Zachriel
Kaiser
Would be very interested to read your post. Garrisons do flip sometimes, too. In the Feudal period especially, Lords often chose sides based on the specific strategic situation they found themselves in.
Culture Flipping: you may not like it but here are some historical examples....
- Thread starter Kryten
- Start date
Would be very interested to read your post. Garrisons do flip sometimes, too. In the Feudal period especially, Lords often chose sides based on the specific strategic situation they found themselves in.
Howard Brazee
Chieftain
I think more important than the culture of the conquerer should be the culture of the conquered. If you have a lot of culture - such as India, Egypt, or China - then eventually your culture wins out.
Trouble is, how do we show that the Chinese culture overcame the Mongol culture to make China a Chinese country instead of a Mongol culture - before overthrowing the Mongol installed dynasty?
I don't know how to do this.
A game enhancement I would like to see is to have culture convert ethnics within your nation to whomever made the cultural artificacts. If you conquer them, your artifacts convert people to your nation - their artifacts convert people to their ethnicity.
Hmmm. We don't have immigration in this game. Happy nations should attract immigrants, unhappy nations should have emmigration. But when they move, they still have their old ethnicities until cultural artifacts convert them.
We should be able to trade people on purpose as well. Have colonies convert to your ethnic people (owned by them) when your opponents take over - and if it is a peaceful take-over, we keep the trade as if we had a trade agreement.
Lots of possibilities of improvements with this enhancement to earlier CIV games.
Trouble is, how do we show that the Chinese culture overcame the Mongol culture to make China a Chinese country instead of a Mongol culture - before overthrowing the Mongol installed dynasty?
I don't know how to do this.
A game enhancement I would like to see is to have culture convert ethnics within your nation to whomever made the cultural artificacts. If you conquer them, your artifacts convert people to your nation - their artifacts convert people to their ethnicity.
Hmmm. We don't have immigration in this game. Happy nations should attract immigrants, unhappy nations should have emmigration. But when they move, they still have their old ethnicities until cultural artifacts convert them.
We should be able to trade people on purpose as well. Have colonies convert to your ethnic people (owned by them) when your opponents take over - and if it is a peaceful take-over, we keep the trade as if we had a trade agreement.
Lots of possibilities of improvements with this enhancement to earlier CIV games.
Zachriel
Kaiser
That would be a very nice feature.
What a great statement!!
You ADMIT that Civ III is "SO BORING".
So, you want "crazy" Culture Flipping to "spice up" that boring game.
Nothing beter shows how flawed the game is, and how lame Culture Flipping is.
EXAMPLE of CULTURE FLIPPING BEING A BIG CROCK:
for well over fifty years tiny Taiwan has been just off the coast of a huge country with the largest population on the planet - China. The ONLY thing that has kept China from controlling Taiwan is the Taiwanese military (supplied by the U.S.), and most importantly, by the U.S. NAVY. Military garrisons do NOT "vanish" and DO, in fact, stop defections.
------------
BTW, I am convinced Firaxis actually hires people to come on the various site forums to defend this game.
simwiz2
Warlord
"And I think that those who don't like culture flip back usually go for a military conquest and don't build enough cultural improvement. So they don't like it because it's only a pain in the ass for their conquest."
Yeah, I dont build enough culture stuff. EVERY city I capture gets a temple as soon as resistance is gone (~1 turn). MOST get a library almost instantly as well, to get size 3 borders to ward off enemy culture and ICS. And you know what I noticed? The cities with the libraries flip just as often as those without, which is about a third of all the cities I take. And yes its a pain in the ass to take a single city FIVE TIMES and rush those expensive improvements back FIVE TIMES and replace my gobbled units FIVE TIMES. And this was just one english city. It is not possible to "adopt our strategy" simply because, short of being a peace lover (and have a BOOORING diplo or culture victory) there is no way to prevent flipping at all.
"We are not in civ2. Adapt you strategy! But those who really can't should be able to play without."
Yes, the strategy of luck, of praying that the dice will turn out on your side. You mean the kind of strategy one would use in a game of Chutes and Ladders? Like I said I do everything POSSIBLE to prevent flip, from rushing culture improvments the very turn after I take the city (resistance gone in 1 turn), happy starving to about size 3, and using large garrisons. And still about a third of my captured cities flip within 5 turns, far too soon for any significant culture growth. Care to recommend a strategy for this one? Even putting only a small garrison inside wont work, because yeah I lose less units but the AI STILL gets a free unit, and i STILL have to retake the city and rush AGAIN all the culture improvements that I just paid $500 for 2 turns ago.
