I have had cities flip back, having done essentiallywhat you did. Some immedieately, some years later. Mostly Aztec. One difference: the capital moved further away. Looks like the major factor that we cannot do anything about is its own culture memory... it still thinks it is an Aztec city, even though only 1 out of 8 or 10 pop are Aztec any more....
Culture-Flipping Exposed
- Thread starter Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
- Start date
Corkmaster
Warlord
Culture flipping for me adds a really interesting dimension to the game. In fact its the most interesting addition over civII. I have just lost a big army of tanks to a culture flip, but thats something to learn from not complain about.
Thanks for all the tips here about dealing with this.
Firaxis dont get rid of or water down culture flipping.
Thanks for all the tips here about dealing with this.
Firaxis dont get rid of or water down culture flipping.
Do capitols ever flip?
I got a city that 'flipped' to me (from French to my German civ).
Many turns later that huge city, which was pretty near my capitol, well defended and build no Wonders but ALL cultural improvements, flipped!
Now that sucks! It happened at a moment when i kind of expected another city. I was not in disorder at the time.
However the city was surrounded by 3 big French cities, so that must have been the reason.
Problem: close by i had a metropolis with almost no culture. I thought i would lose this city to, and very fast. So what i tried was, i rushbuild a Palace (using a leader) and waited to see what happened. Nothing! It didn´t flip though the circumstances were worse compared to the first city that díd flip!
Question remains: do capitols ever flip?
I got a city that 'flipped' to me (from French to my German civ).
Many turns later that huge city, which was pretty near my capitol, well defended and build no Wonders but ALL cultural improvements, flipped!
Now that sucks! It happened at a moment when i kind of expected another city. I was not in disorder at the time.
However the city was surrounded by 3 big French cities, so that must have been the reason.
Problem: close by i had a metropolis with almost no culture. I thought i would lose this city to, and very fast. So what i tried was, i rushbuild a Palace (using a leader) and waited to see what happened. Nothing! It didn´t flip though the circumstances were worse compared to the first city that díd flip!
Question remains: do capitols ever flip?
hoyatables
Chieftain
Apparently I totally missed the big discussion, but let me add my two cents:
First, the "solution" of just garrisoning and resting your troops outside the city is somewhat less attractive if you have Sun Tzu and thus a free barracks IN the city (this is particularly true when resting armies and Elite units). I was somewhat perplexed by the culture flip myself recently. Playing as the Americans on a Large map, decided to attack the Japanese to my north to grab the sole oil reserve on the continent. Realized holding that city could be a problem, and also realized I had a lot of extra troops and their capital only one city away from mine (for some reason, we were fairly close in the beginning of the game - this is also deceptive because our borders are about four or five each. So my second attack is on their capital. I also capture two other cities on my border, and push their capital back. Needless to say I was very frustrated when my entire army (two armies, and a dozen units) was lost on a double flip of Kyoto and Tokyo. The flip was perplexing - MY capital wasn't all that far, and the next ring of cities were Seattle and Philadelphia, both huge massive culture producing cities with at least a wonder or two in them. And as I said, I had a few troops. I guess I now understand why it happened.
Incidentally, I didn't just accept it - I went back to see "what went wrong." Sure enough, both cities had unhappy citizens (more happy than unhappy, but unhappy ones, too). When I got rid of the unhappy ones and continued again, it didn't flip. I'm pretty sure watching attitudes keeps things kosher, although I might have just changed the random number.
At any rate, I've learned my lesson. From now on I will just bombard the cities and get their pops down. A strategy I will put to great effect when I take the French's two oil reserves in my next way.
I do think that your troops should "retreat" and relocate to either the edge of the city, your nearest city, or the capital. That would be logical and "accurate."
First, the "solution" of just garrisoning and resting your troops outside the city is somewhat less attractive if you have Sun Tzu and thus a free barracks IN the city (this is particularly true when resting armies and Elite units). I was somewhat perplexed by the culture flip myself recently. Playing as the Americans on a Large map, decided to attack the Japanese to my north to grab the sole oil reserve on the continent. Realized holding that city could be a problem, and also realized I had a lot of extra troops and their capital only one city away from mine (for some reason, we were fairly close in the beginning of the game - this is also deceptive because our borders are about four or five each. So my second attack is on their capital. I also capture two other cities on my border, and push their capital back. Needless to say I was very frustrated when my entire army (two armies, and a dozen units) was lost on a double flip of Kyoto and Tokyo. The flip was perplexing - MY capital wasn't all that far, and the next ring of cities were Seattle and Philadelphia, both huge massive culture producing cities with at least a wonder or two in them. And as I said, I had a few troops. I guess I now understand why it happened.
