Zachriel
Kaiser
Do it to them before they do it to you.
Attack your neighbor with culture:
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Culture.htm
Attack your neighbor with culture:
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Culture.htm
Culture Flipping BORDERS are a CROCK
- Thread starter Troyens
- Start date
Hmm... You guys seem to have tons of flippings happening in your games. I have NEVER got even a single flipped city in my favor in the entire time I played Civ III from its release date. Could someone tell me why I'm not getting flips?
I build cities with max improvements and size 10 - 30, everything from Granaries to Robotic Factories, with all the cultural improvements, yet the enemy cities nearby never flip even though they have size 1 - 10, and only a 21 square border (the second culture level). In this case, I should have these cities flipping by the dozens yet I have yet to see one flip to me in like 3 months of gameplay
I build cities with max improvements and size 10 - 30, everything from Granaries to Robotic Factories, with all the cultural improvements, yet the enemy cities nearby never flip even though they have size 1 - 10, and only a 21 square border (the second culture level). In this case, I should have these cities flipping by the dozens yet I have yet to see one flip to me in like 3 months of gameplay
Zachriel
Kaiser
When you conquer, the new cities in your empire are new in a cultural sense. As you get closer to an enemy capital, the older their cities are, in a cultural sense. Age makes culture. A fresh built temple has no culture. Only with time will the culture add up.
For most strategic play, try to avoid long, stretched out empires like this position while playing the Japanese (red).
Ironically, this position resulted from a successful culture attack on the French. I acquired this empire when France declared war. But the western section is far distant from the capital, indeed closer to every enemy capital on the continent. And they are all new cities in the midst of old and venerable civilizations.
Once I am sure the west is culturally stable (temples, etc.), I will rush the Forbidden Palace. A Great Leader has been waiting for this moment.
Attachments
simwiz2
Warlord
One problem I have with borders is the automatic city-radius. Say you have a city, and you have a border radius of 4. If the AI builds a city 5 squares away(next to border), they automatically get those 3 squares inside your border, just because they are in its 1x1 radius! And then it gets 10 cp, and your borders go back more because, regardless of your city's culture, it has to have its 2x2 radius! I think city radiuses should not determine borders, just culture. If the AI's new city starves because you own half of its city radius, then woe to the stupid AI that put it there. 
Why should valuable resources just inside a nation's borders be fair game just because someone plops a (clutureless) town nearby and steals them. It is easy to swipe resources up to 2 spaces inside a rival's border this way. And, it become's the victim's "aggresson" for the horrible act of wanting his resources back 
Build a city, rush temple, build city on edge of "new" border. Rush temple. Repeat. Is this how civ3 should be played?
And dont even try to say that "it will flip back soon" when is soon? 2000 years later? What if you need that saltpeter that was yours NOW, but you have to wait 2000 years for your border to become yours again? Besides, AI cities of importance (resources) will NEVER flip to you, just like AI capitals will almost ALWAYS generate killer phalanxes.
Why should valuable resources just inside a nation's borders be fair game just because someone plops a (clutureless) town nearby and steals them. It is easy to swipe resources up to 2 spaces inside a rival's border this way. And, it become's the victim's "aggresson" for the horrible act of wanting his resources back Build a city, rush temple, build city on edge of "new" border. Rush temple. Repeat. Is this how civ3 should be played?And dont even try to say that "it will flip back soon" when is soon? 2000 years later? What if you need that saltpeter that was yours NOW, but you have to wait 2000 years for your border to become yours again? Besides, AI cities of importance (resources) will NEVER flip to you, just like AI capitals will almost ALWAYS generate killer phalanxes.
OneInTen
Darkness bound
Demonstratably false, I've had it happen in multiple games (for both luxury and strategic resources).
You better go outside and check if the AI has sent any black helicopters after you.
As for your other complaint, if the resource is so valuable to you, protect it with a city for crying out loud! Don't blame the game when you make a poor strategic decision!
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
This is not automatic, I have had the AI place cities down on the edge of my border and not get any of my tiles, and the same has happened to me when I place a city down by the AI. When you place cities the game compare culture to see if the borders are going to overlap. Somtime those 3 squars will go to the civ placing the city, sometimes they will stay with the original owner, and sometimes they will be split between the two.
