Culture Flipping: you may not like it but here are some historical examples....

[Kryten]

Originally posted by siredgar
I think you are confusing culture-flipping with independence movements.

I can see our point and I do agree with you. But I'm not confusing the two, I'm just trying to use culture flipping to SIMULATE an independence movement. Because, as we all know, civ3 does not have any mechanism to represent independence movements. It would be nice if it did, but it doesn't. At least with culture flipping we have a way to make cities change control (flawed as it may be). This is something that was not possible in civ1 & civ2. It is a step in the right direction, even if not quite right.

The real problem with civ3 and all the other civ versions and spin-offs is that empires are 'eternal'. Apart from direct conquest, there is no way of representing the decline and breakup of empires. Some empires, like Persia, were destroyed by outside invasion. But many others fell apart because of 'independence movements'. This couldn't be simulated in the earlier civ games, but with culture flipping it is now possible, even if not perfect.

The designers of the civ series have always ignored the important fact that ALL empires eventually decline and fall. But in civ3, if you build an empire in 100 BC, then (unless invaded) your empire will still exist in the 21st century. This has never happened in the real world, so is unhistorical and unrealistic.

 

[marshalljames]

So if culture flipping doesn't happen what was the american revolution?A simple Tea party?(to this day Americans drink coffee and not tea.)

And about the Irish famine as far as I know it was about crop failure from mono-culturing potatoes.A blight wiped the crops out.Similar to the blight wiping out American potatoes today.
And your simplistic view that the brits were nasty people running around screwing poor little(irish,american,chinese)guys is naive.
Irish land-owners were an integral part of the whole sceam,chinese warlords knew what they were doing,american's like george washington,Ben Franklin et al made lot's of money out of the whole deal.The declaration of independance was nothing more than Money grubbing beer hall rabble inciting the masses to riot(africans-american were only 3/4 humans in this document remember).
To an American a bright red jacket meant any easy target to shoot in the back(brits and french had made war a gentleman's game).To a Canadian a bright red jacket meant Law And Order(RCMP).

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by marshalljames
american's like george washington,Ben Franklin et al made lot's of money out of the whole deal.The declaration of independance was nothing more than Money grubbing beer hall rabble inciting the masses to riot(africans-american were only 3/4 humans in this document remember).

3/5

The Declaration of Independence doesn't really read like a beer-hall manifesto.

(Liked your comment about the coffee. I had no idea! )

 

[Dodgy Geezer]

I am really enjoying this discussion.

Couple of points that I will add.

1. Supercilious, you are correct, England probably didn't export its culture enough in many of the countries that it occupied. Which is exactly why they flipped back - India had how many English people living there as a percentage when it flipped back? All we did with the Irish was steal their spuds. However, culturally Ireland remains very close to the UK. NZ and Australia (up until around 20 years ago) can also be considered to be well within the sphere of influence of the mother country - both have willingly raised armies to fight in European wars even after independence.

2. A point about the crusades. While religious fevour was regarded as being behind the participants (the notion that the participants were in it for a quick buck appears to have been discredited recently), there was no attempt to convert the locals. This contrasts strongly with the Islamic faith at the time, which was pro-conversion. Hence the inevitable culture flip.

Personally I like CFs. I tend to capture civs pretty quickly to minimise a CF, and never, ever, leave more than a couple of units in a recently captured city. If I can't destroy the civ, I normally create a buffer zone of razed cities to free up the city tiles, and also move the enemy capital if I can get to it. And if I lose a city to a CF, I just take it personally and raze the F#*$ing thing second time around!

I think the concept of the garrison disappearing is probably based on the idea that much of it would have been recruited locally. Since this is not the case if you have just moved 30 MA into the city, it does seem a bit unfair to lose it, but is quite applicable if it has been held for some time (and armies it has produced are elsewhere in your empire?).

A question for those that lose those 30 MA though. WTH are you doing putting that many units into a city for anyway? Surely they didn't ALL get injured in the fight? Aren't there any mountains to sleep in?

And if you guys are going to get angry about anything, what about a world covered with railroads. If railroads cost money to keep (like they do in real life) rather than generating money, they would be more like the arteries they are in real life, and therefore you could have much more strategic fun with them. Same goes for roads (to a lesser degree).

