Culture flipping tiles/cities?

[ldvhl]

Have we seen any info on bringing back culture flipping tiles and cities? It was one of my favorite features of III and IV and one of my disappointments of V. I imagine it might cause problems with districts and all, but I'm hopeful.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

One article seemed to indicate that you could flip cities with religion.

 

[Sal]

One article seemed to indicate that you could flip cities with religion.

This makes more sense imo. I always thought culture flipping was a bit odd. There is no way that if we build enough radio transmitters and Opera houses in Dover, Calais will decide to become British without the French government having any say in the matter. A religious revolt against the state (in classical or medieval especially) makes a bit more sense.

 

[ldvhl]

That's an interesting idea. I wanted to do stuff like that with the Nizari Ismaeli mod I had planned. Curious how that'll work out in VI.

 

[boghog]

This makes more sense imo. I always thought culture flipping was a bit odd. There is no way that if we build enough radio transmitters and Opera houses in Dover, Calais will decide to become British without the French government having any say in the matter. A religious revolt against the state (in classical or medieval especially) makes a bit more sense.

I'm not so sure. It can be argued that the protests in the GDR that led to the reunification with Western Germany had quite a bit to do with the fact that people there were able (albeit not allowed) to receive western tv and saw the decadence of the West and really wanted to have a piece of that.

OTOH history is full of examples of cities/regions were the rulers had a different religion from the powerless masses. Such cities were then sometimes liberated from without but rarely revolted from within - and even more rarely did they have success.

I think:

1. conquering a city which has the same religion as your civ OR is dominated by your culture should both be much easier,
2. civs should offer you cities which feel closer to you for religious or cultural reasons and are therefore unhappy and unruly for a relatively cheap price (maybe even for free if they are a nuisance), BUT
3. outright sudden flipping without active involvement of the civ they want to flip to should not be a thing.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Cities should not just "flip"
Instead, when conditions are right a city should generate Rebel/guerilla units

(Something like, cannot leave 3 range of city they spawned from, range 2, heals every turn... If they perform a ranged attack on a city w 0 hitpoints, they capture it.

 

[duckstab]

I'd really like for them to bring back some way of getting tiles from another civ short of overt military action. Over the time scale of a typical Civ game you'd expect that border regions might break away and even join other empires, particularly if they'd been neglected/mismanaged in some way. Or if they got a better offer from somebody else. In that light, I always thought culture-flipping was at least plausible.

 

[stealth_nsk]

In Civ4 city flipping was accompanied by shifting borders. I'd say with districts this part is not an option. It's possible to implement city flipping as action of specific Great Person, but it's nearly impossible to balance such thing. I really hope it's not here.

 

[ftl]

Maybe there's some way to war with culture instead of with military force, basically take cities somehow. I don't know how to make that mechanic work nicely though.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Maybe there's some way to war with culture instead of with military force, basically take cities somehow. I don't know how to make that mechanic work nicely though.

1. I don't see any gameplay reason for having war with culture. I believe there's a peaceful victory you can achieve through culture, no need to steal cities for it.

2. I can't find any significant real-life basis for such system either. If some territories rioted to join other country, this was due population nationality, religion, propaganda, espionage, etc. Cultural pressure could represent national identity, but that's quite oor abstraction.

 

[V. Soma]

I remember that one article said that you can lose city to another civ because of unhappiness...

 

[stealth_nsk]

I remember that one article said that you can lose city to another civ because of unhappiness...

Considering the term "happiness" seem to be not present in the game at all (replaced with "amenities") this could be an article mistake.

 

[m15a]

City flipping with diplomats/spies used to be my favorite thing in early Civ games, but I agree it should be much harder to do. Building on the tourism system of BNW, I think it'd be interesting if tourism (or the Civ VI equivalent) could potentially flip cities but only in the worst cases - maybe the civ doing the flipping must have built a strong tourism score versus a particularly weak culture, and then to flip the city, some sort of propaganda attempt that takes many turns can be initiated (say with a diplomat/spy).

Factors like religion, nationality (if the city was previously conquered), geographic factors, military strength, etc. might be modifiers on success. The civ whose city is being flipped would have had fair warning since tourism could cause smaller penalties earlier on (something equivalent to local unhappiness), plus they could see that information on the tourism screen. That Civ could counter the increased risk with counterspies, adding great works to the city, improving amenities in the city, converting the religion of the city, keeping a military unit in the city, etc.

 

[stealth_nsk]

City flipping with diplomats/spies used to be my favorite thing in early Civ games, but I agree it should be much harder to do.

I believe the first question we need to ask about city flipping is - why we may need such system. I can see several options, for example:
- Making peaceful victory more in line with conquest, by having city grabbing a part of it.
- If city-state generation mechanic is present, unhappy city riots could be one of sources for new city-states.
- Forcing players to build anti-flip buildings (culture, happiness, doesn't matter) in frontier cities, thus encouraging their fast development.
etc.