My suggestion to you is buld more culture improvements. You are obviously low on the culture scale if the AI civs can push back you borders. If you have a high enough culture, your borders should only go outward, never be pushed back.
rdomarat
Spearmen can beat Tanks!
The thread has gotten away from the original post, and I just needed to pull it back for a second. The more I think about some of the comments made, the more I feel the need to respond.
This will completely change the way the game is played. Typically, a worker will have already made a road to the city location where your settler is going to found a city, or there is a worker on the way. Now, instead of just building a road to the city, the worker will now be building a ring around the 21-tile area that will eventually define the city. Now that the worker has built a road around the city, even if another civ put a city right beside that road, they people of the new city won't be able to use the land with a road on it as farmland, since as we all know, a road through a piece of land will completely stop people from another civilization from using that piece of land. This is silly. IMHO, Firaxis will NEVER implement your suggestion, not only because it's stupid, but because the changes they'd have to make to tweak the AI are huge. I for one wouldn't want a change that could have this sort of huge impact on the game.
I agree that in the year 2002, civilizations have political borders. Remember though, that in your situation you're talking about an area of land that has just been settled. There is empty space beside your city that have not been claimed. This is completely different from today's society. When North America was being colonized by the English and French, there were no hard borders drawn up, they changed from time to time and varied based on who you asked. I think that the implementation of cultural boundaries is a fairly close historical estimate. That's all I can ask for from a GAME.
One final note, even today there are cultural hot spots. I'll bet if you asked a Palestinian and an Isreali where the border in the Gaza strip was, that you'd probably get two different answers. Isn't there always an incident in that area when one side tries to build a settlement in a "disputed area"? This all sounds very familiar to me for some reason. I wish I could put my finger on it.
This will completely change the way the game is played. Typically, a worker will have already made a road to the city location where your settler is going to found a city, or there is a worker on the way. Now, instead of just building a road to the city, the worker will now be building a ring around the 21-tile area that will eventually define the city. Now that the worker has built a road around the city, even if another civ put a city right beside that road, they people of the new city won't be able to use the land with a road on it as farmland, since as we all know, a road through a piece of land will completely stop people from another civilization from using that piece of land. This is silly. IMHO, Firaxis will NEVER implement your suggestion, not only because it's stupid, but because the changes they'd have to make to tweak the AI are huge. I for one wouldn't want a change that could have this sort of huge impact on the game.
I agree that in the year 2002, civilizations have political borders. Remember though, that in your situation you're talking about an area of land that has just been settled. There is empty space beside your city that have not been claimed. This is completely different from today's society. When North America was being colonized by the English and French, there were no hard borders drawn up, they changed from time to time and varied based on who you asked. I think that the implementation of cultural boundaries is a fairly close historical estimate. That's all I can ask for from a GAME.
One final note, even today there are cultural hot spots. I'll bet if you asked a Palestinian and an Isreali where the border in the Gaza strip was, that you'd probably get two different answers. Isn't there always an incident in that area when one side tries to build a settlement in a "disputed area"? This all sounds very familiar to me for some reason. I wish I could put my finger on it.
connor
Highlander
It is a pain when it happens, but to be honest it is mostly to my advantage. I had one game where I had cultural areas under my control but no city. It would be a good production and money making spot with a couple of gold spots. Problem was that the gold was under English control, but the city placement spot was under mine. I placed the city and English generously finished the improvements on my newly acquired gold mines.
On a very frustrating note
, I am having a problem getting a Russian city to flip to me. Somehow the Russians managed to build a village in the desert that is completely surrounded be native German founded cities. I am far culturally superior to the Russians, far more advanced, huge army, etc. I cut off all roads outside the village so that it is totally isolated, and yet for 500-1000 years it still has not flipped. I am loathe to declare war as to my knowledge, no civ in this game has ever been at war. The city holds absolutely no strategic value, and yet nothing. It is mainly a thorn in my side. Any ideas?