Incidentally, I didn't just accept it - I went back to see "what went wrong." Sure enough, both cities had unhappy citizens (more happy than unhappy, but unhappy ones, too). When I got rid of the unhappy ones and continued again, it didn't flip. I'm pretty sure watching attitudes keeps things kosher, although I might have just changed the random number.
At any rate, I've learned my lesson. From now on I will just bombard the cities and get their pops down. A strategy I will put to great effect when I take the French's two oil reserves in my next way.
I do think that your troops should "retreat" and relocate to either the edge of the city, your nearest city, or the capital. That would be logical and "accurate."
An easier and faster way, in my experience, is to make ALL non-resisting citizens entertainers.
You don´t get disorder that way.
The city shrinks and loses citizens anyway,( but you can allready exploit the resource)
i assume it also speeds up the ending of resistence.
btw, every time you quelled a resistor, you have to get back to the cityscreen and make everybody into entertainers again. apparantly, for some stupid reason, that is 'un-done' after a citizens decides to go back to work for you...
I usually use this method in combination with the razing of culturally-potent-enemy-cities nearby. To lessen the flipping-risk of course.
You don´t get disorder that way.
The city shrinks and loses citizens anyway,( but you can allready exploit the resource)
i assume it also speeds up the ending of resistence.
btw, every time you quelled a resistor, you have to get back to the cityscreen and make everybody into entertainers again. apparantly, for some stupid reason, that is 'un-done' after a citizens decides to go back to work for you...
I usually use this method in combination with the razing of culturally-potent-enemy-cities nearby. To lessen the flipping-risk of course.
Has anyone else noticed that razing cities seems to make it subsequently harder to fight other units of the enemy? Upset after my first loss of a huge army due to a culture flip, I reloaded and razed the city instead to prevent the flip.
After razing the city, every other battle that I had previously won I now lost. Reloading again to try without razing a city restored my victories. I tried this several times to make sure. In fact, the 3 cities I had originally defeated that turn (as well as an enemy unit not in any city) would be losses for me if I first razed any 3 of the cities (irregardless of which one).
The enemy does have more culture than me, but for spearman to defeat attacking cavalry *repeatedly* after any city was razed was a little surprising.
I've checked everywhere for the damaging effects of razing but havent seen any info on it, including on this discussion board.
After razing the city, every other battle that I had previously won I now lost. Reloading again to try without razing a city restored my victories. I tried this several times to make sure. In fact, the 3 cities I had originally defeated that turn (as well as an enemy unit not in any city) would be losses for me if I first razed any 3 of the cities (irregardless of which one).
The enemy does have more culture than me, but for spearman to defeat attacking cavalry *repeatedly* after any city was razed was a little surprising.
I've checked everywhere for the damaging effects of razing but havent seen any info on it, including on this discussion board.
i noticed this too. I never reloaded though, so i wasn´t sure if it was just very bad luck.
it makes a lot of sense. I would fight harder too, if i knew my hometown would be razed when i would lose the battle and i would be a slave untill the end of the game...
it makes a lot of sense. I would fight harder too, if i knew my hometown would be razed when i would lose the battle and i would be a slave untill the end of the game...
Ironikinit
Prince
AFAIK, and I firmly believe this, there are no modifiers for the combat numbers based on events in game. Cavalry has an attack of 6 if you raze or no.
Sounds to me that what happened in mavrrick's case is that somehow the seed (I hope I use that word correctly) was changed. If you've reloaded enough times you know what I mean.
Let's say that you have 5 combats in a round, and the pregenerated numbers are 4, 2, 5, 6, and 1. If by chance you had easy combats lined up for the low numbers, they could be winners (and this is a huge, huge oversimplification, I have no idea if the random numbers are even integers and I figure that a single combat requires several numbers, not just one). OK, let's say that the 4, 2, 5, 6, and 1 were all winners in one arrangement because you had easy combats lined up for the low numbers. Then you reload and change the battle order... the random numbers stay the same. The exact same numbers can all be losers.
I assume there's a way to get the game to generate new numbers, maybe it does it every turn.
