Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
MummyMan: In the FAQ, you can find the CultureFlip Forumla (updated). Technology plays no role.
FYI: Zero Resistance rates does NOT Stop CF.
- Thread starter Zouave
- Start date
whosurdaddy
Chieftain
Well I am going to be away in Argentina for 3 weeks, but when I get back I will try it out. I have a feeling that in order for the negative culture buildings to work to help prevent culture flipping, we are gonna have to use the Civ multi tool (hopefully he will have updated by then).
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
I and others have given many examples of cities 'flipping' in history. But now I think that it's only fair that I give some examples of when 'flips' are NOT required and are unhistorical.
The concept of 'flips' was added to Civ3 as a way of slowing down outright military conquest and to give the builder type of player an alternative. The problem is this.....some scenarios such as the American Civil War, WW1 & WW2, ARE nothing more than conquest scenarios! Building has no place in these games. And the last thing that these particular historical scenarios want is cities flipping back and forth! THAT'S why, sometimes, I want to be able to switch flips off.
And yes, I know that there are some abstract and illogical things you can do in Civ3 to avoid flips and their effects. But I don't want to play a WW2 scenario where the Germans are too frightened to place military units in some small obscure town just because Civ3 allows a population of unarmed civilians to achieve what the whole of the French army in 1940 could not do, namely destroy a whole Wehrmacht army and liberate a city!
And I don't want the allies to go stomping across occupied Europe, razing city after city, or deliberately starving the people of a newly captured town while they flood it with British/American/Canadian civilians just to stop it from fipping back to the Nazis! Good grief, they are supposed to be liberators!
So, as I said before, "sometimes flipping is a good way of simulating real-world events, and sometimes it is NOT".
You can't make one shoe fit both feet!
So Koronin, you're suggesting that when the allies capture Caen following the D-Day invasion, all they have to do to stop the city from flipping back to the Germans is to capture all the surrounding German controlled cities. But these new cities also have enemy cities "pushing right up against the newly captured city", so these need to be taken as well. And the cities next to THEM, and the next, and the next... So for your cunning plan to work you would have to capture ALL one hundred plus German controlled cities IN ONE TURN!
Would you care to enlighten us on how this great feat of military genius is to be carried out?
The concept of 'flips' was added to Civ3 as a way of slowing down outright military conquest and to give the builder type of player an alternative. The problem is this.....some scenarios such as the American Civil War, WW1 & WW2, ARE nothing more than conquest scenarios! Building has no place in these games. And the last thing that these particular historical scenarios want is cities flipping back and forth! THAT'S why, sometimes, I want to be able to switch flips off.
And yes, I know that there are some abstract and illogical things you can do in Civ3 to avoid flips and their effects. But I don't want to play a WW2 scenario where the Germans are too frightened to place military units in some small obscure town just because Civ3 allows a population of unarmed civilians to achieve what the whole of the French army in 1940 could not do, namely destroy a whole Wehrmacht army and liberate a city!
And I don't want the allies to go stomping across occupied Europe, razing city after city, or deliberately starving the people of a newly captured town while they flood it with British/American/Canadian civilians just to stop it from fipping back to the Nazis! Good grief, they are supposed to be liberators!
So, as I said before, "sometimes flipping is a good way of simulating real-world events, and sometimes it is NOT".
You can't make one shoe fit both feet!
Originally posted by Koronin
Take care of the obvious: Rival culture pushing right up against the city. Remove that, and it's extremely unlikely your newly captured city will flip, doesn't get more complicated than that.
Or you could ***** piss and moan about it instead
So Koronin, you're suggesting that when the allies capture Caen following the D-Day invasion, all they have to do to stop the city from flipping back to the Germans is to capture all the surrounding German controlled cities. But these new cities also have enemy cities "pushing right up against the newly captured city", so these need to be taken as well. And the cities next to THEM, and the next, and the next... So for your cunning plan to work you would have to capture ALL one hundred plus German controlled cities IN ONE TURN!
Would you care to enlighten us on how this great feat of military genius is to be carried out?
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
Well, look on the bright side. Over here in Nottingham it's been raining continuously for 24 hours! (...ahhh, the good old British summer, ya can't beat it).
BTW, I like your avatar (a crusader indeed!