Improve my strategy? I have 2-3X more culture than my enemy most of the time, AND I keep the new cities in WLTKD, AND I rush culture until I'm broke AND I keep large garrisons in the cities (and my fingers on CTRL-S, this bs firaxis sold to us is more than enough to make me reload without bad conscience)
**most of my wars end when I run out of money for new temples, rather than when I run out of military force.**
Yeah, I dont build enough culture stuff. EVERY city I capture gets a temple as soon as resistance is gone (~1 turn). MOST get a library almost instantly as well, to get size 3 borders to ward off enemy culture and ICS. And you know what I noticed? The cities with the libraries flip just as often as those without, which is about a third of all the cities I take. And yes its a pain in the ass to take a single city FIVE TIMES and rush those expensive improvements back FIVE TIMES and replace my gobbled units FIVE TIMES. And this was just one english city. It is not possible to "adopt our strategy" simply because, short of being a peace lover (and have a BOOORING diplo or culture victory) there is no way to prevent flipping at all.
"We are not in civ2. Adapt you strategy! But those who really can't should be able to play without."
Yes, the strategy of luck, of praying that the dice will turn out on your side. You mean the kind of strategy one would use in a game of Chutes and Ladders? Like I said I do everything POSSIBLE to prevent flip, from rushing culture improvments the very turn after I take the city (resistance gone in 1 turn), happy starving to about size 3, and using large garrisons. And still about a third of my captured cities flip within 5 turns, far too soon for any significant culture growth. Care to recommend a strategy for this one? Even putting only a small garrison inside wont work, because yeah I lose less units but the AI STILL gets a free unit, and i STILL have to retake the city and rush AGAIN all the culture improvements that I just paid $500 for 2 turns ago.
Improve my strategy? I have 2-3X more culture than my enemy most of the time, AND I keep the new cities in WLTKD, AND I rush culture until I'm broke AND I keep large garrisons in the cities (and my fingers on CTRL-S, this bs firaxis sold to us is more than enough to make me reload without bad conscience)
**most of my wars end when I run out of money for new temples, rather than when I run out of military force.**
Zachriel
Kaiser
Funny you should bring that up, because China will be reunited one day.
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
Yeah, but the culture flip goes the other way: the culturally weaker, but richer Taiwan makes mainland China`s culture chage......
€ønqui$tadør
regla de civilizaciones
well i think the concept is not totally wrong, its flawed. and 'culture flipping' as a turn is also wrong. it seems to suggest that entire places/territories with one culture suddenly changes to another. historically, it is not true. it is a gradual process, and the historical examples seem to only support the concept of realignment, not culture flipping.
in many examples, the peoples did not flip back to their own culture because their cultures did not change totally in the first place! India was under British rule but they were not 100% Anglicised. in this case i would suggest it is a nationalism movement rather than culture flip.
and many other examples are due to practical reason such as economic, military and security reasons. one region doesn't culture flip simply he admires another civ's culture. gosh, if that's the case, wouldn't Japan have flipped to USA or China?
so i suggest Firaxis replace 'culture flip' with some other thing probably called 'alignment', where cities can flip to a stronger nation due to practical purposes, not just for being in awe with the nation's culture.
in many examples, the peoples did not flip back to their own culture because their cultures did not change totally in the first place! India was under British rule but they were not 100% Anglicised. in this case i would suggest it is a nationalism movement rather than culture flip.
and many other examples are due to practical reason such as economic, military and security reasons. one region doesn't culture flip simply he admires another civ's culture. gosh, if that's the case, wouldn't Japan have flipped to USA or China?
so i suggest Firaxis replace 'culture flip' with some other thing probably called 'alignment', where cities can flip to a stronger nation due to practical purposes, not just for being in awe with the nation's culture.
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
To Howard Brazee,
....hmm....that's an idea. I'd like to think about it a bit more and come back to you later, if I may.
To Zachriel,
Those are good examples of yours. You put the case for India better than I did (British Temples = 'clubs', now THATS lateral thinking!). And I forgot about Mark Antony.
Here's another example: Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Following the crushing of the Gallic tribes and then visiting Britain in 55 BC, Caesar had to then put down the uprising of the Eburones/Nervii/Treviri under Ambiorix who had 'culture flipped' back to Gallic control, with the Roman garrisons being slaughtered and the Gallic Auxiliaries joining the other side. After taking a quick holiday in Germany, the Gauls 'cuture flipped' again, this time under Vercingetorix, and he had to conquer Gaul for a THIRD time (this would make an excellent scenario!).