This is all guesswork, and oversimplified. About all I can say with certainty is that there are pregenerated random numbers that stay the same when you reload and that the combat system doesn't use integers, because both of those have been confirmed by Firaxis people.
Sounds to me that what happened in mavrrick's case is that somehow the seed (I hope I use that word correctly) was changed. If you've reloaded enough times you know what I mean.
Let's say that you have 5 combats in a round, and the pregenerated numbers are 4, 2, 5, 6, and 1. If by chance you had easy combats lined up for the low numbers, they could be winners (and this is a huge, huge oversimplification, I have no idea if the random numbers are even integers and I figure that a single combat requires several numbers, not just one). OK, let's say that the 4, 2, 5, 6, and 1 were all winners in one arrangement because you had easy combats lined up for the low numbers. Then you reload and change the battle order... the random numbers stay the same. The exact same numbers can all be losers.
I assume there's a way to get the game to generate new numbers, maybe it does it every turn.
This is all guesswork, and oversimplified. About all I can say with certainty is that there are pregenerated random numbers that stay the same when you reload and that the combat system doesn't use integers, because both of those have been confirmed by Firaxis people.
Yeah I know how a seed works to initialize the set, since I'm a computer science major and am actually coding a project right now that uses a random number generator, but the problem really did seem to start occuring right after I would raze a city, and with every single unit after that. I'll recheck it later since I may be wrong and I'm not home to do so right now.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
The question is how many random numbers that keeping that city consumes (how many resitors and the like). It is possible that by razing the city you got stuck with a bunch of bad die rolls.
jimmytrick
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2002
- Messages
- 84
If you are going to postulate that razing leads to combat bonuses you have to believe:
1. firaxis designed it that way or
2. its a naturally occurring phenomenon
to which I will answer:
1. they are not that smart
2. and neither are you!
1. firaxis designed it that way or
2. its a naturally occurring phenomenon
to which I will answer:
1. they are not that smart
2. and neither are you!
I had a feeling the resurrection of this thread would bring flaming.
Andu Indorin
Retired Druid
Another sign that Civ3 was designed by people whose conception of history begins in 1945.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Actually, "flipping" is not new. For instance, during the Middle Ages, Lords would change sides frequently. During the Ancient Era, it was not uncommon to take a garrison with a simple bribe. Betrayal is not new.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Yes, I miss spies! I liked the Corporate Raiders in CTP2 for peacetime warfare, too. They could raid or create franchises, I think. Anyway, the peaceniks had units to move. And the warmongers, who enjoy a little building in between wars.
Reichsmarshal
Warlord
Proof that propaganda sucks. No one seems to believe it works often, which it most certainly does not.
Culture Flipping is like a land mine that can destory multiple garrisoned armies. The way it works in the game doesn't resemble real life, espcially since cities that you built can flip fairly easily whilst it is very hard to get the computer's nartural cities to flip.
Ironikinit
Prince
Riechsmarshall,
All I can think on reading your post is that you're not building enough culture producing buildings or that you're at war too much. As I understand it, culture production is cut in half during wartime.
Anyway, if I'm left at peace for a long while I can almost guarantee getting rival cities to flip to me along a long border. I tend to be well ahead on culture in the early game anyway, and if rush temples and libraries in border cities, chances are some AI cities will come to me eventually. Even if I'm pretty war torn, it's unusual to lose cities I've built to the AI via flipping. I have lost one or two that were on a salient and that I neglected to build up.
As for the spy nostalgia, I think it's interesting that few people complain about unrealistic features if they favor or are exploitable by the human. Civ 2's AI did bribe a bit, but nothing compared to how much I would.
All I can think on reading your post is that you're not building enough culture producing buildings or that you're at war too much. As I understand it, culture production is cut in half during wartime.
Anyway, if I'm left at peace for a long while I can almost guarantee getting rival cities to flip to me along a long border. I tend to be well ahead on culture in the early game anyway, and if rush temples and libraries in border cities, chances are some AI cities will come to me eventually. Even if I'm pretty war torn, it's unusual to lose cities I've built to the AI via flipping. I have lost one or two that were on a salient and that I neglected to build up.
As for the spy nostalgia, I think it's interesting that few people complain about unrealistic features if they favor or are exploitable by the human. Civ 2's AI did bribe a bit, but nothing compared to how much I would.
Similar threads