)
Zachriel
Kaiser
The French cities in question are French in culture, not German. They won't flip back to Germany. Also, flooding with friendlies has no effect on culture flipping in Civ3 except in the sense of having extra help to complete cultural improvements resulting in a larger culture border in cities with overlap. When the allies invaded Germany, they had nearly two million troops, more than enough to stop any renegade German militias, especially after the massive air bombardment reduce the cities to rubble. Certainly, one ragged regiment cannot subdue and control a population of millions, which is the justification for flipping. No modification to culture flipping should be required.
On the other hand, I am certainly in support of any flexibility in this regard for modders. When actually creating the mod, with the size, number and type of the units actually available may require in increase or decrease in the chance of flipping.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Even if Caen were a German city, it would not flip with a sufficient garrison. Huge numbers of troops were available on both sides in WWII. The Germans had about 500,000 soldiers in Normandy, eventually losing about half before evacuating.
Come on, like I'm going to entertain a REAL LIFE occurance with how the GAME plays.
And you're rolling your eyes
And you're rolling your eyes
Originally posted by Kryten
I and others have given many examples of cities 'flipping' in history. But now I think that it's only fair that I give some examples of when 'flips' are NOT required and are unhistorical.
The concept of 'flips' was added to Civ3 as a way of slowing down outright military conquest and to give the builder type of player an alternative. The problem is this.....some scenarios such as the American Civil War, WW1 & WW2, ARE nothing more than conquest scenarios! Building has no place in these games. And the last thing that these particular historical scenarios want is cities flipping back and forth! THAT'S why, sometimes, I want to be able to switch flips off.
And yes, I know that there are some abstract and illogical things you can do in Civ3 to avoid flips and their effects. But I don't want to play a WW2 scenario where the Germans are too frightened to place military units in some small obscure town just because Civ3 allows a population of unarmed civilians to achieve what the whole of the French army in 1940 could not do, namely destroy a whole Wehrmacht army and liberate a city!
And I don't want the allies to go stomping across occupied Europe, razing city after city, or deliberately starving the people of a newly captured town while they flood it with British/American/Canadian civilians just to stop it from fipping back to the Nazis! Good grief, they are supposed to be liberators!
So, as I said before, "sometimes flipping is a good way of simulating real-world events, and sometimes it is NOT".
You can't make one shoe fit both feet!
So Koronin, you're suggesting that when the allies capture Caen following the D-Day invasion, all they have to do to stop the city from flipping back to the Germans is to capture all the surrounding German controlled cities. But these new cities also have enemy cities "pushing right up against the newly captured city", so these need to be taken as well. And the cities next to THEM, and the next, and the next... So for your cunning plan to work you would have to capture ALL one hundred plus German controlled cities IN ONE TURN!
Would you care to enlighten us on how this great feat of military genius is to be carried out?
Kryten
Smeee heeeeed
To Koronin:-
I think you may have missed two important words from my previous post...."historical scenarios".
I, like you, enjoy a good game of Civ3 on a randomly generated map. And as I said before, I don't have a problem with 'flips' because I'm more of a builder then a conqueror.
But when it comes to creating 'historical' scenarios, you have try and make them historicaly accurate, and for that you have to get the history right. After all, you wouldn't expect to see Elephant units running about in Europe in 1944 would you!
An extreme example perhaps, but nonetheless true.
So flipping is a very useful tool for making Spanish cities flip away from the French during a Peninsular War scenario, or for making some Roman cities flip to Hannibal in a Punic War scenario. BUT, like respawing civilizations, or pollution, or barbarians, cities flipping in a WW2 historical scenario would be unrealistic and distort the historical flow, and so should be switched off.
If you're still not conviced, then think of this: if two people decided to make a 1939 to 1945 scenario, but one of them left flipping on while the other one switched it off, which of these do you think would be the more historically accurate?
To Zachriel:-
I always think of 'mods' as games where the rules have been modified (of course!) but the player still starts in 4000 BC with one settler, while a 'scenario' is a game where the cities have ready been layed out and starts at a set period in time.
Sorry if this is a bit obvious, but I just wanted to make sure that we were all talking about the same thing.