On a very frustrating note
, I am having a problem getting a Russian city to flip to me. Somehow the Russians managed to build a village in the desert that is completely surrounded be native German founded cities. I am far culturally superior to the Russians, far more advanced, huge army, etc. I cut off all roads outside the village so that it is totally isolated, and yet for 500-1000 years it still has not flipped. I am loathe to declare war as to my knowledge, no civ in this game has ever been at war. The city holds absolutely no strategic value, and yet nothing. It is mainly a thorn in my side. Any ideas?Spies and 'enlightening' the cities rulers to your benevolent rule?Originally posted by connor
On a very frustrating note
You could try building a city next to theirs and then rush building a few improvements. It was mentioned in another thread that the amount of city squares in your territory helps the city to flip to your Civ.
On the actuall topic. Territory should definately change hands. You could imagine that each square has small villages in them and they decide they like the other civ more. It doesn't matter what resources the square has and like what other people have said, if you wanted to kept the position so much you should have built a city on a hill nearby.
On the AI taking resources off you by building cities next to your borders. This has happened to me a couple of times but in my last game this massively worked in my favour. I was the Americans and I had tried to take a Uranium source from the Iroquis by building a city on the border but that failed. So later in a world war where I fought the Indians (captured 3 cities) and Later the English (virtually wiped out) with my allies and found a nice site to build a city next to the Chinese and I conveniently got their source of Uranium. This was extra nice since I needed Uranium to finish building the spaceship.
On the actuall topic. Territory should definately change hands. You could imagine that each square has small villages in them and they decide they like the other civ more. It doesn't matter what resources the square has and like what other people have said, if you wanted to kept the position so much you should have built a city on a hill nearby.
On the AI taking resources off you by building cities next to your borders. This has happened to me a couple of times but in my last game this massively worked in my favour. I was the Americans and I had tried to take a Uranium source from the Iroquis by building a city on the border but that failed. So later in a world war where I fought the Indians (captured 3 cities) and Later the English (virtually wiped out) with my allies and found a nice site to build a city next to the Chinese and I conveniently got their source of Uranium. This was extra nice since I needed Uranium to finish building the spaceship.
simwiz2
Warlord
"As for your other complaint, if the resource is so valuable to you, protect it with a city for crying out loud! Don't blame the game when you make a poor strategic decision!"
you mean put a city 1 square from my existing city, so they can both starve at size 7? If our borders are next to each other, and the AI plops a cultureless town on our common border, it gets 3 of my tiles, regardless of my culture. It will have 8 of my tiles, regardless of my culture, when it gets 10 cp, UNLESS those squares are in my city's 2x2 radius. But a if its a cultural raduis of 3 or 4 vs a city radius of 1 or 2, the city radius will ALWAYS win, no matter how much culture supports the 3-4 radius.
I should be able to keep my resources without putting a city RIGHT ON TOP OF THEM. If they build a city near me, and it gets culture and im careless and dont get culture, then my fault. But if I have 5000+ culture in a city, and a city right next to its (4 tile i think) border gets its 1-square, and later 2 square, with 0 cp and then 10 cp, then it is poor design IMO. Probably one of the causes of ICS, because you cant \hold resources definately unless they are >=1 tile from your city. Regardless of culture. One the eqyptians plopped a city next to my capital's border (~3000 culture), and they got their 1 radius. And their 2 radius at 10 cp. And all of my spices.
And if anyone had a city with 0 radius, then there must have been a city 2 tiles away. If not, then post your savegame, I really want to see this. Because i have NEVER seen culture push a city radius to 0 unless there was only one space between them.
you mean put a city 1 square from my existing city, so they can both starve at size 7? If our borders are next to each other, and the AI plops a cultureless town on our common border, it gets 3 of my tiles, regardless of my culture. It will have 8 of my tiles, regardless of my culture, when it gets 10 cp, UNLESS those squares are in my city's 2x2 radius. But a if its a cultural raduis of 3 or 4 vs a city radius of 1 or 2, the city radius will ALWAYS win, no matter how much culture supports the 3-4 radius.
