Culture borders that ruin a part of the experience

[Akka]

Oh, really? Why don't you show it, then?

They perfectly do the job they are assigned. You don't like this job, but I do.

Claims of property are possible with defeating an army. Look at Alexandre Le Grand, Jules César, Ghengis Khan... they defeated their neighbours army, and the people naturally plegded allegiance to them. In reality, culture in not a power: it can't even put people together naturally as in absence of war, without a state, laws, army, etc...

Of course.
And, in fact, properties are claimed when you conquer a city.
But the army has only just settled. The things are still messed. There is resistance, both passive and active, from the population, disloyalties and so on.
After a time, if you start to put some effort into the occupation, things go more smoothly. If you're cultured, people actually see you less as a barbarian, and more as civilized. They are less unwilling to work for and with you. Habits appears, with you as the leader. Civilian investment shows that you are interested in the development and well-being of the settlement, and some people feel it's in their interests to work with the invader. You can also impress favorably people with you accomplisment. The army, once settled, doesn't just stay in the bases, and also scout the surroundings, diminishing disloyalties. The police reorganize itself.
As such, your influence spread, and you soon can control the fringe of the populations in the area occupied.

That is what culture represent. Feels superb to me. No need to change it.

 

[doronron]

A separation between 'national borders' and 'cultural influence' would be a big boost for cIV, and the entire civ series, for that matter.

I kinda think that's what they were trying to accomplish with religion this time around...of course it doesn't quite work right.

 

[Chose]

i usually play without borders in my games and if u try this sometimes it does give another feeling

how do u do that.
can u do it by moding?

i think that culture borders were great forr civ 3 and i think they with for civ 4.

 

[Naokaukodem]

They perfectly do the job they are assigned. You don't like this job, but I do.

And?... What job?

Of course.
And, in fact, properties are claimed when you conquer a city.
But the army has only just settled. The things are still messed. There is resistance, both passive and active, from the population, disloyalties and so on.
After a time, if you start to put some effort into the occupation, things go more smoothly. If you're cultured, people actually see you less as a barbarian, and more as civilized. They are less unwilling to work for and with you. Habits appears, with you as the leader. Civilian investment shows that you are interested in the development and well-being of the settlement, and some people feel it's in their interests to work with the invader. You can also impress favorably people with you accomplisment. The army, once settled, doesn't just stay in the bases, and also scout the surroundings, diminishing disloyalties. The police reorganize itself.
As such, your influence spread, and you soon can control the fringe of the populations in the area occupied.

That is what culture represent. Feels superb to me. No need to change it.

This has nothing to do with culture, even in the game. It's called 'resistance'.

To have frontiers you must have neighbours, a state, and a diplomacy. Period.
You can always put skulls around your territory, but you will not be limited to your culture influence in doing so, only by your needs and your ability to defend it.

Why would culture borders prevent us to cultivate a square that is beyond this influence while this square is occupied by nobody? This is silly.

Well, culture is totally useless, and I feel sorry that some people think it's so wonderfull. Or somebody to tell me what it brings to gameplay, instead of just pride & bull****. Thx.

 

[doronron]

And?... What job?



This has nothing to do with culture, even in the game. It's called 'resistance'.

To have frontiers you must have neighbours, a state, and a diplomacy. Period.
You can always put skulls around your territory, but you will not be limited to your culture influence in doing so, only by your needs and your ability to defend it.

Why would culture borders prevent us to cultivate a square that is beyond this influence while this square is occupied by nobody? This is silly.

Well, culture is totally useless, and I feel sorry that some people think it's so wonderfull. Or somebody to tell me what it brings to gameplay, instead of just pride & bull****. Thx.

Culture in CivIII was trying to model how a nation's sovereignty works. It tried to implement a mechanism for nations to "claim land" or maintain territorial waters without having to place a city or military presense in that specific tile. Unfortunately it didn't work as well as it should have since the AI largely ignored it. Why Firaxis called it culture? It was an easier definition than sovereignty provides with regards to city switching and the building that produced culture.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Civ2 had no need of that. Don't had anything to gameplay

 

[Akka]

And?... What job?

Simulating what I've spent a whole paragraph to describe.

This has nothing to do with culture, even in the game. It's called 'resistance'.

Yes. And culture plays a large role in this. People from cultivated, strong civilization, will resist assimilation longer than people from barbaric/culturally weak civ. Culture is a way to reflect pride and influence. Prestigious accomplishments influence people and reduce their resistance, and help assimilate them (you expand your influence => the practical borders).