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Kryten
To answer Simwitz:-

Otherwise, why have an editor at all? (by the way, the back of my box says "Includes a game editor, which enables you to change anything in the game - maps, scenarios and rules...").

Really thats weird why would they have that on the box?
by the way mine is a little more correct.
It says "Game Editor Suite lets you create customized civilizations, maps and rules"

 

[Kryten]

I checked the back of my (European?) Civ3 box again, just to make sure, and it really does say "Includes a game editor, which enables you to change anything in the game - maps, scenarios and rules...".

Also, the offical Civ3 site says "...This editor not only allows you to alter game elements such as advances, civilizations, units and wonders, but also includes a robust map editor ."(!!!)

See www.civ3.com/devupdate.cfm

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Kryten
I checked the back of my (European?) Civ3 box again, just to make sure, and it really does say "Includes a game editor, which enables you to change anything in the game - maps, scenarios and rules...".

Also, the offical Civ3 site says "...This editor not only allows you to alter game elements such as advances, civilizations, units and wonders, but also includes a robust map editor ."(!!!)

See www.civ3.com/devupdate.cfm

Ah mines american. so I guess thats why they are differant
and I had to check the back of my box when you said what yours did

THEY CAN'T EVEN GET THE BOXES RIGHT!

but on the topic I would not want to change the fliping at all, I like it

 

[sunround]

1. Culture flippign is a nice thing. Especially

When some civs coming to my land and build city nearest to my borders. Nobody likes such situation, but may be I don't want get in war for destroying only these cities.
Therefore culture flipping helps me abandon these cities.

2. Culture flipping is very bad thing
When I captured enemy cities, but they flipping back. Of course we have historical facts for it, but we have also history examples, when such things may be suppressed, for example tanks of Soviet Union get in Poland and Chehia.

So, last patch allows suppress flipping by many military units.

So, I see culture flipping very nice feature.

 

[siredgar]

Kryten, I am all for independence movements. I don't see any reason why they should not be in the game. Actually, I think it would be more interesting than culture-flipping. I'd love to see a colony declare independence so I can go back and CRUSH it. However, the problem with culture flipping is that it happens much too often and sometimes the city goes to an ally, so I cannot take it back. In many of my games though I get cities from neighbors who are often struggling allies, so I rebuff the rebels because I just don't want the city and want to help them. I don't know why the programmers just don't do the following:

1. Make culture-flipping preventable by a strong military presence.

2. Allow for cities to declare independence (not as a separate civ, but like a barbarian tribe because of naming problems).

It seems so reasonable and simple. Agreed?

 

[Kryten]

AGREED. But....I don' t think your suggestions go far enough!

I understand that the new 1.17 patch DOES allow large garrisons to suppress culture flipping (but I've not tried it yet as I'm up to my neck creating a new animated horse archer). And yes, I wouldn't mind seeing cities rebelling and becoming barbarian controlled. But what I would really love to see is some sort of mechanism that caused empires to break-up and split apart.
Time for another one of my long winded examples I'm afraid....

I want to create a 'World History' scenario (I've mentioned this before in other threads), with England, France, Spain, Germany, Greece, Egypt and Rome all in their correct starting locations (when the new editor comes out!). But in reality, Rome conquered all these nations. And once conquered, thats it, they are out of the game for good, and Rome becomes a typical civ3 'eternal' empire that still exists in the 21st century.

Well, I'd like to have all these nations eventually rebel, come back into the game with a sizable army, and have history for these nations continue while the Western Roman Empire falls.
The same thing could be done with the Mongols (both Spain and the Mongols had a far bigger impact on world history than the Aztec or the Iroquois). I want to see Mongol horse archers conquering Asia/Russia/China, then centuries later these nations reappear and Russia conquers Asia and the Mongol lands, only to have their own Communist Empire breaking-up in the 1990's.

Let's look at Greece:
*Hellenistic empire under Alexander, which breaks-up after his death.
*Conquered by Rome, and so (temporarily) out of the game.
*Comes back into the game as the Greek speaking Byzantine Empire.
*Conquered in 1453 AD by the Ottoman Empire, so (temporarlily) out of the game for a second time.
*1821 AD, Greek war for independence, and she's back in the game.
*1941 AD, conquered by Nazi Germany, out of the game again.
*1945 AD, she's back for a third time.
*1980 AD, a part of NATO and allied to the EEC.