I should be able to keep my resources without putting a city RIGHT ON TOP OF THEM. If they build a city near me, and it gets culture and im careless and dont get culture, then my fault. But if I have 5000+ culture in a city, and a city right next to its (4 tile i think) border gets its 1-square, and later 2 square, with 0 cp and then 10 cp, then it is poor design IMO. Probably one of the causes of ICS, because you cant \hold resources definately unless they are >=1 tile from your city. Regardless of culture. One the eqyptians plopped a city next to my capital's border (~3000 culture), and they got their 1 radius. And their 2 radius at 10 cp. And all of my spices.
And if anyone had a city with 0 radius, then there must have been a city 2 tiles away. If not, then post your savegame, I really want to see this. Because i have NEVER seen culture push a city radius to 0 unless there was only one space between them.
I would like to see the city flipping thing changed too. The basic idea that a city can flip from one side to the other is ok, but the circumstances that cause this to happen, and that can prevent it should be changed. I tend to think there should be a distinction between the political boundaries and the cultural boundaries too. Why not just let players set their own political boundaries and claim whatever land they think they can hold on to for example? Isn't that they way things work in our real world? "Why is this land mine? Because I say it is, that's why, you have a problem with that?" Naturally two civs will want to claim the same slice of land at some point, and voila you have a disputed region. Sound familiar? No doubt it does to the people of Kashmir. There must be a sensible way to implement a concept like this.
The number of military forces in the city should play a bigger part in whether it switches sides than it seems to. It could be established that if your military force within the city limits is, say, 1/3 of the population size (i.e. 2 military units or more for a pop 6 city) then the city won't switch, but all the citizens will just be resistors if the cultural influence is strong enough. Then if your military force is frittered away by attacks, or leaves, the city could then switch sides if so inclined. I don't think you should just automatically lose all your units either if it does switch. If you have military units in the city, and the city switches sides, then I think it would make more sense to knock all of them down to one hit point left and eject them to the square adjacent to the city that has the highest defensive value. They are then more vulnerable to attack, but at least you have a chance to withdraw them if you can.
Here's a thought about how the culture/city flipping thing could work that would not involve the city actually switch sides. Based on how much cultural influence there is, a proportion of the city's shields would go to the foreign civ, giving a neighboring foreign city an increase in shield output at the cost of your city, but still have the gold and food they produce directed to your city. When the city is so influenced that it would flip, ALL the city's shields are going to the other civ, but you still have possession and control of the city.
The number of military forces in the city should play a bigger part in whether it switches sides than it seems to. It could be established that if your military force within the city limits is, say, 1/3 of the population size (i.e. 2 military units or more for a pop 6 city) then the city won't switch, but all the citizens will just be resistors if the cultural influence is strong enough. Then if your military force is frittered away by attacks, or leaves, the city could then switch sides if so inclined. I don't think you should just automatically lose all your units either if it does switch. If you have military units in the city, and the city switches sides, then I think it would make more sense to knock all of them down to one hit point left and eject them to the square adjacent to the city that has the highest defensive value. They are then more vulnerable to attack, but at least you have a chance to withdraw them if you can.
Here's a thought about how the culture/city flipping thing could work that would not involve the city actually switch sides. Based on how much cultural influence there is, a proportion of the city's shields would go to the foreign civ, giving a neighboring foreign city an increase in shield output at the cost of your city, but still have the gold and food they produce directed to your city. When the city is so influenced that it would flip, ALL the city's shields are going to the other civ, but you still have possession and control of the city.
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
Marzipan, you are correct.
But the point of this thread seemed to be about borders flipping over your own improvements and then the wrong person getting blamed for any war.
So, not only do cities flip too much (with garrsions that disappear and make no difference), but borders also flip way too much.
It needs to be fixed.
But the point of this thread seemed to be about borders flipping over your own improvements and then the wrong person getting blamed for any war.
So, not only do cities flip too much (with garrsions that disappear and make no difference), but borders also flip way too much.
It needs to be fixed.
Ok yes I got off on the city flipping and didn't get into the issue of just borders shifting. Probably has something to do with the post-traumatic stress of my two long and difficult campaigns to capture Bonn in a recent game, only to see it flip back a few turns later . . . .
