Overthrow a City via Culture...?

[alphahoke]

One of my favorite aspects of Civilization 4 was surrounding an adjacent city and then overpowering it with my dominating culture which caused its citizens to revolt and try to join my culture.

I've played through the game twice now and haven't seen that happen. Is there any way to take a neighboring city without rolling through it with tanks?

 

[The Leviathan]

No there is not

the culture war in this game involves gaining tiles via purchasing and culture. Taking over somebodies tiles via culture doesn't work anymore unless you have a great artist

which is for the better because culture was stupid and unrealistic in Civ IV. When has a nation ever given it's land or city away simply because the other nation's city had a lot of great artist and religious buildings?

 

[alphahoke]

which is for the better because culture was stupid and unrealistic in Civ IV. When has a nation ever given it's land or city away simply because the other nation's city had a lot of great artist and religious buildings?

I don't know about that. It seems to me like there are many cities/states that are more religiously and culturally tied to another state than their own. Iraq and Iran, China and Tibet, and even Ireland have been divided by religion and culture in the past.

But pertaining to the game, it seems like buying up hexes puts an even greater focus on the economic aspect of the game.

 

[Nutteria]

I think with enough culture bombing you can "anex" a city.Haven`t tryed it tho.

 

[alphahoke]

I think with enough culture bombing you can "anex" a city.Haven`t tryed it tho.

Ya can't do it on a city-state I've learned. I had two landmarks three hexes from the city and it never changed a bit, despite my overwhelming culture.

 

[Kaitsuh]

No there is not

the culture war in this game involves gaining tiles via purchasing and culture. Taking over somebodies tiles via culture doesn't work anymore unless you have a great artist

which is for the better because culture was stupid and unrealistic in Civ IV. When has a nation ever given it's land or city away simply because the other nation's city had a lot of great artist and religious buildings?

Culture is influence in general. Many nations welcomed the nazis with open arms and had resistance movements that were helping the nazis overthrow their governments. Similar stuff in Iraq where a lot of people are welcoming democracy and U.S. "liberation".

The feature of capturing cities with it was nice to have, used it occasionally myself but in general it was much more common to just struggle for the tiles by investing into culture. And it's not like the city flipped over just like that, it would start getting tons of unhappiness and being unproductive in general, thus costing the owner more until he has to give it up when it's not doing anything anymore other than costing the owner.

Another good feature removed, and I bet a couple of fanboys are going to be all "I hated that feature, I'm glad it's gone" like with every other removed feature.

 

[The Leviathan]

What I'm saying is

I understand that culture from nations has influenced other nations throughout history... but no government has simply given up land and cities too another because they had great art. Which is what Civ IV's system seem to represent.

I would like it if you could ocassionally steal tiles that border your physical borders with superior culture but nothing in like civ 4 where you could completely surround an entire city and take it. Or like in Civ IV when you conquer an enemy your new city would be completely strangled by their culture.

That was just silly

 

[dannythefool]

I think with enough culture bombing you can "anex" a city.Haven`t tryed it tho.

No, you can't flip city tiles anymore. But you can flip everything around a city. Should make it much easier to take it.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

What I'm saying is

I understand that culture from nations has influenced other nations throughout history... but no government has simply given up land and cities too another because they had great art. Which is what Civ IV's system seem to represent.

I would like it if you could ocassionally steal tiles that border your physical borders with superior culture but nothing in like civ 4 where you could completely surround an entire city and take it. Or like in Civ IV when you conquer an enemy your new city would be completely strangled by their culture.

That was just silly

I think the way Civ 5 works in this regard at the moment is just fine judging from the roughly one and a half to two hours of gameplay I have gotten out of the game thus far.

 

[devilhunterred]

which is for the better because culture was stupid and unrealistic in Civ IV. When has a nation ever given it's land or city away simply because the other nation's city had a lot of great artist and religious buildings?

Realism and CIV don't mix.

There are probably a hundred unrealistic things about CIV 5 that I can name on the top of my head, but doing so is completely redundant.

Culture expansion made CIV IV fun, in CIV 5 culture is nerfed into a mere tool to unlock social policies......which means if you aren't going for a cultural victory there are almost no reasons to have any culture at all. Hence why CIV 5 is turning more into an RTS.

 

[bjbrains]

Realism and CIV don't mix.

There are probably a hundred unrealistic things about CIV 5 that I can name on the top of my head, but doing so is completely redundant.

Culture expansion made CIV IV fun, in CIV 5 culture is nerfed into a mere tool to unlock social policies....

What? Culture now has a role beyond border expansion, so its... nerfed?

Come on, that's utterly ridiculous. Your constant "Civ 5 sucks" posts are going from annoying to "I'm so desperate I will post ANYTHING even if it makes no sense".

 

[alphahoke]

but no government has simply given up land and cities too another because they had great art. Which is what Civ IV's system seem to represent.

Sure, I get what you're saying, and I don't mean to pick nits, but I see a very different perspective. We're not talking about art, after all. We're talking about culture, and city/states have historically revolted to annex themselves with cultures they identify strongly with.

Look at the state of Texas, for example. Originally settled by the Spanish, it underwent a revolution by westerners with American ideals before joining as a full-fledged state.

You're right in the sense that no city has ever joined a different nation because the other nation had a museum At the same time, I think civilization can be played in the abstract where the over-ruling prevalence of a popular ideal entices a city/state to revolt.