And how about the Roman civil wars of the 1st century BC between Sulla and Marius, Caesar and Pompey, and Octavian and Antony, with Sertorius 'culture flipping' to the Spanish tribes and setting up his own kingdom. A garrison, no matter what size it is, will not stop a city from changing sides if its commander is disloyal or following his own political agenda (clever use of Propaganda would be a must in this scenario!).
To Troyens,
Here I am wittering on and on about scenarios, when I don't even know what your feelings about them are. Please let me know; do you like 'historical' scenarios or not? A random game of civ does have the advantage of unexpectedness, but lacks depth and detail, while a scenario can be very period specific but soon becomes boring if played too often. I would really like to hear your views on this subject.
And you are quite right in wanting an OFF toggel. I wouldn't want a Muslim city culture flipping to the invading Christians in a Crusader scenario!
....hmm....that's an idea. I'd like to think about it a bit more and come back to you later, if I may.
To Zachriel,
Those are good examples of yours. You put the case for India better than I did (British Temples = 'clubs', now THATS lateral thinking!). And I forgot about Mark Antony.
Here's another example: Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Following the crushing of the Gallic tribes and then visiting Britain in 55 BC, Caesar had to then put down the uprising of the Eburones/Nervii/Treviri under Ambiorix who had 'culture flipped' back to Gallic control, with the Roman garrisons being slaughtered and the Gallic Auxiliaries joining the other side. After taking a quick holiday in Germany, the Gauls 'cuture flipped' again, this time under Vercingetorix, and he had to conquer Gaul for a THIRD time (this would make an excellent scenario!).
And how about the Roman civil wars of the 1st century BC between Sulla and Marius, Caesar and Pompey, and Octavian and Antony, with Sertorius 'culture flipping' to the Spanish tribes and setting up his own kingdom. A garrison, no matter what size it is, will not stop a city from changing sides if its commander is disloyal or following his own political agenda (clever use of Propaganda would be a must in this scenario!).
To Troyens,
Here I am wittering on and on about scenarios, when I don't even know what your feelings about them are. Please let me know; do you like 'historical' scenarios or not? A random game of civ does have the advantage of unexpectedness, but lacks depth and detail, while a scenario can be very period specific but soon becomes boring if played too often. I would really like to hear your views on this subject.
And you are quite right in wanting an OFF toggel. I wouldn't want a Muslim city culture flipping to the invading Christians in a Crusader scenario!
Zachriel
Kaiser
Wouldn't the invading Christian forces be much more likely to lose a captured city in the Levant, instead of gain one.
An on/off switch would still be a nice feature, especially for scenarios.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
If I can offer an alternative perspective, look at it this way. The flip in the game does not suggest that "entire places with one culture change to another," rather, it suggests that places make gradual cultural changes or maintain native cultural allegiances to the degree that the place in question then suddenly changes STATES as a result. If you look at Dan's explanation of what triggers a flip, it seems consistent with the idea of residual or building cultural that reaches a boiling point.
Troyen, BTW, re: your signature, I'm convinced that Activision pays you to come on this site and attack this game. Otherwise, why would you be wasting your time being the sheep amongst the foxes?
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Sorry to have bumped this old thread, but there are some posts in the "Culture Flipping ROCKS" thread about culture flipping being unhistorical. Please forgive me if you are tired of this old argument.
siredgar
Warlord
How nice! I was looking for this. I will read it now. Thanks.
siredgar
Warlord
Sorry, Kryten, I'm not convinced for the following reasons:
1. Most of your historical examples are from early history. I don't see any more recent ones.
2. I think you are confusing culture-flipping with independence movements. India was a colony of the British Empire, it was not really settled by British citizens. Likewise, the Americans declared independence from the British. They did not join the French. Same goes for the East Bloc moving away from the Soviet Union. They weren't absorbed into the West. Not yet, at least. I would like to see an example of something like Vermont joining Canada (this hasn't happened... yet).
3. Military forces would still make the difference in keeping a population from joining the other side.
I liked the examples you gave about the Macedonians, etc, however. But I just don't think it happens that often in modern days.
1. Most of your historical examples are from early history. I don't see any more recent ones.
2. I think you are confusing culture-flipping with independence movements. India was a colony of the British Empire, it was not really settled by British citizens. Likewise, the Americans declared independence from the British. They did not join the French. Same goes for the East Bloc moving away from the Soviet Union. They weren't absorbed into the West. Not yet, at least. I would like to see an example of something like Vermont joining Canada (this hasn't happened... yet).
