For a better conquest

[Naokaukodem]

I don't know you, but I have difficulties to conquer, because of the culture of the ennemy. The only good solution is to raze the conquered cities, because when you conquer one, you have to conquer 2 more, etc... and at the end you have to conquer the whole civilization, and it takes time, and war weariness prevents most of the time to achieve your goals. Plus, when you conquer a city of Civ A, there is often a cultural border of Civ B, what you are not in war with. So, to prevent this, I have had several ideas:

• Or you can secure land with military units: the ennemy squares where you have a military unit on will become within our culture.

• Or the fat cross will always be prioritary on the culture: if you have a city A with former culture (9 squares), those 9 squares will always be within our culture. IF you have city B with fat cross, the fat cross will always be within our culture. Now, if you culture is bigger than the fat cross, it will be monitored just like it is in Civ4, except the fat cross.

 

[dexy]

Yes, this is the most annoying feature of culture dependent borders: you crush a civ with strong forces, but all you get is low culture cities which cannot work even tiles next to them. The neighboring civ with higher culture will get all the resources!!! Why did you fight in the first place? Imagine reality - USA conquering Iraq, but all the oil is immediately within Saudi Arabia and Iran's border, because Americans don't have enough libraries, monuments, etc. in the area!?!?!

My idea is to stop changing borders based on the culture at some point (like after discovery of nationalism). All you can do then is use military and diplomacy. And when you conquer an enemy city - you get all the tiles that city was bringing to its original civ. Also, nice thing would be to use land units to claim territory prior to capturing the cities themselves. Simply put infantry on gold tile and next turn - it's in your possesion, until someone else claims it after you (this triggers war of course).

 

[Naokaukodem]

I kno my english pretty sucks, but wow, at least it seems tht i have been understanded by some people! It makes me to rejoice. Absolutely agree with you. And you understood well my first idea, this is a certain time now that i had it.

thanks for the feedback!

 

[rysmiel]

I kno my english pretty sucks, but wow, at least it seems tht i have been understanded by some people! It makes me to rejoice. Absolutely agree with you. And you understood well my first idea, this is a certain time now that i had it.

For what it's worth, I understand your point, I just disagree entirely; I think conquest is still tooo easy, and the defensive value of culture needs to be made stronger.

 

[Naokaukodem]

but it is not the defensive value of culture that is spoken here. This could be raised ten times, it would still be very simple to clear it with a good stack of catapults, taking aways some turns of production and some turns of bombarding.

it not onlt that conquest is too hard, it is principally the fact that conquering only one viable city is impossible.

No everybody want the entire world. If you have enough competence to conquer it, good for you, go for it! But if you are not competent to conquer the whole world, or simply don't want to, the actual system of culture is very annoying, trust me.

 

[rysmiel]

but it is not the defensive value of culture that is spoken here. This could be raised ten times, it would still be very simple to clear it with a good stack of catapults, taking aways some turns of production and some turns of bombarding.

That would be... for want of a better way of putting it, the tactical defensive value of culture. Which I do think should be enhanced, basically by there being a growing cumulative chance every turn that any of your units on another civ's territory defect to that civ, but that's another argument.

The enemy getting the high-culture tiles, or culture flipping so cities you have conquered revert back to their former owner, seem to me to count as strategic defensive value of culture. Which seems to me to be fairly solid as a mechanism as is.

it not onlt that conquest is too hard, it is principally the fact that conquering only one viable city is impossible.

If all you want from the AI is one city, and you're not actually prepared to fight a major war for it, I think that Civ should support any number of other ways of getting it. Bribing cities to revolt, like in Civ 2. Flipping them by a concentrated culture attack as is kind of possible in Civ 3. Trading for them outright as is possible in Civ 3 vanilla. But if you start a war with someone, it seems a bit off to expect to be able to take one city and sit on it and not have to worry any further.

 

[dexy]

But look, even if you are prepared to fight a major war, even if you can conquer the whole civ, if that civ is not close to your cultural influence - you can't gain much from the conquest. The neighboring civs will take all the valuable land (with resources) and you will be left with useless one-tile cities. Think again of my example - USA in Iraq. Can that war (and the outcome) be simulated in civ? No.

