• Our Forum Hosts will be doing maintenance sometime in the next 72 hours and you may experience an outage lasting up to 5 minutes.

Culture Flipping BORDERS are a CROCK

Troyens

Warlord
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
195
Civ III really should have been called "Culture" it is that different from Civ II.

I am the Iroquois, circa 300 AD, and I have built a road, mine, and fortress near my border within the boundaries of a large town. The road is at a junction connecting several cities with the rest of my civ; it is also a great invasion route into my civ what with all the hills and mountains nearby. The fortress has been there, garrisoned, for well over a century at least.

The Aztec then, with the always land-grabbing AI settlers, build a town near that border. They must have rush built a load of culture improvements, or maybe the damn AI just was acting weird again - or cheating (as usual).

Despite the fact that I led the Aztec in power, culture, and overall score, the border there FLIPS, moves, and my important road, mine, and garrisoned fortress are now in Aztec territory! :crazyeyes :crazyeyes

It gets worse.

I am not leaving. The AI wants a war, so be it.

Then, the Aztec has the nerve to tell me that I will get blamed for any war. That is even DUMBER as I am superior militarily to the Aztecs.

The Aztec Diplomatic AI borders on the suicidal and will not make peace until it has one town left despite my efforts to end the war - my envoys were not seen, or were insulted.

Worse still, every time I captured an Aztec capital it moved elsewhere free of charge. (No civil war, of course). This didn't occur in Civ II, thankfully. Having a capital is a big help, but the stupid Aztecs were too far gone for help.

It gets even worse. Five hundred years later I've made contact with the Egyptians - who never heard of the Aztecs until ten years before I contacted them - and they won't even deal with me, saying, "Not after the deal you broke with the Aztecs"!

I broke no "deal"; the Egyptians shouldn't even know about it (or care); and no one would hold a grudge for over five hundred years and counting. It likely lasted the whole game - or would have if I didn't end the nonsense then having had enough of the stupid AI.

Firaxis, Culture flipping stinks, cities or borders, and your AI advisors are idiots. :mad:
 

TrailblazingScot

I was kittenOFchaos
Joined
Jan 6, 2001
Messages
6,879
Location
Brighouse, England
Heretic...:p
 

Troyens

Warlord
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
195
Oh yea, almost forgot.

After the border flipped I got the following asinine bellicose message from the Aztecs: "your recent movement of troops into our territory. . ."

Yea, sure. WHAT "recent movements"?? Nothing moved in or to that tile for a century.

Perhaps the message should say something akin to, "owing to the bizarre vicissitudes and vagaries of Sid's strange system your improvements are no longer yours. If you dare to fight for them the world will hate you forever". :p


Borders with improvements on them should never, never flip. And that should be patched, Firaxis.
 

Grotius

Prince
Joined
Jan 7, 2002
Messages
409
I like city and border flipping. It generally works to my advantage, but not always, which means I have to think before I attack. It requires me to pay some attention to a dimension of civilization other than warfare.

FWIW, there is also some historical justification for territory suddenly changing hands even without military conflict. The reunification of Germany and the breakup of the Soviet Union are only two of many examples.

Nor do I mind that my units suddenly find themselves in foreign territory. More often than not, I'm hoping their presence will provoke war anyway. When I prefer peace, I move them out.
 

Troyens

Warlord
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
195
Let me clarify one thing.

The Aztecs would not agree to peace even though all I wanted was one little TOWN near my border that might be another culture flipping border threat. The Aztecs refused that offer with fifteen of my veteran Mounted Horsemen two tiles from their capital - which I promptly captured next turn, along with their seond biggest city nearby.

That crazy AI.

:lol: :crazyeyes
 

Troyens

Warlord
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
195
The Bottom Line is simple, and a basic flaw in the game:

Civilizations DO NOT HAVE "Cultural Borders"; they have POLITICAL BORDERS determined by warfare and diplomacy far more than culture. That is what determines if a war occurs, and who controls what resource.

If Cultural Borders were of prime importance. . . today most of Canada would be part of the United States, and Russia long ago would have dominated and assimilated Latvia, Azerbaijan, and Finland.

Civ III should have political borders that change owing to the current diplomacy and warfare - not some secretive formula only the AI knows for "culture".

America's current borders were determined by diplomacy with Britain and Mexico and Spain, and war with Mexico. Cultural strength can play a part in this process, but only a small part.
 

basher

Warlord
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
141
Location
Finland
Troyens, you wrote:

"If Cultural Borders were of prime importance. . . today most of Canada would be part of the United States, and Russia long ago would have dominated and assimilated Latvia, Azerbaijan, and Finland."