To everybody:-
Why is it that I never see any threads or posts along the lines of "people shouldn't change the combat values of the units, because it will unbalance the game!". Or, "you shouldn't be able to add new units, because if any new units were required then Firaxis would have included them!".
But if anybody mentions switching off or changing 'culture-flips', then heaven forbid! Hanging is too good for them!
Why can't everyone play the game they way want to? Some people have adjusted corruption, some have fixed it so that spearmen can't defeat tanks, and some have changed the way the governments work, and nobody raises an eyebrow. But as for 'culture-flips'....tough luck matey, it's sacrosanct and sacred, and not to be criticized or tampered with.
Isn't this all a little bit hypocritical?
And remember everyone, we are only defending it because IT'S IN THE GAME! If Firaxis had included some other mechanism, or called it 'politics' or 'contentment' or 'religion' instead, then we would all be defending that instead!
Just because it's in the game does NOT mean it's right!
(BTW, it's stopped raining and the sun has come out again. )
I think you may have missed two important words from my previous post...."historical scenarios".
I, like you, enjoy a good game of Civ3 on a randomly generated map. And as I said before, I don't have a problem with 'flips' because I'm more of a builder then a conqueror.
But when it comes to creating 'historical' scenarios, you have try and make them historicaly accurate, and for that you have to get the history right. After all, you wouldn't expect to see Elephant units running about in Europe in 1944 would you!
An extreme example perhaps, but nonetheless true.So flipping is a very useful tool for making Spanish cities flip away from the French during a Peninsular War scenario, or for making some Roman cities flip to Hannibal in a Punic War scenario. BUT, like respawing civilizations, or pollution, or barbarians, cities flipping in a WW2 historical scenario would be unrealistic and distort the historical flow, and so should be switched off.
If you're still not conviced, then think of this: if two people decided to make a 1939 to 1945 scenario, but one of them left flipping on while the other one switched it off, which of these do you think would be the more historically accurate?
To Zachriel:-
I always think of 'mods' as games where the rules have been modified (of course!) but the player still starts in 4000 BC with one settler, while a 'scenario' is a game where the cities have ready been layed out and starts at a set period in time.
Sorry if this is a bit obvious, but I just wanted to make sure that we were all talking about the same thing.
To everybody:-
Why is it that I never see any threads or posts along the lines of "people shouldn't change the combat values of the units, because it will unbalance the game!". Or, "you shouldn't be able to add new units, because if any new units were required then Firaxis would have included them!".
But if anybody mentions switching off or changing 'culture-flips', then heaven forbid! Hanging is too good for them!
Why can't everyone play the game they way want to? Some people have adjusted corruption, some have fixed it so that spearmen can't defeat tanks, and some have changed the way the governments work, and nobody raises an eyebrow. But as for 'culture-flips'....tough luck matey, it's sacrosanct and sacred, and not to be criticized or tampered with.
Isn't this all a little bit hypocritical?
And remember everyone, we are only defending it because IT'S IN THE GAME! If Firaxis had included some other mechanism, or called it 'politics' or 'contentment' or 'religion' instead, then we would all be defending that instead!
Just because it's in the game does NOT mean it's right!
(BTW, it's stopped raining and the sun has come out again.
)Flavor Dave
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Messages
- 146
In Civ terms, that "one hundred" cities is more like 4. (On the Western Front, anyway.)
I think alot of the troubles people have with "historic accuracy" would be solved if they got rid of the US, made the 3rd German city Vienna, the 4th French city Montreal and the 5th New Orleans, the 10th English city Nairobi, etc. Then people would understand the scale of the game better.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Originally posted by Kryten
After all, you wouldn't expect to see Elephant units running about in Europe in 1944 would you!
The King of Siam offered Lincoln elephants in his battle to free the slaves. Imagine elephants at Gettysburg! Lincoln politely turned down the King's offer.
Zachriel
Kaiser
I believe that scenario makers should certainly have control of flipping (and everything else for that matter). For instance, in the Normandy invasion scenario, you may want fewer more powerful units, rather than the usual 100 infantry, 100 armor, etc. of a normal game of Civ3. In this case, you would need to modify culture flipping to allow each unit a much stronger garrison effect (or conversely lower the flipping threshold).
You would also need to be able to set the ethnic constituency of each city. Paris was French, even under occupation.
