Where the heck did this come from? I don't think this is a culture fliping thread....this is an about Firaxis thread. Hoe many times do you need to be warned Zouave about coming into a thread and complaining off-topic? I guess we shall add thread jackingto the list of offenses you have....Originally posted by Zouave
Culture Flipping borders and cities is braindead non-historical nonsense.
The idea that a city that has for 5,000 years been part of one civ will suddenly decide to join another is a joke.
The idea the a border will flip over my garrisoned fortress and resource tile, and I will then have to leave, is ridiculous.
The idea the a just conquered city will flip back to the other civ - even though the other civ has only the capital left - due to its proximity to the capital, is laughable. That is expecially so when I have a huge army a few tiles away ready to crush them.
Razing cities of millions (esp. with just one unit) is a barbaric preposterous option. The stench of the corpses alone at least should equal some pollution tiles!
Disappearing garrisons is another absurdity, as is the cities not even losing a few population points when the garrison disappears.
Culture Flipping??
Let Me Explain Something About Firaxis!
- Thread starter Civ3Lover
- Start date
palehorse, chill, we're just having a conversation here. One thing leads to another.
To answer a few threads I've read.
Whatever city i the US being asian or mexican or whatever is BULL. OK, htey might speak mandarin, or eat tapas, but they sure as hell pay tax to the US government, the can be drafter into the US army, the have to follow US law, and so on and so on.
Oh, and Mr Bigboy, I don't like civ3, although I like the civ concept, and I sure post here...
To answer a few threads I've read.
Whatever city i the US being asian or mexican or whatever is BULL. OK, htey might speak mandarin, or eat tapas, but they sure as hell pay tax to the US government, the can be drafter into the US army, the have to follow US law, and so on and so on.
Oh, and Mr Bigboy, I don't like civ3, although I like the civ concept, and I sure post here...
MrBiggBoy
High Admiral
plomeros, you have to physically GO to Cupertino to see the effects. listen to what people say, they might actually know better than you. and BTW, do you prefer Civ1 or Civ2?
oh, bigboy, so I am wrong? OK, I didn't know that the laws of the US was flexible enough to allow citizens to "flip" to whatever other culture...
Sorry, gotta rush, since I'm gonna choose to culture flip to another country with less tax, no conscription, more enterainment and better roads...
Sorry, but it was, and still is crap to claim that some cities in the US or any other developed country have been so changed by immiration that they no longer can be concidered a part of that nation.
Sorry, gotta rush, since I'm gonna choose to culture flip to another country with less tax, no conscription, more enterainment and better roads...
Sorry, but it was, and still is crap to claim that some cities in the US or any other developed country have been so changed by immiration that they no longer can be concidered a part of that nation.
MrBiggBoy
High Admiral
Come to Canada.
(Okay, I'll back off. Culture flipping isn't ENTIRELY realistic. Sorry about that.
Firaxis maybe should do a little RESEARCH. 
)warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Deleted
philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
Jinglehopper
Chieftain
This thread certainly has gotten off-topic a bit, so I'd like to combine the two discussions. Someone stated earlier how Civ was basically a war game and that SMAC was a diplomatic game.
While I don't necessarily agree with that, it got me thinking about culture-flipping. What does culture-flipping basically do? It makes it harder to wage a full out war over long periods of time. There is one more "factor" that we have to deal with when stratgizing. The losing of garrisons and such all are risks that we have to measure against the possible gains of conquering massive amounts of territory. It also forces the player to build a more balanced civ. Warmongers with no culture will have their cities flip much easier. (I assume because I always build temples and libraries first in each of my cities).
In Civ 2, there were no inherent obstacles to just being a conquering civ. So, in Civ 3, perhaps Firaxis wanted to discourage the type of play where your cities are just producing units without any culture (war weariness, anyone?). I know that others will respond with the fact that it is impossible to win at high levels without attacking, but that doesn't mean we should blame Firaxis for trying.
BTW, I think Civ 3 is a major improvement over Civ 2.
Vicious counter-arguments from Zouve may begin
. . . now.
While I don't necessarily agree with that, it got me thinking about culture-flipping. What does culture-flipping basically do? It makes it harder to wage a full out war over long periods of time. There is one more "factor" that we have to deal with when stratgizing. The losing of garrisons and such all are risks that we have to measure against the possible gains of conquering massive amounts of territory. It also forces the player to build a more balanced civ. Warmongers with no culture will have their cities flip much easier. (I assume because I always build temples and libraries first in each of my cities).
