OneInTen
Darkness bound
Or you could limit one to size 1 and let the other city grow normally. It's your choice.
Culture Flipping BORDERS are a CROCK
- Thread starter Troyens
- Start date
Or you could limit one to size 1 and let the other city grow normally. It's your choice.
Borders must never, never flip on developed territory with improvements!!
I will give you a border flip over a connecting road between distant small cities on a tile not within those borders - annoying but not completely illogical.
But NO WAY should a border flip on well developed tiles not only within your borders but in use by the city at that time -and that especially refers to a strategically vital crossroads with a garrisoned fortress on it.
Beyond that, NO WAY should YOU get blamed for a war that results by that flip if it occurs. Flipping borders, and land-grabbing AI settlers encroaching on your territory and colonies, should be considered aggressive and even acts of war.
Beyond that, NO WAY should some civ on another continent, who never heard of a long extinct civ, over five centuries later still hate the civ who was flipped on and decided to fight for their improvements. It is idiotic that they would care or even remember, as happened with the Egyptians (see my first post at the top of the thread).
CITIES?? If I ever had a city flip with a bunch of bombers in it, with the bombers and garrison VANISHING into thin air, I'd likely quit the game on the spot in utter disgust at such lunacy. BTW, bombers being unable to sink warships is asinine enough for me.
Firaxis, I hope you're reading these posts. Civ III will not last one tenth as long as Civ II if you don't fix this.
If Firaxis is not reading these posts, we can e-mail them direct at:
http://www.firaxis.com/contact_gamefeedback.cfm
I don't have a problem with some military units being damaged or destroyed by resistors in a city, but the problem with the way it is now is that the player is encouraged to do something that is not logically consistent with the game's concepts. What I mean by this is that it is beneficial to NOT garrison anything but a token force in a city that is likely to flip when logically you should NEED to garrison a large force in the cities where resistance is the strongest. When I capture a city that I think is at risk of flipping, I put one unit in there and keep a large force just outside, so that if it flips I don't lose them and can just retake the city again. I should BENEFIT by placing a large force in a city where there is strong resisastance, but I benefit MORE by not doing so, as the game is now. I've gathered from other threads that the size of the military force is taken into account to a some degree, but from what I've seen not enough to matter.
Regarding the border shifting issue, maybe a good enough solution would be to factor in how long a border has existed in its present location. Is it already factored in? If so then it needs to be a more important factor. Certainly it is true in our world that the longer a border has existed, the more the nations of the world see it as the "proper" border between two countries. Maybe it should just come down to whoever established the border first. Here's how it could work: Say I build a city in the early days and the border expands out into unclaimed territory to a certain extent. Then in time another civs borders creep out and meet up with mine. Since my border was established first, it can't slip through cultural influence alone. If, however, the newcomer civ attacks and razes the near city and the cultural border falls back, then the newcomers civs border now becomes the oldest border and has precedence if my civ expands out to that level again.
Regarding the border shifting issue, maybe a good enough solution would be to factor in how long a border has existed in its present location. Is it already factored in? If so then it needs to be a more important factor. Certainly it is true in our world that the longer a border has existed, the more the nations of the world see it as the "proper" border between two countries. Maybe it should just come down to whoever established the border first. Here's how it could work: Say I build a city in the early days and the border expands out into unclaimed territory to a certain extent. Then in time another civs borders creep out and meet up with mine. Since my border was established first, it can't slip through cultural influence alone. If, however, the newcomer civ attacks and razes the near city and the cultural border falls back, then the newcomers civs border now becomes the oldest border and has precedence if my civ expands out to that level again.
Minuteman
Minister of salty snacks
Hey Troyens, nice to see you back from your temp ban.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
And why not? It is only really in the recent past with the developed countries that borders have become recognized absolutes. And we still have areas today where there are disputed region, such as the Kashmire region or the Israleas building settlements in territory the Palenstitians claim. You know that last one looks a lot like what you are complaining about with the game.
If you want you could look at the border adjustment as you fought a border war with the other civ and lost.
Now I would like to see the borders element in the game expanded. It would be nice to be able to fight a war over a border loss within a certain amount of terms with minimal reputation effect. And as I mentioned in my earlier post, I could even see some kind of claimed border implementation as well.