So, the Greeks final score is --- 2 empires (Alexander & Byzantine), conquered 3 times (by Rome, Persia, Germany), but still in the game in the 21st centuary. Now I know that modern Greeks are not the same people as those that built Athens or Sparta, just as modern Egyptians are not the same as the people who built the Pyramids, but if we had nations rebelling we could at least give the illusion and simulate the history of the REGION, even if not the PEOPLE.

All this is pipe dreaming of course, and won't ever happen in civ3 (maybe in civ4?). All we have at the moment is culture flipping. It may be flawed, it may be illogical, it may not be totally realistic, but it's all we've got. And untill something better comes along, I say lets use it!

 

[irish_soldier]

Originally posted by marshalljames

Irish land-owners were an integral part of the whole sceam

Just throwing in my knowledge... the Irish landowners weren't *really* Irish, they were protestants who were the descendants of the English who came over and bred with the Irish to form an oppressive upper class to control the poor Catholics who suffered the majority of the Famine deaths.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by irish_soldier


Just throwing in my knowledge... the Irish landowners weren't *really* Irish, they were protestants who were the descendants of the English who came over and bred with the Irish to form an oppressive upper class to control the poor Catholics who suffered the majority of the Famine deaths.

Exactly.

Most landowners were neither Irish nor Catholic.

Owing to the infamous British Corn Laws, grain was exported by force out of Ireland (as people starved in the roads as the grain wagons passed by), but corn and grain was not allowed in, even though Britain was plenty rich enough to buy enough to feed the Irish. The potato, incidentally, was not indigenous to Ireland.


And culture flipping is a crock.

 

[Commander]

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).

How is this culture flipping? Sounds more like a revolution declared by far off regions in your empire to make a new nation. The US, India, and Rhodesia did not exist under British rule, because they were the British Empire. In game terms, an Indian city would probably culture flip to the Chinese, because their was no India to culture flip to, at the time.

The US is a poor example as well. This was a revolution, the British fought hard to maintain control, and they lost. How is this represented though culture flipping in Civ3? It isn't. Where are the revolutionaries that my soldiers have to fight off? No, culture flipping in Civ3 is just a bloodless change of control of a city. Your army mysteriously vanishes into the twilight zone, leaving the game player wondering what happened.

Again I offered a perfect solution to this. Bring back the partisans, and add peasant revolts. Also you can add the ability for peasants to start new countries if they start a widespread revolt in your own cities. Ala, the American revolution.

It's not that I dont like my cities being taken, I just dont like them being given away without a fight. I got an army in these things, and by golly, I want to fight off whatever peasants are trying to take the city from me.

As for culture flipping, I dont think it should be eliminated, just add more realism. In the game, Buffalo NY could theoretically join the Canadians. In real life however, this simply would not happen. Maybe they should factor in the citizen happiness ratio. After all, happy people are less likely to depose of the governor, the only person to ever die in any Civ3 culture flip.

Maybe they could add a culture level to when someone becomes immune to culture flipping. Like 10,000 total culture, etc. I also said that culture flipping should be allowed if peace existed for up to 50 turns. Well maybe 50 turns in unrealistic, but 25 is okay. This would also allow culture flips at the start of the game, because war has not yet been declared.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave


Most landowners were neither Irish nor Catholic.

"were"

Most agree that the Protestants are now Irish. Most have been there for generations. (It doesn't solve the underlying political problem, though.)

Another example is the Boers of South Africa. Most everyone, black and white, agree that the Boers are as much "African" as anyone.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Commander
Again I offered a perfect solution to this. Bring back the partisans, and add peasant revolts. Also you can add the ability for peasants to start new countries if they start a widespread revolt in your own cities. Ala, the American revolution.

I think the partisans would be a very good solution. The army controls the city, but the partisans control the land and the production. Keep in mind though, that in the limit, it is the same as a flip if the partisans attack and take the city -- just without the intermediary step.

 

[Zachriel]

(Can you delete a post? It says I can't. )

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
And culture flipping is a crock.

