to the gameplay. I would definitely not be against that. I would not like it to return though to the Civ Rev style of flipping cities just because you produce a higher culture number than they do. To me that was too gamey, but they have used a similar art style now to Civ Rev and brough back the combining 3 units to make an army which is a Civ Rev feature so I would not be surprised if they mirror more of the mechanics of that game.... An that would be unacceptable to me...

 

[kaltorak]

Of course that would keep it interesting and keep those elements and features relevant to the gameplay. I would definitely not be against that. I would not like it to return though to the Civ Rev style of flipping cities just because you produce a higher culture number than they do. To me that was too gamey, but they have used a similar art style now to Civ Rev and brough back the combining 3 units to make an army which is a Civ Rev feature so I would not be surprised if they mirror more of the mechanics of that game.... An that would be unacceptable to me...

I agree. Civ rev was fun on my phone for playing 30 min games. But as a pc game, they should stay away from it.

 

[Battlehelm043]

I agree. Civ rev was fun on my phone for playing 30 min games. But as a pc game, they should stay away from it.

Couldn't agree more, I just wish they would address the community a little more especially with so many question floating about.

 

[Louis XXIV]

what about if culture could shift borders in the early/mid-game but not the late game after borders are more established? i think that would be the most realistic option

I always felt where it made the most sense was during the colonial era (and especially the race for Africa). I have suggested before that they should bring back nationality among the population count of the city and have culture shift that.

That being said, I'm opposed to city flipping for gameplay reasons. Likewise, I really don't like when the borders completely suck dry the territory of a city. I thought it was awful in Civ4 when you conquered a city and literally got the tile and nothing else. I'd also argue the new city district system undercuts the idea of culture encroaching on rival cities.

 

[m15a]

I would not like it to return though to the Civ Rev style of flipping cities just because you produce a higher culture number than they do. To me that was too gamey, but they have used a similar art style now to Civ Rev and brough back the combining 3 units to make an army which is a Civ Rev feature so I would not be surprised if they mirror more of the mechanics of that game.... An that would be unacceptable to me...

Armies were in Civ 3. And culture flipping of cities was also in Civ 3 and Civ 4, too, I think. (And that's just building on the idea that diplomats could flip cities in Civ I.) (EDIT: You might mean armies that are limited to units of the same type, which I don't think was a restriction in Civ 3, but it's still the same general existing concept.)

Of course, Civ VI will share features from Civ Rev since a lot of features are shared between Civ games. But the existence of one shared feature by itself doesn't make the existence of other shared features more likely.

 

[Haggbart]

Since tourism is confirmed to be back, border pressure could be added to make this useless resource a bit more desirable than just points to win the game.

Tourism is confirmed to be back as a mechanics, but not yet confirmed as a way to win the game. They said one previous victory condition is removed, and one is new. I guess people automatically think diplomatic victories are gone, but that is not confirmed.