 

[Flavorable]

Realism and CIV don't mix.

There are probably a hundred unrealistic things about CIV 5 that I can name on the top of my head, but doing so is completely redundant.

Culture expansion made CIV IV fun, in CIV 5 culture is nerfed into a mere tool to unlock social policies......which means if you aren't going for a cultural victory there are almost no reasons to have any culture at all. Hence why CIV 5 is turning more into an RTS.

WHAT!?

Just 2 hours ago I was playing a game in which I was aiming for a science victory, I was having a rough time keeping with the AI until I unlocked Rationalism, so then I realized that culture was still a huge priority, as it acted as an extension of my science. I don't think I would have come nearly as close if it weren't for Rationalism, and that isn't the only SP that situationally can change the game, Tradition can work wonders if you're losing ground in a war, and Commerce helps dramatically for a diplomatic victory. More than just being fire and forget, all of these Social Policies also required me to rethink my strategies. Commerce required me to adapt and develop a viable Navy, and once I had unlocked the Tradition combat policy I had to immediately ordered my units to retreat within my borders.

They change the game in many dramatic ways, and I think you need to look up the definition of RTS, lol.

 

[Sofar Sogood]

but no government has simply given up land and cities too another because they had great art.

Which is what Civ IV's system seem to represent.

Well, as I see it, Civ 4's system represents extending and consolidating cultural, ethnic, etc. influence over an area using stufs like great art as a representation. Sure, the Mona Lisa probably won't get that nearby city over in Germany, but if you use your imagination, it does all right at representing making an effort for extending your indirect influence over an area.

Depending on how you want to see things, stuff like what Civ 4 did has happened historically. Texas, for example, got an absolute flood of immigrants from the U.S. that identified more closely with their homeland than Mexico. Eventually, Texas ended up rebelling, and after a stint as an independent republic, it walked into the U.S.'s hands. I imagine that's essentially what goes on in Civ 4. The people identify more closely with your nation, and, should the other nation's military presence be sufficiently weak, they rebel and join up with you.

Now, diplomatic consequences of accepting land and such that the other government considers its own aren't quite dealt with to the fullest extent, but, y'know...

I would like it if you could ocassionally steal tiles that border your physical borders with superior culture but nothing in like civ 4

Wouldn't, by your own argument, it be silly for great art to steal even a few tiles?

It doesn't seem like you can just say, "Well, the Mona Lisa can take some kilometers for you, but not a whole city or nothing." Is great art what's taking that land or isn't it?

So, y'know, food for thought on what culture in Civ 4 actually represented.

Or like in Civ IV when you conquer an enemy your new city would be completely strangled by their culture.

The way I consider culture in Civ 4, that's basically how it'd go. You've got your little conquered enclave sitting in the midst of a whole bunch of people who don't identify with your culture, your government, and so on. I mean, yeah, it's unfortunate that you can't hold up a gun and make the nearby folks work those tiles, instead of just sitting there trapped in your starving island-city... but as it goes, it does make some sense.

So, yeah, I'm a little disappointed that you can't culture-flip as in previous civilizations, but I suppose I can get by.

 

[devilhunterred]

What? Culture now has a role beyond border expansion, so its... nerfed?

Come on, that's utterly ridiculous. Your constant "Civ 5 sucks" posts are going from annoying to "I'm so desperate I will post ANYTHING even if it makes no sense".

In CIV IV culture expands your borders, and it also leads to cultural victory by having 5 legendary cities.

In CIV 5, all culture accomplishes is to achieve cultural victory by unlocking all social policies.

So my statement holds true, culture has been nerfed, not enhanced.

 

[The Leviathan]

In CIV IV culture expands your borders, and it also leads to cultural victory by having 5 legendary cities.

In CIV 5, all culture accomplishes is to achieve cultural victory by unlocking all social policies.

So my statement holds true, culture has been nerfed, not enhanced.

Culture still expands borders, just in a different and more natural way

Culture victory was changed, instead of having 6 legendary cities, now you need 5-6 full social policy trees. Get over it because you're simply crying about inane changes here

 

[Flavorable]

In CIV IV culture expands your borders, and it also leads to cultural victory by having 5 legendary cities.

In CIV 5, all culture accomplishes is to achieve cultural victory by unlocking all social policies.

So my statement holds true, culture has been nerfed, not enhanced.

Respond to my post.

 

[Olleus]

which means if you aren't going for a cultural victory there are almost no reasons to have any culture at all. Hence why CIV 5 is turning more into an RTS.

Well done, nice sarcasm there.

Social policies are good in themselves for what they do, not just for cultural victory. And that last sentence is a complete non sequitur. Replace the acronym with what it stands for and you'll realise just how silly that statement is.

 

[devilhunterred]

Culture still expands borders, just in a different and more natural way

Culture victory was changed, instead of having 6 legendary cities, now you need 5-6 full social policy trees. Get over it because you're simply crying about inane changes here

The city expansion that culture brings is so laughably miniscule that you can have 2-3 world wonders in your city, I can have nothing but a market and a bank and I can still buy up more tiles for expansion much quicker than you can culturally expand.

And there are 5/8 social policy trees to fully unlock before getting the Utopia Project.

Actually learn some more facts about the game before you even try have a debate over it.

 

[Flavorable]

lol, this is ridiculous, I'm starting to think you're trolling.