Flips:
Texas. Mexico invades to regain the territory and loses. Texas joins the U.S. the next "turn."
Mongol Empire. Khans conquer the world, only to lose the whole thing as the conquered nations reassert their native cultures.
Eastern Europe. Anarchy in the core of the Soviet Empire results in its western flank reverting to West European culture.
Medieval Europe. Every county had a castle and every castle had a Lord. Shifting alliances and the resultant wars to regain hereditory claims were the norm until the rise of nationalism.
Gandhi. Gandhi blasted the British with Eastern Culture. The British were toast.
Italy. During the Renaissance, Italy was repeatedly invaded. However, no invader could hold them due to their ancient and venerable Italian heritage. They stayed Italian.
Vikings. The Northmen invaded Britain, even establishing new settlements there, but they ended up being British. In other words, Norway didn't get to keep the conquered lands.

And my personal favorite, Antony and Cleopatra, whose betrayal looks every bit the culture flip, as Antony and his Legions are seduced by Egyptian culture. From Rome's point of view, they suddenly lost all their eastern cities and the Legions garrisoned there. Rome had to invade to regain control.

 

[siredgar]

Kryten, I think you're still talking about independence movements or the Civ 2 version of "civil war" (when a civ's capital is conquered). Yes, this should be in Civ 3, but not culture-flipping. In culture-flipping, a city goes to another civ. It doesn't declare independence and breakaway. So, using your analogy Greece shouldn't culture-flip to Germany, it should be conquered by it or declare independence.

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by siredgar
Kryten, I think you're still talking about independence movements or the Civ 2 version of "civil war" (when a civ's capital is conquered). Yes, this should be in Civ 3, but not culture-flipping. In culture-flipping, a city goes to another civ. It doesn't declare independence and breakaway. So, using your analogy Greece shouldn't culture-flip to Germany, it should be conquered by it or declare independence.

Ah, I want culture flipping AND independence movements! But civ3 dosen't allow independence movements....yet. But I would rather keep culture flipping than return to the old civ2 days, where it was impossible to make cities change control, even with the event text. Culture flipping is our only method at the moment for breaking-up empires. It's better than nothing.

And what do you think of Zachriels examples above? How else can these historical events be simulated? Texas is a fine example; controlled by Mexico it 'flips' to the USA, WITHOUT being conquered and in spite of any garrison. The fact is, history shows us that not all changes of political control are due to conquest and military might.

As for 'realism'....how come I seem to be the only person who thinks that it is unrealistic to have a game based on world history and yet not have Spain and the Mongols in it? And Knights should come BEFORE medieval pikemen, NOT after. Speaking of Knights, why isn't everybody screaming that it is unrealistic for Persians/Babylonians/Egyptians/Aztecs/Iroquois/Zulus to have Knight units? In reality, the only people who used west european medieval type Knights were....er....west european medieval nations! All the others should have horse archers INSTEAD of Knights (which is why I'm making an animation for it). And cannons should come BEFORE musketmen, NOT after, as they were used during the Hundred Years War while firelock/flintlock muskets did not replace the Longbow for another two hundred years. And only the English should have Longbows anyway, while everyone else used Crossbows....

All these things are unquestionably and totally 'unrealistic' and wrong. But at least culture flipping, as my and others examples have shown, does have some basis in certain historical events.

Extra thoughts....
I'd like to see DEAD civilizations 'culture flipping' back into the game. Think of China; conquered and controlled by the Mongols for centuries, but eventually Chinese culture won out and China as a civilization is still with us, while the Mongols are not. Having dead civs culture flipping back into existance might explain why the world today is covered by many small countires instead of just a handful of vast empires (which is what happens in EVERY game of civ, but has NEVER happened in history).
If you want realism, then like me you should want MORE culture flipping, not less.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

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).

You may well be right. As an american though, I'll say that I love it. The concept of culture is abstracted as best as it can be on the scale of the game, and I can't think of going back to playing without it.

In Troyen's example above, he complains that a city flipped despite his overwhelming culture lead...but then casually throws in that the city populace is dominated by citizens of the other culture. I don't see a problem with that, just as the British culture was superior (in game terms) to that of Rhodesia and India, yet for some odd reason those crazy folks just couldn't see how much better their lives would be under Troyens the Conquerer.