Do you play with Culture Flipping enabled?

[syndicatedragon]

I'm curious about what people think about culture flipping. At first it seems like an interesting game mechanic, but kind of unrealistic. Now I'm wondering if it's something most people play with enabled or not. It seems to fix a few "exploits" (building cities deep in the heart of other civs), but it's just annoying in a lot of cases (border flips, and some flips during wars, especially when you lose your troops). What do you think?

 

[Arathorn]

I think culture flip is annoying and somewhat problematic in its implementation, but I do think it adds strategic depth and decisions to the game, so I essentially always play with it enabled. I think the idea is very cool (adds more and more pros and cons to the "guns vs. butter" debate). I do think the actual implementation is a bit unrealistic, but I've not seen one proposed that I like better.

So I voted "Yes".

Arathorn

 

[Gainy]

You can play with it disabled??

I didn't know this, how exactly? (i'm not going to use it anways, as it enduces more strategic thinking)

 

[The Last Conformist]

Why's there no "Yes, and it annoys the CENSORED out of me" option in the poll?

In other words, my position is much like Arathorn's; I don't particularly like the implementation, but I feel it does add an extra level of strategy, and thus plays with it on.

Gainy bo: Do you happen to play Vanilla? Only in PTW and C3C can you switch it off.

 

[Gainy]

I've had PTW since February, and i've had C3C for a month or so. I've never seen such an option... (where is it?)

 

[wilbill]

"Allow Cultural Conversions" is one of the choices in the Player Setup screen.

 

[Lyonesse]

yes, I use it....doesn't mean I REALLY like it...

 

[bru]

I use it, but would like to see it changed a bit!!

 

[Gainy]

"Allow Cultural Conversions" is one of the choices in the Player Setup screen.

I always thought that said "Allow Cultural Conversations"
It makes more sense now... Thanks

 

[wilbill]

Glad it's not conversations - it'd get real annoying listening to the AI's talking among themselves in the background.

 

[Stop Killing Me]

Hmmm Im gona be the first to say I don't normaly play with it on. I agree that it adds an extra element to a game but its implementation is far too unrealistic for my liking. You capture a large enemy city shove 50 MI which the AI can't even build yet, it flips back, and they get to keep your troops as well? If you didn't loose all your troops it would be something as its not exactly likely that your whole army is gona change sides and fight for the enemy. The marority of your troops should be moved to your nearest city with one or two of them given to the enemy as a sign of deserters in armies.

Just my two cents.

 

[Special_O]

Culture flip is annoying, but without it, it's kind of too easy and it's nice having a chance to get flips of your own.

 

[FenrysWulf]

I wish you could enable cultural conversions in regular gameplay but not in wartime. I like having that possibility that the little outpost the ai built in the middle of my civ will turn to me, but it makes conquest too painful by tying down too many units to keep a city from flipping, so I have to turn it off.

 

[Master Shake]

The AI doesn't get your troops when you culture flip. Well, at least, I don't get the AI's troops when he culture flips to me, and I assume the rule is the same the other way.

When a city flips to me, it is garrisoned with a single defensive unit, whichever I happen to be able to build at the time.

In any case, it seems I agree with most here--it's good, but there's something wrong with some parts of its implementation.

I think cities recently taken in war should have less chance of culture flipping--after all, your troops garrisoned there would be on "high alert" for insurgency, wouldn't they? (Adding a "recently captured?" sort of flag would also give the program a way to avoid putting up the nonsensical "seems they admire their culture" message when recently captured cities flip. It should be saying something like "they're returning their allegience to their former masters" or something like that. Clearly what happened wasn't just a case of "admiration", in other words.)

Also, when a city culture flips, only some of the troops should be lost. Many, perhaps most, should be returned to you.

And armies should *never* or only *very rarely* be lost. That just bites.

-mS

 

[Aramazd]

Yes culture flipping is good to have

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I always leave it on. I'd like to see some subtle tweaks to the culture model, but mostly I don't mind it. I'm so grateful for national borders that I'll forgive the occasional silly flip.

What I'd like to see in Civ 4 is "allegience" precede the flip. So maybe the result of "flip" would be more likely than it is now, but the effect would be that a single citizen in that city would change to your nationality (while staying in the same city). The only way a city could truly flip would be if it had at least one citizen of the nationality it wanted to flip to. And as the percentage of such citizens went up, the chances of a full flip would likewise increase.

This would mean that you'd have some warning. If you had a unhappy city near the front that gradually switched "allegience" to a neighbor and then finally flipped--well, you deserve it.

Now by itself that wouldn't help the military problem at all. (Make it worse, actually). But I'd also like to see "immigration". If a CIV had a big culture lead as a whole civilization OR if nearby cities were much happier across the border--then some of these "allegience" switchers would flee across the border to a nearby city of their choice (that had room to grow). When a city falls to an invader, a lot of the citizens would have a high chance to suddenly "immigrate", since these refugees would naturally flee. *That* is why a just conquered city wouldn't flip so easily. The population would be relatively low because a lot of the citizens with initiative would flee before you got the city.

As a nice side effect, players with qualms about starving the population of captured cities could avoid that. (And if you tried to starve a city that was still fairly large even after capture, the unhappy citizens would quickly "immigrate" before they all starved.) On the other hand, if you are losing a war, precious citizens will flee back to your homeland until your cities are packed.

If you aren't prepared for the growth, these refugees might cause unhappiness problems. Or they might provide the extra production you need to turn the tide. As a dying CIV gets more compacted, flips become more likely because the refugees have nowhere to go. This favors shorter wars instead of extermination. If you overrun a CIV quickly, and it is surrounded by other CIVs, a certain amount of the population will "immigrate" to those other CIVs.

Finally, this would make growth slightly less important and culture slightly more so. I keep seeing the expert harp on how "population equals power." Well, this would provide another way to get that population. Strategic choices are good.

 

[valamas]

I love culture flipping. I have flipped 3 - 4 cities of a rival in a matter of a few turns.

 

[Jaybe]

Culture Flipping is good for the "disaster" aspect; something you have very little control over. With C3C, I play with the plague -- more disaster, in even less control of it.

What's a little more unpredictability in unreal (civ) life....

 

[Turner]

Yes, I play with it enabled. I rarely have to worry about CFing. I always make sure each town has at least a Temple and Library, so it generates culture.

 

[JonathanValjean]

Absolutely. The addition of culture, along with unique traits/units is one of the great things about Civ 3.