To have frontiers you must have neighbours, a state, and a diplomacy. Period.
You can always put skulls around your territory, but you will not be limited to your culture influence in doing so, only by your needs and your ability to defend it.

Culture represent the more subtle real effect of what are your actual borders, and not just your claimed borders.
The game mechanics, though of course not perfect, does a wonderful job at representing that, and the whole concept of INFLUENCE.

Why would culture borders prevent us to cultivate a square that is beyond this influence while this square is occupied by nobody? This is silly.

No, you just have to try to conceptualize it.
Imagine that it's not really you can't do it. It's rather that, as it's far away from your local center of power (the army of occupation, the mayor you put in place, etc...), that the population is resisting assimilation, and that you haven't devoted a lot of attention to the development of the place, it's too far away from your INFLUENCE for you to have control over it.
Imagine that here, in these places far away, people don't care about what you claim, or passively resist by not working as intended, or smuggling, or pledging allegiance to someone more influential than you, etc.
If you wish to represent it, imagine the ancient feudal lords, who decided what would happen in their lands, with a far-away liege that could only vaguely say what he would like done, but had practically no influence there.
Or, today, Iraq, with a very strong military presence, but still with an influence that is limited to the place where the army is, and where far-away village do what they want, hide guerilla, apply their own laws and customs, with only lip service (if even lip service...) to what the central authority ask them to do.

Culture represent this whole idea of influence, of how you "win the heart" of people through greatness and accomplishments. Use your imagination

Well, culture is totally useless, and I feel sorry that some people think it's so wonderfull. Or somebody to tell me what it brings to gameplay, instead of just pride & bull****. Thx.

Culture is a subtle thing that was often ignored in history, but is very important and had tremendous influence in the world. Culture is conceptualized in a very smart way into the game, transmitting the idea of influence into borders. Quite a good idea.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Man, Naokaukodem, if you thought Civ2 was the right way to go in terms of 'borders', then all I can say is that you are seriously DELUDED!!! There were no borders, of any description -any nation could settle any part of your lands that they cared to, so long as they could find the space. My biggest complaint about Civ1 and 2 was this sense that you were never controlling a NATION , just a loose confederation of city states-Civ3 changed all of that. True, Civ3 borders and culture weren't perfect, but they did to some degree represent historical reality-namely that when you first started building a city, they each had their own city radius, and not much more. As time went on and your culture increased, though, each city's cultural influence grew until they met up to form a unified nation.
From all I hear, Civ4s Culture and Border system is going to be even better than Civ3, with borders which actually MEAN SOMETHING (i.e. keeping the dog off your lawn ), no Culture Flips (which I did feel made no sense), Nationalism now actually effecting Culture and Borders and Culture directly effecting your ability to hold a city.
Seriously Naokaukodem, if you are going to criticise people's posts, at least do it in a way that makes sense?!?! Also, if you thought Civ2 was sooo much better than Civ3 and-apparently-Civ4 (which certainly sounds like the case) then why don't you just go back and play it?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[frekk]

Civ2 had no need of that. Don't had anything to gameplay

If civ2 was the perfected version of civ, the Gospel of Sid and the Holy Sepulchre of Meierism, the Ultimate Siddity Revealed - what do you care about later, heretical civs? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, right?

I may have my reservations about civ4, but I'm no civ-Luddite. Civ needs changes. I want new things, or I wouldn't bother worrying about later versions. If they are going to hand us the keys, and it really is "completely moddable" (I do have my doubts), you could even overhaul civ4 so that it looks, feels, tastes, sounds and smells precisely the same as civ2, if you really wanted to do that.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yes. And culture plays a large role in this. People from cultivated, strong civilization, will resist assimilation longer than people from barbaric/culturally weak civ. Culture is a way to reflect pride and influence. Prestigious accomplishments influence people and reduce their resistance, and help assimilate them (you expand your influence => the practical borders).

Well, i admit that culture differencies with the conqueror may affect in some way the resistance of the conquered people... but it's only a factor.
As an example, Civ2 was dealing with this quite well with the guerillas, which was rather a militaristic/politic reaction.
It does not place culture as something particularly impressive or wonderfull.

Though, there is no need to represent it by borders. (or make borders appear and depend exclusively of it)

Culture represent the more subtle real effect of what are your actual borders, and not just your claimed borders.
The game mechanics, though of course not perfect, does a wonderful job at representing that, and the whole concept of INFLUENCE.