3. Military forces would still make the difference in keeping a population from joining the other side.
I liked the examples you gave about the Macedonians, etc, however. But I just don't think it happens that often in modern days.
brody
Pathetic Loser
I'm no history buff, in fact I hate history. And I do like killing other civs in the previous civ games (haven't played Civ3 enought to get that far yet). But culture flipping makes sense. As a game rule, it just makes sense. You can say it doesn't because you don't like it and because "in real life ...." Well guess what? In real life you don't have EVERY trade last for 20 turns between nations. In real life you don't have a single, non-changing currency that all civs use for the entire history of the world. If you want a game that imitates life 100%, you'll be waiting a DAMN long time.
Some societies have changed allegience for military reasons, some for cultural reasons, some just out of fear. Civ3 addresses all of those in one single idea, called "culture flipping". It may be abstracted, but so is most everything in civ3. I mean, cmon, can you really garrison a single rifleman in a city and have him subdue a hundred thousand unhappy people? Probably not. Things HAVE to be abstract to some level or another in a computer game.
Anyway, MOST societies will rebel against the enemy when first captured. OFTEN they will eventually win. ESPECIALLY if they don't like the culture of their conquerers. (Culture being an abstract idea of a society's ideals, values, etc. and summed up into a single concept for simplicity) And if the rebellion is successful, the troops in the city will likely be killed or driven out. And some troops may even sympathize and join their so-called enemy.
It simply isn't a matter of whether or not it's "realistic". It's a matter of whether or not it models something realistic. If you don't like it, that's unfortunate, but the idea DOES make sense. And it means you will need to change your strategy. Cultural improvements will help slightly, but if a persian city is captured and the persians liked their old culture (backward or not), they will try to realign themselves... sometimes with success, even if you are stronger, bigger, more advanced, etc...
Some societies have changed allegience for military reasons, some for cultural reasons, some just out of fear. Civ3 addresses all of those in one single idea, called "culture flipping". It may be abstracted, but so is most everything in civ3. I mean, cmon, can you really garrison a single rifleman in a city and have him subdue a hundred thousand unhappy people? Probably not. Things HAVE to be abstract to some level or another in a computer game.
Anyway, MOST societies will rebel against the enemy when first captured. OFTEN they will eventually win. ESPECIALLY if they don't like the culture of their conquerers. (Culture being an abstract idea of a society's ideals, values, etc. and summed up into a single concept for simplicity) And if the rebellion is successful, the troops in the city will likely be killed or driven out. And some troops may even sympathize and join their so-called enemy.
It simply isn't a matter of whether or not it's "realistic". It's a matter of whether or not it models something realistic. If you don't like it, that's unfortunate, but the idea DOES make sense. And it means you will need to change your strategy. Cultural improvements will help slightly, but if a persian city is captured and the persians liked their old culture (backward or not), they will try to realign themselves... sometimes with success, even if you are stronger, bigger, more advanced, etc...
Howard Brazee
Chieftain
Still, culture switching does make the game interesting, even if it isn't realistic.
What I would like to see is the following scenario:
The U.S. exists, Spain has colonies throughout America, with the west owned by Spain and France.
Soon after the scenario starts, France sells the Louisiana purchase to the U.S. (one city with a LARGE area of influence)
The Spanish colonies go independent, and most of the Louisiana purchase becomes primarily U.S.A. culturally, with pockets of Spanish culture. (or better yet, Mexican) - with one city being U.S./French.
The U.S. puts a colony in California, and quickly follows it with a very fast growing port as hords of colonists head out there for that resource.
A religious colony finds the most remote spot in between and only later becomes American.
Meanwhile, the English expand in the north and gradually fade away as the Canadians take over.
Ummm. Maybe we will have to just settle for playability.
What I would like to see is the following scenario:
The U.S. exists, Spain has colonies throughout America, with the west owned by Spain and France.
Soon after the scenario starts, France sells the Louisiana purchase to the U.S. (one city with a LARGE area of influence)
The Spanish colonies go independent, and most of the Louisiana purchase becomes primarily U.S.A. culturally, with pockets of Spanish culture. (or better yet, Mexican) - with one city being U.S./French.
The U.S. puts a colony in California, and quickly follows it with a very fast growing port as hords of colonists head out there for that resource.
A religious colony finds the most remote spot in between and only later becomes American.
Meanwhile, the English expand in the north and gradually fade away as the Canadians take over.
Ummm. Maybe we will have to just settle for playability.
cephyn
Kubo
First off, im surprised at such animosity about culture flipping. It never happens to me, I'm not sure why that is. I play on Regent 90% of the time, and culture flipping cities are virtually nonexistent. The only flipping i EVER see is when a stupid AI tundra city is founded on my continent -- I'll usually just culturally take it over at some point. I guess my strategies just fit Civ3 better than the people who can't seem to deal with it, I dunno.
