Culture borders that ruin a part of the experience

[Naokaukodem]

I find the most pleasure in Civ thinking I can do anything. Feeling that I am in a world with no or few frontiers, without predetermined tasks, that I will fix by myself. I'm here, in the middle of nowhere, in a simulation of human conscience, with power to exert, like exploring the universe. I am constructing something. What? Who knows?
Then I meet a threatening entity that resembles me, as if it would like to take my place. I'm not alone anymore. My actions would be limited on this world. More even, they may actually threaten to use force and vanish me! This is unpleasant. But i'm not totally powerless. I may call upon warriors and launch at them!
If I am lucky, or don't feel too offended by the aliens, I may at a point find myself at the edge of other entities, later in the game...

Then I realize that we are just like the different COUNTRIES of the real world! FRONTIERS!... this is pretty amazing. I built the country bit by bit, and now this is the very apogee of Civ. Here is what is Civ: a simulation of empire/country/civ construction that takes place naturally, in a single movement connected by another single movement. The final result is a product in what we are attached to not only because it is our product, but because it is a complex one that appeared from its own early basic mechanisms.

Now, culture borders. I think that they are a kind of spoiler about this constatation of achievement. Not only they ruin it by arbitrary issueing as soon as the very beginning of the game that we have official frontiers, but they give a clear information about where to go in the game. It gives an "agreed" side to the gameplay as in all those games based on a tight pre-determined one (typically puzzle games), focalizing on the neighbours and land grabbing. And I don't think that Civ is about that. I think Civ is about discovering the world and making his OWN way, even surrounded by neighbours.

 

[JavalTigar]

Borders are a necessary evil. But I think it would be a good idea if they didn't form until a certain set of criteria were established, like:

1) Multiple cities 5-8, all a certain size, say 5

2) Tech and government at a level to warrant the management of a nation.

Until then you’re just a collection of city states.

 

[Akka]

I find that cultural borders are, on the contrary, absolutely brilliant.
They are a superb metaphor of "national mind", prestige, de facto occupation and fluctuation in influence.

They are one of the best idea in the whole Civ serie, and I hope they keep going.

 

[fuad]

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

 

[Volstag]

Cultural borders were one of the greatest things about Civ III, IMO.

 

[Double Barrel]

I agree with the assertion that cultural borders are part of the essence and magic of Civ III. And I really look forward to how they are implemented in Civ IV.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Borders are a necessary evil. But I think it would be a good idea if they didn't form until a certain set of criteria were established, like:

1) Multiple cities 5-8, all a certain size, say 5

2) Tech and government at a level to warrant the management of a nation.

Until then you’re just a collection of city states.

No, you're not. Even without cultural borders you have borders in Civ2, appearing by the force of the things at a point, what is all the more fascinating. Cultural borders are just arbitrary lines that represents the pride of a wannabe nation or power. (that dares to claim things over other rulers they didn't even meet yet) In civ you are not a nation or power, you become it... if you want.

 

[Naokaukodem]

[cultural borders] are a superb metaphor of [...] fluctuation in influence.

I agree... But we can't say that it has been brillantly demonstrated in Civ3. (all in all) They reinforced the culture strenght in Civ4*, but i'm not sure about the effects. Anyway, as for influence, I would prefer the culture one separated from borders, just like acceleration is separated from speed if you see what I mean...

*=


You can see a city nearly submerged by another city (cultural) border/ influence while this last city is 3 square away! Strong isn't it?

PS: how claustrophobic! (not the worst though)

 

[apatheist]

Cultural borders are just arbitrary lines that represents the pride of a wannabe nation or power.

It's not pride. It's influence. It's a proxy for your ability to project power, be it cultural, economic, or military. The land isn't empty. Borders represent the loyalties of the people you don't see who inhabit the land.

 

[SonicX]

The one thing I hate about cultural borders is that they collapse after you conquered a city or civ.
This makes it a bit odd, all that no mans land in between my newly conquered territories ... I conquered the entire nation so why should I only have the 3x3 urban areas but not the area's surrounding it ?

It would be better to keep the current cultural borders after conquest but with the culture reset or halved at maximum... that's more realistic as you're conquer nations instead of just cities in the real world. And wonders should continue to make culture... in the real world, the pyramids are still of high cultural value, even though they're Arab instead of Egyptian now.

 

[Akka]

I agree... But we can't say that it has been brillantly demonstrated in Civ3. (all in all)

Disagree. It's been quite good in Civ3, in fact. Perfectible, but quite good.

They reinforced the culture strenght in Civ4*, but i'm not sure about the effects. Anyway, as for influence, I would prefer the culture one separated from borders, just like acceleration is separated from speed if you see what I mean...

Yes, it could. But I think that it's a very nice compilation, so to speak. After all, claims of property are much better enforced by the loyalty of the population. Culture just do that.

The one thing I hate about cultural borders is that they collapse after you conquered a city or civ.
This makes it a bit odd, all that no mans land in between my newly conquered territories ... I conquered the entire nation so why should I only have the 3x3 urban areas but not the area's surrounding it ?