First it is not influence, it is culture influence; books and religion. (arts, manners...)
Also, if you have no neighbours, you does not have a frontier. Your actual borders are your capacity to exploit the land around.

No, you just have to try to conceptualize it.
Imagine that it's not really you can't do it. It's rather that, as it's far away from your local center of power (the army of occupation, the mayor you put in place, etc...), that the population is resisting assimilation, and that you haven't devoted a lot of attention to the development of the place, it's too far away from your INFLUENCE for you to have control over it.
Imagine that here, in these places far away, people don't care about what you claim, or passively resist by not working as intended, or smuggling, or pledging allegiance to someone more influential than you, etc.
If you wish to represent it, imagine the ancient feudal lords, who decided what would happen in their lands, with a far-away liege that could only vaguely say what he would like done, but had practically no influence there.
Or, today, Iraq, with a very strong military presence, but still with an influence that is limited to the place where the army is, and where far-away village do what they want, hide guerilla, apply their own laws and customs, with only lip service (if even lip service...) to what the central authority ask them to do.

Culture represent this whole idea of influence, of how you "win the heart" of people through greatness and accomplishments. Use your imagination

Man, how deep you go into the "simulation"!
It is not about to make strangers work for you, it is about take the place with YOUR people. (the more when nobody is in the place)

Culture is a subtle thing that was often ignored in history, but is very important and had tremendous influence in the world. Culture is conceptualized in a very smart way into the game, transmitting the idea of influence into borders. Quite a good idea.

Do you even know what is gameplay?

Man, Naokaukodem, if you thought Civ2 was the right way to go in terms of 'borders', then all I can say is that you are seriously DELUDED!!! There were no borders, of any description -any nation could settle any part of your lands that they cared to, so long as they could find the space. My biggest complaint about Civ1 and 2 was this sense that you were never controlling a NATION , just a loose confederation of city states-Civ3 changed all of that. True, Civ3 borders and culture weren't perfect, but they did to some degree represent historical reality-namely that when you first started building a city, they each had their own city radius, and not much more. As time went on and your culture increased, though, each city's cultural influence grew until they met up to form a unified nation.
From all I hear, Civ4s Culture and Border system is going to be even better than Civ3, with borders which actually MEAN SOMETHING (i.e. keeping the dog off your lawn ), no Culture Flips (which I did feel made no sense), Nationalism now actually effecting Culture and Borders and Culture directly effecting your ability to hold a city.

City-states, well I like this precisely. Maybe because I liked so much the Lego when I was younger. (With Lego you usually don't want to follow the model, you want to make it on your own, even if the result will be a space ship too at the end. You would have had built it with your own hands and you would be amazed by what those small bricks allowed you to do. In Civ3, the model is present from the begining to the end, urging to build a nation, defend it from invaders, and extense. That may reinforce the "ad hoc" gameplay side, with goals and means, but put on the ground a whole side of the amazing experience that is civ, first, in my opinion)
City-states; IMO this is the most promizing concept about the future Civs. There should not be only nations, but city states, tribes, confederations, federations, and others factions that would have different interests favourable or not to a union with you or others.

Seriously Naokaukodem, if you are going to criticise people's posts, at least do it in a way that makes sense?!?!

Heh, this is what we must call a real debate men!

if you thought Civ2 was sooo much better than Civ3 and-apparently-Civ4 (which certainly sounds like the case) then why don't you just go back and play it?

I took Civ2 as an example. Indeed, i prefer the way Civ2 deel with borders than Civ3. And I just talked about a part of the experience, so why do you even bother? Additionally, as the cherry on the cake, Civ2 is obsolete, I don't have it and will not take the pain to get it dirrectly from Firaxis, and I already played it a bunch, as so me too I want some new things, can I?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Civ2 Guerilla's/Partisans were totally CRAP Naokaukodem, and never once slowed me down in pursuit of my conquests. Also, how can you talk of the way Civ2 treated borders??? The whole point is they didn't HAVE borders at all-not a very good way of dealing with it-if you ask me!!!
From all of your posts, I just get the feeling that you are peeved because concepts like culture and resistance prevent you from having 'uber-conquest' games-where you can start churning out soldiers from your latest acquisition immediately. I, for one, am glad those days are over!!! What other 'great' civ2 features do you want then Naokaukodem? Arty rushes, perhaps? An ability to use anyone's RR against them? How about the old 'Bomber Wall' exploit? There is a reason why Civ2 is obsolete-and everything I have just mentioned is it-including the lack of cultural influence, culture groups and borders . I think you will find that-even amongst those who don't 100% support how culture and borders was implemented in civ3-there is still overall support of the introduction of culture and borders as new concepts-largely because that is part of the evolutionary process of the game.
Personally, I think you're wasting your breath on this little hobby-horse of yours, and perhaps you should focus on a topic on which more than 1 other person will support you. Either that or, as suggested above, go back to playing civ2-if it is such a great game .