In Civ 2, there were no inherent obstacles to just being a conquering civ. So, in Civ 3, perhaps Firaxis wanted to discourage the type of play where your cities are just producing units without any culture (war weariness, anyone?). I know that others will respond with the fact that it is impossible to win at high levels without attacking, but that doesn't mean we should blame Firaxis for trying.
BTW, I think Civ 3 is a major improvement over Civ 2.
Vicious counter-arguments from Zouve may begin
. . . now.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Originally posted by philippe
I wrote something. I didn't like it. I attempted a few times to delete it unsuccessfully. I edited it to say "Deleted". No great mystery other than why I can't delete my own message.
Jinglehopper
Chieftain
No takers?
Catt
Emperor
I can't jump in properly -- never played Civ 1 or Civ 2. I will say that, from my perspective as a newcomer to the Civ franchise, war weariness, cultural borders, cultural flipping, the UN (and therefore a sudden diplomatic victory or loss), and the other game factors which spawn a multitude of other complaints I see on these boards, simply require a bit more thought, a bit more energy, and a bit more effort to deal with effectively. These factors add more complexity and challenge to the game. If, in Civ 2 play, you could simply crank out military units with no concern whatsoever to cultural improvements and cultural power, it would be (to me) a less interesting challenge as far as game play goes.
I don't agree with a lot of what Zouave has to say regarding Civ 3, but his arguments are consistent, coherent, logical (from his reference point) and mostly on-topic. I think he is an entertaining and credible voice for those who think Civ 3 doesn't track the real world as closely as could be done in game design. But then I don't think realism should the end goal of game design.
Jinglehopper
Chieftain
You are right, Catt. I don't think realism is the end-all of game design either. And anything that makes the game more challenging should be regarded as something that makes the game better. In my opinion, it's the easier choice to say, "that isn't realistic" instead of finding an intelligent solution to the problem.
For example, if I have a premonition that a city is going to flip or I really need it (because of resources), I pile everything I have in there (post ver 1.21). In a full out modern war, keeping the peace in conquered land is just as difficult as waging effective war.
For example, if I have a premonition that a city is going to flip or I really need it (because of resources), I pile everything I have in there (post ver 1.21). In a full out modern war, keeping the peace in conquered land is just as difficult as waging effective war.
kring
Asst Cook & Bottle Washer
I like realism in some games, specifically true historical games, like a WW2 one or a true historical reference game, something like the colonization of the New World. Civ is not a true historical game, and so I don't mind the spearmen kill tanks thing; after all consider Ethiopia vs Italy in the 1930's). I have been on both ends of this saga, usually the losing end more often than not. Civ is a nonhistorical game, you do have historical civs, historical leaders, etc; even if played on a Earth map, it is still not historical since America would not be facing Babylon in a true historical setting. I will also say that spearmen vs tanks usually results in BBQ spearmen on a stick, not tank flambes.
At the same time, I am willing to sacrifice some realism for game play/mechanics purposes, hence the 1 gold maintenance cost for a carrier or a warrior.
I think the problem many have with the realism issue in Civ 3, based on reading comments in more than a dozen different fan sites, is forgetting that Civ is not historical game, but a what if game.
On your second comment, I recently had the AI Egypt sail a ship into one of its cities, then just after it was leaving, the city flipped to me.
Jinglehopper
Chieftain
Thank you, kring. That makes sense, I couldn't have stated it better. Firaxis and Sid Meier have stated time and again that the number one factor when developing a game is whether or not it is fun. For that they will sacrifice historical or even realistic accuracy.
It's a shame that the general consensus on these boards is that Firaxis is a four-letter word. They make great games that I will play not because of the company, but because they are fun. Any game that has that name on the box will definitely pique my interest. It's not about loyalty so much as recognizing a brand-name.
Why do you think people are so anti-Firaxis?
It's a shame that the general consensus on these boards is that Firaxis is a four-letter word. They make great games that I will play not because of the company, but because they are fun. Any game that has that name on the box will definitely pique my interest. It's not about loyalty so much as recognizing a brand-name.
Why do you think people are so anti-Firaxis?
LaRo
Dead Rat
If the thread is closed, why can I post a reply?
If the thread is not closed, why can't I vote to the poll?
If the thread is not closed, why can't I vote to the poll?
Jinglehopper
Chieftain
The poll is closed but not the thread.
Similar threads