It would be better to keep the current cultural borders after conquest but with the culture reset or halved at maximum... that's more realistic as you're conquer nations instead of just cities in the real world. And wonders should continue to make culture... in the real world, the pyramids are still of high cultural value, even though they're Arab instead of Egyptian now.

No, for the reason that the post just above you showed.
It's influence. Newcomers, who hasn't assimilated population in an area, haven't lots of influence. They need to show they are in charge, and manage things, before the people inhabiting the land feel themselves subject to them.
(for the Wonder, I agree they should give one half or one quarter of their initial cultural value to the conqueror)

 

[warpstorm]

It would be better to keep the current cultural borders after conquest but with the culture reset or halved at maximum... that's more realistic as you're conquer nations instead of just cities in the real world. .

I strongly disagree. This isn't your culture. Look at any occupying force in history. It usually takes a generation or more before they are accepted by the prior inhabitants (and the "or more" is more typical).

 

[SonicX]

No, for the reason that the post just above you showed.
It's influence. Newcomers, who hasn't assimilated population in an area, haven't lots of influence. They need to show they are in charge, and manage things, before the people inhabiting the land feel themselves subject to them.
(for the Wonder, I agree they should give one half or one quarter of their initial cultural value to the conqueror)

You haven't got a lot of influence within the cities, that's correct, but if in the real world the Germans would conquer France, the area between Paris and Lille would also be under German rule, not belong to no one.
The culture may be reset, but the borders shouldn't in my opinion.

 

[BasketCase]

I think the cultural borders in Civ3 are AWESOME. One of my biggest gripes with Civ1 (which I played right up until I got Civ3 around two years ago) was that units from other civs would be constantly trespassing on my cities, moving into their labor radius, and fortifying--then staying there permanently, and preventing my city's workers from using the tile. And since I usually played Republic governments, it was impossible to get rid of them because the Senate would overrule my attempts to do so.

Cultural borders in Civ3 make it very clear to the Other Guy what is yours, and gives you a mechanism to immediately give them the boot. If they go to war rather than leave your territory, then they started it, the war starts during YOUR turn (giving you the opportunity to immediately administer the necessary smackdown) and you get the morale boost for their malefesance.

 

[HourlyDaily]

I have to agree with Akka and Warpstom about the Cultural reset, look at the French Revolution for one - when they Royalists could muster an army, their powerbases were in the 'country' regions, whereas the revolutionaries had control of Paris (captured a city in civ terms).

 

[Akka]

You haven't got a lot of influence within the cities, that's correct, but if in the real world the Germans would conquer France, the area between Paris and Lille would also be under German rule, not belong to no one.
The culture may be reset, but the borders shouldn't in my opinion.

Well, on the contrary. People would be, of course, subject to the invader rule, but would be unwilling to participate. Be it active or passive resistance, it can only be enforced if the troops actually come and force people to do it.
As such, we can consider that the lack of loyalty, the resistance and the attempt to avoid the rule of the invader, lead the population to be unamanageable until a sort of legitimacy has been gained - through building culture.

 

[Naokaukodem]

It's not pride. It's influence. It's a proxy for your ability to project power, be it cultural, economic, or military. The land isn't empty. Borders represent the loyalties of the people you don't see who inhabit the land.

It's pride. There is not influence. Or it's only related to culture, not power, economy nor military... building barracks doesn't influence it, only libraries, coloseums, universities, temples, cathedrales, etc... borders are not cultural borders.
Btw, the land IS empty.
Culture influence is vain most of the time.

Disagree. It's been quite good in Civ3, in fact. Perfectible, but quite good.

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

Yes, it could. But I think that it's a very nice compilation, so to speak. After all, claims of property are much better enforced by the loyalty of the population. Culture just do that.

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...

 

[nicae]

yeah, culture borders may represent influence, pride, acceptance of rule, etc... but in the current set of game rules, it counts as political borders as well. it works as area of control. isnt it stupid that you conquor an entire island and with the border collapse, another lousy nation settles a city on it? and whats worse: you cant do anything about it! its theirs, even though its not! o.0

i beleive borders should work as they are in civ3 up to a point.. perhaps until you discover a tech like nationalism.. after that, they stay stable, do not collapse, and do not convert cities. where on earth can you find a large country simply give up on a city just because they want to join a neighbour?!? who wouldnt claim his sovereignity?! would it make sense if, in world war 2, after germany took over france, sweeden would come with a handful of civilians and settle a city in french soil? and still have political property over the land??!?! yeah f**** right!!

either make borders stable or seperate culture from political lines, imho.

another issue is when you bring an ally through mutual protection pact or alliance. i think cities shouldnt simply belong to the civ who conquored it: i think it should depend a bit on with who the city makes borders with, who was the initial nation to declare war/suffer the aggression, etc. otherwise you have several cities of another nation spreaded among yours, something you dont really see around (aside colonies, which are rare themselves). cultural conversions can fix that in someway or another, but it takes much too long and its a really artificial simulation imho

speaking of cultural conversions, i find it funny i lose units and armies when i lose a city this way.. its like.. wtf?!? they vaporized!!

 

[Darwin420]

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

 

[Timeeee4]

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

I think that's a great idea.