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Akka]

Do you even know what is gameplay?

Well, this sum it up quite nicely.
About your arrogance, of course.

I'm done wasting my time trying to explain subtlety to some guy who got a bigger ego than brain

 

[Naokaukodem]

Civ2 Guerilla's/Partisans were totally CRAP Naokaukodem

The same goes for the culture absorsion, and the culture system in general.

and never once slowed me down in pursuit of my conquests.

It did for me: i had to spend 1 turn of 1 unit for each guerilla, what slowed me in my conquest.

Also, how can you talk of the way Civ2 treated borders??? The whole point is they didn't HAVE borders at all-not a very good way of dealing with it-if you ask me!!!

Well, even if they didn't have borders, we can talk about their way of dealing with borders... the value would only be = 0. Though, Civ2 HAD to deal with them... how couldn't they? There always had borders between your worked squares and the AI worked square. That constituted borders. Overall, there were several countries/civs, right? Then there were borders also.

From all of your posts, I just get the feeling that you are peeved because concepts like culture and resistance prevent you from having 'uber-conquest' games-where you can start churning out soldiers from your latest acquisition immediately. I, for one, am glad those days are over!!!

It's not that. Read what i said first, it may be quite subjective, could seem of lower importance... but it have a logic, and may describe a part of the feeling of Civ quite well. I don't know what to say you more...

What other 'great' civ2 features do you want then Naokaukodem? Arty rushes, perhaps? An ability to use anyone's RR against them? How about the old 'Bomber Wall' exploit?

Calm down. :|

There is a reason why Civ2 is obsolete-and everything I have just mentioned is it-including the lack of cultural influence, culture groups and borders . I think you will find that-even amongst those who don't 100% support how culture and borders was implemented in civ3-there is still overall support of the introduction of culture and borders as new concepts-largely because that is part of the evolutionary process of the game.

For my part i think that not only the culture ruins a part of the gameplay, but also, as you are about it, that the whole culture thing is crap. This is my opinion. Nothing will change in it if you just satisfy yourself by saying me "it is the logic evolution of civ", "you suck", or even "culture is just beautifull".

Personally, I think you're wasting your breath on this little hobby-horse of yours, and perhaps you should focus on a topic on which more than 1 other person will support you.

Well, I'm doing what I want, ain't I? No need to pass your nerves here because you're not the right guy. Don't make a pest of you...

go back to playing civ2-if it is such a great game .

You are stubborn here... (and not that only )

Well, this sum it up quite nicely.
About your arrogance, of course.

I'm done wasting my time trying to explain subtlety to some guy who got a bigger ego than brain

It's your answer!

I admit there is a small part of defiance there, but that's not as if you could generalize.

I just noticed that there were nothing gameplay worth in what you explained so learnedly.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, it seems to me like you are the stubborn one in all of this (and arrogant/egotistical). I hated not having cultural borders in Civ2 because there WERE NO BORDERS-period!!! No sense of nation, no sense of international borders-just cities placed higgledy-piggledy wherever you could get away with it (which was effectively anywhere)-to me, that is NO WAY to deal with borders. At least in Civ3, if the AI tried that (or a player for that matter) the city would soon end up belonging to the nation whose borders you were in.
Also, I have spoken to dozens of people-both here and elsewhere-and around 99.99% of them think that the overall concept of culture is brilliant-not just because it is a 'logical evolution' but because it added something which was totally missing in previous games-a sense of culture and identity for you civ, a degree of differentiation beyond a mere name. Not to mention genuine borders that you could defend and expand. Yes there were problems with the system-as there are with any systems when they are first added, but it sounds like they have finessed culture even more-removing the more glaring problems and making borders and cultural identity even more important. Of course, this isn't good enough for the likes of you, because you think that Firaxis should diss all their other consumers in order to cater to your needs! All I can say is-in both Civ3 and the upcoming Civ4-if you dislike culture so much, then go and mod it out of the game (easy to do in Civ3, and probably will be easier with Civ4) instead of coming here and annoying us with your pointless posts.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[eaglefox]

one thing i hated about borders expanding was that of you have a coastal city the borders grow into the water, seemingly for miles. in fact only upto 10 km of water beyond a shore line is considered part of a nations territory, rest all is international waters. the borders cause a problem especially when you have two shore lines besides each other. then the city with more culture has its borders extended into the land of the other nation. imagine if there is an important resource there, and you can't use it even though its in your part of the land because it falls into someone else's cultural border. this needs to be changed.