Now another change that could help too, would be to add a diplomatic option to the game of "recognize my borders." If you have signed such a treaty with another civ then you recognize each other's rights to fight over a border loss and also will not push each other's borders.
I could also see maybe allowing you to militarily claim land. However this has to be done well to prevent people from just building a slew of warriors.
Now for the vast majority of the people on this forum appear to only have problem with the garrison loss in a city that flips. Hence I don't think Firaxis needs to fix this. The shifting borders for many is one of the great additions that Civ3 adds to the line.
As it currently stands, I don't have a problem with the system. Though there are areas which I wouldn't mind being expanded on with the add-on. I would love to have the option of fighting low intensity wars over a border.
Considering you are one of maybe three people on this forum that allows this aspect of the game to ruin your fun, I don't forsee Firaxis 'fixing' this. Sorry the game is not exactly how you wanted it to be, but you are only a member of a (very vocal) minority as far as the cultural aspect goes. Sure many people get upset when a city leaves their civ for another, but most deal with it in a constructive fashion, and try to develop strategies to keep it from happening again. As for particular squares switching sides, there are numerous strategies for preventing this, several of which have already been mentioned. If the square contains an important resource, you should probably build a city close enough to insure your ownership. When these squares switch sides because of a cultural increase, build more cultural improvements. I agree that squares switching sides is not entirely realistic, particularly in the industrial and modern ages, but sometimes realism must take a backseat to gameplay in strategy games.
and why shouldnt firaxis fix it?. if firaxis fixed this aspect then there would be much less flaming!! ... and surely no one out there can actually say it is realistic to lose an unlimited size army to a whatever size city. Ive said it before and ill say it again .... it isnt the losing my large vertern army that ticks me off so much ... it is the fact that the hardcore vets from many wars doesnt even put up a wimper of a fight
oh yea ... my 2 cents ... culture flipping is great and a welcome addition to the civ series ....is something almost everyone agrees with ... but most people hate losing large armys to them and those that dont just sit there armys out in the cold rain outside citys (now that is a realistic alternitive
)
Zachriel
Kaiser
Marc Antony was a veteran soldier who fought with Julius Caesar in Gaul. Nevertheless, he and his legions threw in with the Egyptians, indeed became Egyptians in a cultural sense. Antony apparently liked being treated as a god.
From Rome's point of view, they lost the cities and the garrisons in the eastern portion of the empire. No, the garrisons did not put up a fight. The "flip" was peaceful, but Rome's response was not.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
I guess I did not write my post clear enough. What I was referring to in not fixing was Troyens complaint about the loss of ownerships of some squares. I do agree that it would be nice if Firaxis altered what happens to a garrison when a city flips. In a few other threads I have posted my thoughts on that, in that your garrison would be expelled. Some units might be killed others would be injured. Planes would have a higher chance of being destroyed and artillary might be captured. And that you should also get a turn of free attack on that city without going to war, maybe the city would not choose new allegiances till one turn had passed.
However this thread is about the borders themselves and not the cities, and I believe that that asspect is perfectly fine the way it is.
Richelieu
The usual suspect
I would like to see that kind of change. Makes sense.
I also agree with Troyens but only to a point. If the disputed tile is within your city radius, the value of each unit and any improvement on it against flipping should be increased.
The AI should take into consideration the efforts you put into protecting that particular tile.
and even that would be better than at the moment .... where the troops just dissapear... but i think the enemy getting your units would unballance the game moreso and making it less fun. it isnt fun sitting my armys outside of a city because im scared of those pesky citizens rising up. i want to quell there arses by thunder and lightning with my iron fist. u think stalin ever stationed his troops outside a city? and it isnt fun being a complete butcher and just killing everything that isnt your citizen ... i want to be supressivly cruel not totally evil! ... here is a thought .... the turn before u get a culture flip u get a message .... u could move your armys out or u could install martial law on the city ... but something must be done!
and toshee etj4Eagle ... then if u ment that i totally agree with u ... border movement is basic and somewhat realistic at the moment. it doesnt hinder the game to much and is still fun
before the game come out i read something about populations moving to higher culture civs.... im assuming this was scrapped? or was just a vicious rumour?
Similar threads