That's untrue. Finland and Latvia are so different to Russia in their cultures, people and religion, that if boundaries had been determined by culture, and not by centuries of continuing warfare, Russians would never have gained those territories. And probably Azerbaijan neither - they're muslims and akin to Turks.

Finland became a part of the Russian Empire from 1809, after Russia had won the war against Sweden, to 1917, when Finland became independent.

In 1809 Russia had to give Finland an autonomous position as a Grand Duchy; if it hadn't, Finland would easily have "flipped" to Sweden again, just like in cultural flipping. Finland didn't pay taxes to Russia; Finland never had a feodal system; Finland remained Lutheran; Finland's men didn't have to take part in Russian wars; Finland got its own currency and railway system in the 1860's, just to name some examples of its cultural indepence under the Russian period of rule. The political boundaries were totally different from the cultural boundaries. The Baltic countries were in a worse position but their culture was predominantly German, their religion Catholic and/or Protestant, and the people never felt they could assimilate to their rulers' nationality.

Briefly after signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, in which Germany and Soviet Union agreed to divide Europe, Soviet Union attacked Finland, with an army 10 times larger than Finland's.
Great Britain and France promised help but were afraid of a German attack; after three months of waiting that was already too late as the war was over.

But still, Stalin hadn't succeeded in occupying Finland and that was thought to be almost a miracle.

In 1944 Soviets tried again. Again, Finland didn't win, but Stalin never took the country either. So isn't that cultural resistance or what? If inferior in numbers, Finland was superior in the power of culture. He could take a strip of land, but not the soul of the people.

What I mean to say is that cultural flipping to Russia/Soviet Union could never have occurred IN REALITY. And after the autonomy in 1809, not back to Sweden either. A national ideologist of the 19th century once said: "We're not Swedish, we don't want to become Russian, so let us be Finnish!"

Last, a word about "realism". In case you haven't noticed: Civilization III isn't real world. It's not even supposed to be real world. If you want an ultra-real world, you're playing the wrong game.

Sorry for this annoyingly long reply.

PS. But, what would be a nice improvement, would be such that new (or extinct) rebel civilizations would be generated after a fall of an empire; like in Civilization I & II after the capture of a capitol.
 

dannyevilcat

DESTROYER OF FURNITURE
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
Messages
1,714
Location
Burnaby B.C.
Actually, I looked up the percentages of resistance and flipping percentages in the editor for the first time this weekend. I know it can be edited, but what is with this: If an enemy civ is in awe of your culture (in AWE), what's with a 30% chance of flipping?

Since flipping represents mass unrest and civil uprising, why would it be so damned HIGH?!
 

Sir. Martin

King of the kings
Joined
Jul 28, 2001
Messages
120
Location
Odense, Denmark.
Lots of fun and learning in this thread thx to your all and with the learning basher. :D :lol: :D

I think it´s okay with the culture-flipping, maybe because it´s often in my favor! It´s really not that hard just be sure to build things like temples in your border-cities as the first thing and then contenue with stuff like collusem etc. Not wonders, the reason? -It takes to long time!

But yes I think there should be some winnings by taking over the capital! -AND YES the computer cheats! hehe very often!

:goodjob:
 

Hobbes

Utilitarian Despot
Joined
Nov 9, 2001
Messages
237
Location
Hockeytown, USA
Sometimes it works for you sometimes against. I once used the creeping city/culture rush technique to take control of an oil tile from the AI, though when he discovered refining he declared war on me. The war went well, I used his oil to build tanks that I captured his cites with. :goodjob:
 

etj4Eagle

ACME Salesman
Joined
Dec 6, 2001
Messages
614
Location
Columbus, OH
Originally posted by dannyevilcat
Actually, I looked up the percentages of resistance and flipping percentages in the editor for the first time this weekend. I know it can be edited, but what is with this: If an enemy civ is in awe of your culture (in AWE), what's with a 30% chance of flipping?

Since flipping represents mass unrest and civil uprising, why would it be so damned HIGH?!

Are you sure that is flipping and not the chance for quelling a resistor? Plus the civ culture relations are only modifiers on the base chance of flipping, which is strictly determined by the number of foreign nationals in the city and the number of the 21 tiles outside your cultural borders.
 

TrailblazingScot

I was kittenOFchaos
Joined
Jan 6, 2001
Messages
6,879
Location
Brighouse, England
In the map I have just released with modified rules I worked on changing envy values etc to reduce city-flipping being so pronounced especially during war.
 

Troyens

Warlord
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
195
Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
In the map I have just released with modified rules I worked on changing envy values etc to reduce city-flipping being so pronounced especially during war.

Two quick points:

1. FIRAXIS should be correcting this problem - a problem that never should have existed, and would not have with adequate playtestng.