The first 2 reasons are not actual for Civ6 as far we know. The third one could be as we know little about happiness/amenities mechanic, expansion limits and things like that so far. But personally I found it to be quite unlikely.

 

[Felis Renidens]

In early civs it was a way to expend as a democracy. Diplomats and spies do not cause unhappiness outside of the city, and if you paid double there will not be an incident so no war and no fall of government. So it made sense there because of how government worked in those games. Also, the only victories available were space and conquest\domination.

In civBE spies can take cities but only if they have a very high intrigue, it will upset the AI though.

I think you could use such an espionage task where time needed and chances of success\ capture will depend on size, happiness, religion, cultural influence, anti-spy buildings and activity, spy experience, trade etc.

As for purpose: this will still cause that civ to not like you very much, but might get you a city without suffering the warmonger penalty for taking the city (you will still get penalty for espionage, grabbing territory and aggressive expansion if such penalties exist and the UI will have a solid casus belli against you). Not as strong as in early civ games but if you really want that one city without the cost of conquest and have the extra spy - perhaps you can.

 

[stealth_nsk]

As for purpose: this will still cause that civ to not like you very much, but might get you a city without suffering the warmonger penalty for taking the city (you will still get penalty for espionage, grabbing territory and aggressive expansion if such penalties exist and the UI will have a solid casus belli against you). Not as strong as in early civ games but if you really want that one city without the cost of conquest and have the extra spy - perhaps you can.

That's not a reason. I always want to get all cities without warmonger penalties
For mechanic which:
- Is nearly impossible to balance.
- Is mostly single-players as diplomatic penalties exist in the world of AI only.
we need some real good reasons to exist.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I don't think there is a strong reason (except for the fun when it works) without going back to civ2 governments, which is not likely. It can encourage a player to avoid crappy cities that are easily flipped, but I don't think the developers want that.

However if you want such a feature I'd make it part of espionage. If you don't - well, much simpler not to include it. I'd be happy if it exists (because of the fun factor) but would not be to sorry if it doesn't.

 

[Plus Ultra]

1. conquering a city which has the same religion as your civ OR is dominated by your culture should both be much easier,
2. civs should offer you cities which feel closer to you for religious or cultural reasons and are therefore unhappy and unruly for a relatively cheap price (maybe even for free if they are a nuisance), BUT
3. outright sudden flipping without active involvement of the civ they want to flip to should not be a thing.

Since happiness is back on City level again, I'm looking forward to cities wanting to be taken by other civs, both for cultural and religious reasons.

This is something that could be tied with the new (and still unexplained) cassus belli system. Let's imagine something like this:

(wild speculation)

Offense:
-(Long term, passive): Religion and Culture expands in a similar way to CiV Religion.
-(Short term, active): Units (missionaries, artists) can be created to force this expansion, this can be seen as an agressive act by other Civs.

Defense:
-(Long term, passive): Create a strong culture or religion by policies/buildings.
-(Short term, active): Units (inquisitors, censors) can be created to reduce foreign influence.

City reaction:
-City adopts foreign religion = Wants its own Civ to make it the official one.
-City has mayor foreign cultural influence = Wants the same goverment type as the foreign Civ.

Consecuences:
- If the Civ accepts the new religion or goverment type, no penalties to happiness, no cassus belli.
- If not, Cities become unhappy, and therefore = cassus belli.
- All the things quoted above would make perfect sense in this system.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think there is a strong reason (except for the fun when it works) without going back to civ2 governments, which is not likely. It can encourage a player to avoid crappy cities that are easily flipped, but I don't think the developers want that.

However if you want such a feature I'd make it part of espionage. If you don't - well, much simpler not to include it. I'd be happy if it exists (because of the fun factor) but would not be to sorry if it doesn't.

I can't say for Civ4 for sure, I played long ago, but as far as I remember, on high difficulty levels city flip almost never happened, unless AI managed to build city in the middle of your territory. I never seen city flipping in CivBE as Ive started from high difficulty levels right away.

I just don't see any fun on need in a system which in reality doesn't work (and making it more usable is likely to ruin the game).

So yes, if developers have this feature, I have both curiosity and fear to see how it works.

 

[Felis Renidens]

In BE even on easy it's super rare (you need a city to get to intrigue level 5, plant a spy there and give it that mission, which might fail, they rarely get that high, even a 4 level mission is not something I manage every game).

In 4 (vanilla) even on easy I usually needed either to surround the city, help it along with a Great Artist or be technologically advanced enough and have all religions.

In 3 it happened when a city was isolated and near two or three other cities, and was annoying.

In 1 and 2 it was espionage, buying cities for money and served a purpose because of government.

If it takes time and is risky, and you can know which cities are likely candidates (because they has happiness\religious\cultural issues and near the rival's territory) and can do something about it - it would be nearly meaningless in multiplayer and in single player might give you satisfaction if you manage it, and will happen to you only if you neglect a city or if you are an uncultured brute. It should be rare even on easy difficulties though.