 

[Naokaukodem]

All I can say is-in both Civ3 and the upcoming Civ4-if you dislike culture so much, then go and mod it out of the game (easy to do in Civ3, and probably will be easier with Civ4) instead of coming here and annoying us with your pointless posts.

Now it's all your thought fully expressed, Aussie_Lurker. You should have to say it at the beginning... and you call my reactions to your posts arrogant.

I hated not having cultural borders in Civ2 because there WERE NO BORDERS-period!!!

No sense of nation, no sense of international borders-just cities placed higgledy-piggledy wherever you could get away with it (which was effectively anywhere)-to me, that is NO WAY to deal with borders.

there were.

At least in Civ3, if the AI tried that (or a player for that matter) the city would soon end up belonging to the nation whose borders you were in.

Try what? Hmm.... well it can happen, even in civ3. Pretty annoying, but it's the game.

Also, I have spoken to dozens of people-both here and elsewhere-and around 99.99% of them think that the overall concept of culture is brilliant

That's not an argument. And you know what? That's not even my point.

Not to mention genuine borders that you could defend and expand.

that is one of part of civ that i said not being developped enough, and someone agreed with me

Yes there were problems with the system-as there are with any systems when they are first added, but it sounds like they have finessed culture even more-removing the more glaring problems and making borders and cultural identity even more important. Of course, this isn't good enough for the likes of you, because you think that Firaxis should diss all their other consumers in order to cater to your needs!

All what i'm argueing about is for the good of Civ...

 

[Ishkamafker]

If its really for the good of Civ, make it yourself. Seriously, your arrogance has brought me out of 2 years of forum lurking.

Fixaris is going to make Civ their way, if you really want to do something about it, try and get a job with them. Like it or not, The border system is in Civ4. Deal with it.

 

[Trade-peror]

Welcome to CFC, Ishkamafker!

Frankly, I'm surprised a mod hasn't interfered yet.

But anyway, I agree with Aussie_Luker and most of the people here that borders were indeed an improvement, largely because there is more of a "national" feel to it than the individual cities of Civ2. Similarly, during military campaigns, there is a sense of "defending the homeland." But these borders did take away one aspect from Civ2, and that was "disputed territory," or tiles that no one can really claim for sure. In Civ2, when cities of rival civs are close enough to use each other's tiles, those tiles become "disputed territory" that is fought over by the tile, with units sitting on the tiles to maintain ownership, and these confrontations often led to a lot of fighting and fort construction in these "disputed territories," an interesting aspect of gameplay that Civ3's clarity eliminates. But overall, I would still agree that borders are an improvement.

 

[Naokaukodem]

If its really for the good of Civ, make it yourself. Seriously, your arrogance has brought me out of 2 years of forum lurking.

Welcome, dood.

Fixaris is going to make Civ their way, if you really want to do something about it, try and get a job with them. Like it or not, The border system is in Civ4. Deal with it.

What should I have to get a job with Firaxis in order to give an opinion? You sounds like a perfect dick head, and you are one with no doubt. Return to your lurking.

 

[Commander Bello]

I like the border feature very much, since it perfectly transports the idea of ruling a true nation - with a common understanding of identity, maybe belief and so on.

Nevertheless, to make borders completely be extracted by "culture" was just the wrong way. I wouldn't mind at all having the cultural thing as an ADDITIONAL factor in the calculation, but I completely miss the military component.
As others have pointed out above, it was complete crap to roll over an opponent, take his cities to be counted by dozens, and the next turn find the city of a THIRD nation with that area!
This was most annoying and in no way added any feeling of realism to the game.

I may have missed that yet I haven't read anything about the military component being added for border calculation in Civ4, which terribly annoys me.
After all, the Greeks had more culture than the Romans, and the Egypt did so as well... nevertheless the military strength of the Romans made them get hold of the whole mediterrean area ... and the Greek and Egypts just became a part of their empire as soon as the Roman legions invaded.