2. This thread emphasizes the flipping of BORDERS onto improved territory, and then blaming the victim forever of the flip for any war. It is asinine.

Borders are not in reality determined solely by "culture"; they are mostly determined by politics and diplomacy (and warfare).

Borders do in Civ III suddenly flip on someone's fortress and other improvements, while cutting a road that connects you to important cities. That is a BIG CROCK. And it must be changed.

BORDERS MUST NEVER FLIP ON IMPROVEMENTS!!
 

History_Buff

Deity
Joined
Aug 12, 2001
Messages
6,529
You should (especially when Multiplayer works its way in) be able to negotiate with a civ and set a permanent borders, say a lange mountain range, and set that until you try to re-negotiate. Even throw in a demilitarized zone or two.
 

Troyens

Warlord
Joined
Jan 6, 2002
Messages
195
History_Buff,

I have no interest in multi-player.

What is the procedure for these "permanent borders" you mentioned? I see no reference to this in any guide nor in the game.

A line of fortresses MUST be considered a permanent border, as should any improvement (certainly mines).
 

D.Shaffer

Warlord
Joined
Nov 16, 2001
Messages
269
Originally posted by Troyens


Two quick points:

1. FIRAXIS should be correcting this problem - a problem that never should have existed, and would not have with adequate playtestng.
Except not everyone thinks it's a problem. Some of us like it.
2. This thread emphasizes the flipping of BORDERS onto improved territory, and then blaming the victim forever of the flip for any war. It is asinine.

Borders are not in reality determined solely by "culture"; they are mostly determined by politics and diplomacy (and warfare).
Correction. You think it is. Some of us like the present system. If you wanted to make sure said improvements stayed in your borders you should have either built a city closer to it or made sure that the city closest to it had VERY strong culture so the borders dont shift. If he's placing a new city next to an improvement near a city next toa really strong border, it's going to flip back to you soon anyways.

As for improvements on a border never flipping ever. Never going to happen. It's to exploitable a mechanism. All you'd need to do is build a series of forts on any resource you dont want him to have early on and you can keep the AI from ever getting them. That's not a good thing.
 

eyrei

Deity
Retired Moderator
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
9,186
Location
Durham, NC USA
Originally posted by D.Shaffer
Except not everyone thinks it's a problem. Some of us like it.
2. This thread emphasizes the flipping of BORDERS onto improved territory, and then blaming the victim forever of the flip for any war. It is asinine.

Borders are not in reality determined solely by "culture"; they are mostly determined by politics and diplomacy (and warfare).
Correction. You think it is. Some of us like the present system. If you wanted to make sure said improvements stayed in your borders you should have either built a city closer to it or made sure that the city closest to it had VERY strong culture so the borders dont shift. If he's placing a new city next to an improvement near a city next toa really strong border, it's going to flip back to you soon anyways.

As for improvements on a border never flipping ever. Never going to happen. It's to exploitable a mechanism. All you'd need to do is build a series of forts on any resource you dont want him to have early on and you can keep the AI from ever getting them. That's not a good thing.

I like the way squares change hands depending on the culture of the nearby cities, as well. I also completely agree with your assessment of the effect the proposed 'ownership' of squares via improvements would have on the game. Struggling over cultural borders with your neighbor is sometimes almost as fun as war, especially if the square in question contains a resource or luxury.
 

rdomarat

Spearmen can beat Tanks!
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
216
Location
Waterloo, Ontario
If the spot was that important to you, why didn't you build a city where the AI put one down? Sounds like you got caught with your pants down, and you're looking for someone to blame.

I'm losing! It's a bug! Fix it!

Stepping onto soapbox....

Instead of complaining about something that is being used against you and screaming that it needs to be fixed or this game is crock of ****, learn how it works and use it to your advantage. The odds of Firaxis making changes in a patch that have huge effects on how the game is played are somewhere between zero and none. Enjoy the game as it is or stop playing it.

Stepping off soapbox.....
 

Ironikinit

Prince
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
409
Location
Michigan
Amen.

"I lost a battle to the Japanese."
"Me too! It must be a BUG! FIX IT FIRAXIS!!!!!! (insert whatever smiley that goes with deluded self righteousness.)
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2001
Messages
1,493
Location
Funcouver
all i can say is that i agree with you two. I never had problems with culture flipping. I usualy get about 3 cities a game and never loose any. The only cities i loose are for turn or two and durring wars when i take a city. ANd that is easy to handle. Just station troops outside untill a few surrounding cities are under your controll.

My only complaint is how troops get killed when a town switches. But that isn't too big of a pain as it is easy to work around.
 
Top Bottom