As for modern examples of culture flipping, someone brought up that it would be like Vermont deciding to join canada. I just wanted to mention that in a recent poll somthing like 40% of canadians thought that canada would be part of the US in 30 years. I'd say thats culture flipping in progress -- whther it will actually happen, who knows!
Examples of culture flipping are hard to find. Its not a common thing, it seems - but i was never surprised, since its an extremely rare phenomenon in the games i play...
As for modern examples of culture flipping, someone brought up that it would be like Vermont deciding to join canada. I just wanted to mention that in a recent poll somthing like 40% of canadians thought that canada would be part of the US in 30 years. I'd say thats culture flipping in progress -- whther it will actually happen, who knows!
Examples of culture flipping are hard to find. Its not a common thing, it seems - but i was never surprised, since its an extremely rare phenomenon in the games i play...
CrazyScientist
Those crazy scientists...
Originally posted by pompeynunn
Whilst reading a lot of the posts from people who either do or don't like culture flipping, it strikes me that the nationality of the person seems to have some correlation on whether they like it or not.
This is just my observation (there isn't 100% correlation, and I don't intend it as a slight on Americans - I know how touchy you Yanks can be sometimes!), but it seems that the majority of people who don't like Culture flipping are American - could this be because in their (albeit brief) history as a nation, they haven't had the experience of elements of their 'Empire' (or Civ or global power - call it what you want) revolting and declaring independence.
Us Brits, on the other hand, have had to get used to it (USA, India, Rhodesia to name a few - there is even suggestions that Gibraltar could be next). Therefore the idea of culture flipping seems much more reasonable to us. (The same could probably be said of a lot of European countries, especially Eastern European).
What would you call the civil war?
Supercilious
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 44
It is really hilarious to read about a Brit defending culture flipping and citing his History to do so!!
First, CF (for short) screws up the playability of the game besides not making sense nor being realistic.
As for British history, I am not here to rag on the Brits. But their Empire expanded not because people were impressed by the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare, the theories of Isaac Newton, or the statemanship of Pitt the Elder. It expanded BY BRUTE FORCE.
England sent armies into Scotland and Ireland in brutal invasions. Their armies (and native armies they hired) subdued lands as distant as New Zealand, India, and South Africa, and many more.
Their mercantilist economic policies sucked the juices out of many countries who never experienced the full flower of Briitish "culture". The Chinese experience was the Opium War when the British drug-dealers poisoned a nation killing millions, or when Britian allowed a million Irish to starve death while exporting grain from that island.
But Ireland, just a tile away in game terms, never culture flipped to the English. Among others.
Did countries CF away from England/Britian? No, not to any large civ. They just internally rebelled in nationalist movements - something no Civ game has ever reflected well. They did this after WW II when Britain was drained economically and militarily from two world wars.
No, CF is not historical, and it is a pain in game terms. CFing on open undeveloped borders is OK, but not on developments or cities. I can't even think of a major city that CFed in History, but I can think of many small civs that resisted a nearby huge civ: Vietnam, Poland, Portugal, the Kurds, Korea, etc. California was conquered by the US Army in 1846. Even tiny Hawaii in the 1890's was acquired through military intimidation.
CF just isn't justified, for realism or game play.
First, CF (for short) screws up the playability of the game besides not making sense nor being realistic.
As for British history, I am not here to rag on the Brits. But their Empire expanded not because people were impressed by the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare, the theories of Isaac Newton, or the statemanship of Pitt the Elder. It expanded BY BRUTE FORCE.
England sent armies into Scotland and Ireland in brutal invasions. Their armies (and native armies they hired) subdued lands as distant as New Zealand, India, and South Africa, and many more.
Their mercantilist economic policies sucked the juices out of many countries who never experienced the full flower of Briitish "culture". The Chinese experience was the Opium War when the British drug-dealers poisoned a nation killing millions, or when Britian allowed a million Irish to starve death while exporting grain from that island.
But Ireland, just a tile away in game terms, never culture flipped to the English. Among others.
Did countries CF away from England/Britian? No, not to any large civ. They just internally rebelled in nationalist movements - something no Civ game has ever reflected well. They did this after WW II when Britain was drained economically and militarily from two world wars.
No, CF is not historical, and it is a pain in game terms. CFing on open undeveloped borders is OK, but not on developments or cities. I can't even think of a major city that CFed in History, but I can think of many small civs that resisted a nearby huge civ: Vietnam, Poland, Portugal, the Kurds, Korea, etc. California was conquered by the US Army in 1846. Even tiny Hawaii in the 1890's was acquired through military intimidation.
CF just isn't justified, for realism or game play.
Similar threads