Border shifting is fine if the squares are unoccupied, but I agree with the original poster that it doesn't make sense for squares that are occupied by a unit to just suddenly switch to the other side. I think it would be better if squares that are occupied by a military unit, worker, or are being worked by a citizen were immune to being culturally annexed. Any squares that don't meet one of these criteria could be though. How's that?
It's fun dreaming up all of these ideas about how things could be, but I wonder what the chances are of seeing something like this change now?
Border shifting is fine if the squares are unoccupied, but I agree with the original poster that it doesn't make sense for squares that are occupied by a unit to just suddenly switch to the other side. I think it would be better if squares that are occupied by a military unit, worker, or are being worked by a citizen were immune to being culturally annexed. Any squares that don't meet one of these criteria could be though. How's that?
It's fun dreaming up all of these ideas about how things could be, but I wonder what the chances are of seeing something like this change now?
Zachriel
Kaiser
Don't you hate it when that happens.
Some tribe called the Europeans plops a settler right in the middle of your Native American hunting grounds.
Or some North Americans plop a settler down in an underpopulated section of Mexico and decide to become the state of Texas. Culture Flip, too. Ouch!
Some tribe called the Europeans plops a settler right in the middle of your Native American hunting grounds.
Or some North Americans plop a settler down in an underpopulated section of Mexico and decide to become the state of Texas. Culture Flip, too. Ouch!
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
How about you better place that original city in the first place. If there is some key resource you want to control don't place your city so that its outer territory covers it. You want your city placed in front of the resources not behind it, that way they can't be taken by an opportunistic civ. Plus I seem to remember this being a very popular strategy for players to use against the computer.
Now the idea of a political border that you can create is an interesting idea. However, I wouldn't go as far as many people in giving it absolute border definition. But instead it would allow you to lay claim to some territory of which you could defend with reduced reputation penalty (depending on how valid the other civ's saw your claim). Also an intruding civ would often be willing to sign a peace agreement after you push them back out. However at the same time another civ could draw their own political border claiming some of your claimed land. Now if you had signed an agreement agreeing to recognize each others political borders this would not happen. However if a disputed region were created conflict in there should not directly lead to war. At the same time any cities that get created in that region should not necessarily remove the disputed zone right away, and be open to the same kind of war less attacks.
Of course I realize the above would do nothing to satisfy your complaints. Instead it would just add another level of stategy to the game. Just remember stategically place you cities to defend against your opponents city placement.
simwiz2
Warlord
"How about you better place that original city in the first place. If there is some key resource you want to control don't place your city so that its outer territory covers it"
Great, except lets assume the ancient settlers that i commanded to create it had no idea what rubber was, or that anything of value existed there. So as far as I could see, the city was well-placed. And it is not unreasonable to assume that if the city is a cultural powerhouse (4 square border), that the rubber 3 spaces away is as good as mine. Except that the AI ICS building a city 5 squares away will INEVITABLY take the rubber square withing 5 turns of a temple being built. I'm not saying that the AI shouldnt use this strategy, I just dont like that the game makes it impossible for a strong, old, culturally significant city to counter a cheap size 1 ICS city for resources.
Great, except lets assume the ancient settlers that i commanded to create it had no idea what rubber was, or that anything of value existed there. So as far as I could see, the city was well-placed. And it is not unreasonable to assume that if the city is a cultural powerhouse (4 square border), that the rubber 3 spaces away is as good as mine. Except that the AI ICS building a city 5 squares away will INEVITABLY take the rubber square withing 5 turns of a temple being built. I'm not saying that the AI shouldnt use this strategy, I just dont like that the game makes it impossible for a strong, old, culturally significant city to counter a cheap size 1 ICS city for resources.
Chicken_Salad
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 12
"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."
It is when you've just based about 10 bombers in that city.
It is when you've just based about 10 bombers in that city.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Originally posted by Chicken_Salad
"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."
It is when you've just based about 10 bombers in that city.
Bummer. Just think of that as the French Underground blowing up the airport as the citizens riot for control of the city.
Similar threads