 

[Naokaukodem]

That would be... for want of a better way of putting it, the tactical defensive value of culture. Which I do think should be enhanced, basically by there being a growing cumulative chance every turn that any of your units on another civ's territory defect to that civ, but that's another argument.

The enemy getting the high-culture tiles, or culture flipping so cities you have conquered revert back to their former owner, seem to me to count as strategic defensive value of culture. Which seems to me to be fairly solid as a mechanism as is.

I don't think that a unit defecting to the opponent is realistic. And the fact that a newly conquered city defects to the former civ is pretty rare, if not impossible.

If all you want from the AI is one city, and you're not actually prepared to fight a major war for it, I think that Civ should support any number of other ways of getting it. Bribing cities to revolt, like in Civ 2. Flipping them by a concentrated culture attack as is kind of possible in Civ 3. Trading for them outright as is possible in Civ 3 vanilla. But if you start a war with someone, it seems a bit off to expect to be able to take one city and sit on it and not have to worry any further.

But the problem would remain the same: you can't manage the city correctly. You are opperating a transfer on military capacity. I'm just saying that with the actual system, if you want only one city this is not possible.

 

[rysmiel]

But look, even if you are prepared to fight a major war, even if you can conquer the whole civ, if that civ is not close to your cultural influence - you can't gain much from the conquest. The neighboring civs will take all the valuable land (with resources) and you will be left with useless one-tile cities. Think again of my example - USA in Iraq. Can that war (and the outcome) be simulated in civ? No.

The outcome that if you invade another country far away and devastate it, it costs you resources and doesn't gain you anything ? I think that's really a pretty accurate simulation, myself.

 

[rysmiel]

I don't think that a unit defecting to the opponent is realistic.

I'm not talking about realism here, I'm talking about gameplay.

And the fact that a newly conquered city defects to the former civ is pretty rare, if not impossible.

All those just-conquered citizens are supposed to actively want to be part of your civilisation for ever more just because you beat them up, rather than still feel loyal to the country they were born and brought up in ?

I'm just saying that with the actual system, if you want only one city this is not possible.

And I'm, saying, this is not a minus, this is a plus. And if you do feel strongly that it's a minus not to be able to take one city, then implement some other system for doing it, because taking it by an artificially limited war should not work on either gampelay or realism grounds.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm not talking about realism here, I'm talking about gameplay.

And me, i'm talking about realism.

All those just-conquered citizens are supposed to actively want to be part of your civilisation for ever more just because you beat them up, rather than still feel loyal to the country they were born and brought up in ?

Just talking about the current Civ4 game.

And I'm, saying, this is not a minus, this is a plus. And if you do feel strongly that it's a minus not to be able to take one city, then implement some other system for doing it, because taking it by an artificially limited war should not work on either gampelay or realism grounds.

Wars for only 1 city is realistic, and nothing prevents the AI the refuse the peace as long as it hasn't recovered his city, if this is possible.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Pretty much agree. Roughly after macemen era such thing as "small war for key cities" does not exist. To make a conquered city worth something, you need to conquer all cities surrounding it, and to make then worth something, you need to conquer the cities surrounding them etc. So the way culture is calculated promotes either not going to war, or nearly total annihilation of the enemy - no in-between options.

At least, if you vassalize your enemy, all his culture in your cities' fat crosses becomes yours. That's a good thing, but it feels too little sometimes.

Althrough the current culture model does allow interesting "culture wars" for tiles.

Which I do think should be enhanced, basically by there being a growing cumulative chance every turn that any of your units on another civ's territory defect to that civ

Oh, no. I don't want that thing happen nor to me, nor to the AI.

 

[dexy]

The outcome that if you invade another country far away and devastate it, it costs you resources and doesn't gain you anything ? I think that's really a pretty accurate simulation, myself.

No. What I meant is: it costs you supporting the army, fighting the war weariness, losing some units, losing world reputation. But you should gain some other things you were fighting for, like a valuable resource (oil for instance). In current CIV culture implementation - you lose all that, but the neighbors of the defeated country get the resource(s). Simply not fair.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Well, if the country isn't really small, you still get something.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well, if the country isn't really small, you still get something.

It depends. You can have the only ressource of oil near a frontier, or iron, elephants, etc...