1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

PLEASE PLEASE Fix Culture Flipping

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by cgannon64, Jan 1, 2004.

  1. Frimlin

    Frimlin Wandering Wizard

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2001
    Messages:
    522
    Location:
    Versailles, France.
    I agree that it's very annoying losing loads of troops like that -- and it's too hard to know what is the right number of troops to use -- too much of a gamble at the moment.

    In those options listed above, the "teleport to palace" option might be the most do-able, even if it isn't the most well liked. (I don't like it, but it's better than losing 20 mech infs to a culture flipping size 5, Iron Age city).

    I think delaying the next turn's unit points sounds too much like a special case implementation, and how can you be sure that they'll be far enough away and for long enough for the defending Civ to effectively garrision its recaptured city. But, in fairness, at least they'll be away from the city and mostly alive. Yeah, I think it'd best if not all survive -- especially with methods like food/water poisoning, I am sure 1,000,000 bitter citizens could clear a large chunk of a hostile army if they were determined enough.

    It may be even better if there was a certain learnable trick to it -- such as if you have a size 7 city, you'd need 14 units to defend it (ie city size * 2). Put in a bit of random too, just so it doesn't always work as you expect.

    Hmm... I don't think anyone's stumbled on the perfect solution yet... but I could be wrong. ;)
     
  2. Evie

    Evie Pronounced like Eevee

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2002
    Messages:
    9,002
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Not really realistic to me that troops that just fled in disarray from a city would be able to regroup and attack it on the same turn, no. That they'd be able to do it on the next turn, yes, but not on the very same turn the flip occured.

    So, they get moved to safety, but with depleted move points.

    As for minimal gameplay impact, it entirely depend on who flips what when on what level. Yes, often you'll have reserve forces ready to send to deal with flipping towns, BUT that means forces you'd have sent elsewhere are often forced to diver themselves to deal with a rebel town. Whereas with the suggestion as CGannon put it, there would be no choice involved ; you just use the old garrison which would have been doing nothign except policing the town that turn anyway, while your other forces do exactly what you planned for them to begin with.

    That's a relatively important difference, when a culture flip doesn't even force you to rethink your plans in the least because you get "refunded" the units you need to negate it, right within striking distance of the city.
     
  3. tomart109

    tomart109 Perspicacious

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2002
    Messages:
    366
    Location:
    South NJ, USA
    Um, the quickest turn in the game is A YEAR! That's time enough, and more.

    I agree totally with the initial post; but rather than the messy transporting or MP loss ideas, why not simply degrade their strength points and push them outside the city? Makes sense (the population saboatages them, but can't pursue like a trained, equipped military can) and makes immediate reconquest problematic (you'd retreat to a barracks to heal,) and is simple and understandable.

    Perhaps redline them all, or vary the loss, between one and all SPs (meaning elimination of some unlucky units.)
     
  4. JALVB

    JALVB Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    Lisbon - Pt
    Hi! First post... but long time reader. :)

    I agree with tomart109

    I think it could be a mixed solution... the revolted city would kill about half of the armies and the rest should be put outside the city with only um or two life points left. That way they could not attack immediately, not only because they were injured, but because since there were fewer units, they would not be able to maintain the city without revolting again.
    It would allow you to retreat some forces and try again later … or send some units from other fronts to help them…
     
  5. Xether

    Xether Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2003
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    England
    i've lost 3 armies of tanks by a culture flip..unrealistic seeing how theres more tanks then cilivans in that city lol. now i quickly rush labour city improvements in conqueared cities so their pop becomes very low.
     
  6. royfurr

    royfurr "Klotzen, nicht Kleckern"

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    USA
    Although it would be harder to implement because it would require some coding, I suggest a combination of several of these ideas. As cgannon64 said at the start, cultural flipping is a feature that is worth keeping, but it CAN be pretty upsetting when you park a large force in a small city (using the city as a convenient localization point on the map, mostly ... yes lazy but human), perhaps planning to move on the next turn, and despite perhaps a small flip chance (large force in small city or town) you DO get that small chance, and lose a ton of units INSTANTLY.

    SO, try this. First, keep the flip process (probablilities) as calculated currently, as we are starting to at least be used to THAT.

    Second, lose a fraction of the hit points of the troops present: lose one hit point for every population point in the city. Spread the hit point losses over all units- 1 each until all have lost one, then start back at the beginning with a second loss until all have lost 2, etc.. No actual unit killed until you've given every unit knocked down to just one hit point left. Alternately, pour each hit point loss on top of each repeatedly, killing them off one by one, and ALL units get at least one hit point loss automatically. The later means everyone is injured and that you lose more units as the number of pop points goes up. You could also after the "wound every one automatically" approach, use the spread out (one by one) hit idea rather then pouring hits onto one unit at a time, and there loose fewer UNITS where there is larger garrisons for the same pop size city (still same number of hit points lost). Couple of possibilities here, but the idea is losses are related in some fashion to the size of the rebelling city. Tweak it by how you calculate the number of hits or how you apply them to the occupiers. I like it based on hit points rather then simply killing off units completely in "integer" doses (one per X pop points) especially where its spread around. This way it affects all occupiers, but not totally wasting them. This is accurate as it reduces military ability but doesn't allow unarmed civilians to destory tanks.

    Third, all suviving units get "teleported" to the nearest friendly city. It would be nice if this could be the nearest "not just conquered" city ie not one just conquered from the civ that revolted, but that is probably too hard to do. Additionally, the units REMAIN IN SLEEP MODE FOR 2 or 2 turns atuomatically after they get there. They are re-constituting and reorganizing. The length of this time to be based on playtesting. I would suggest starting with 3 turns. During these 3 turns they can only defend, cannot move or attack (or maybe- not fortify either?).

    Generate one military unit per every 10 population points in the revolting city, fractions rounded up, of an era appropriate type: spearmen in ancient, pikemen in Middle ages, etc.

    Finally, TANSTAAFL! Nothing is free, especially freedom. Lose one population point from the revolting city for every occuping unit present (or perhaps 1 pop point for every 5 pop points initially present, fractions rounded up). I would prefer the rate based on number of occupiers not a set % of city size (eg 1 per 5 means there is ALWAYS a 20% casualty rate).

    These details could be fine tuned in playtesting. Adjusting the ratio of losses (for both sides), and the units generated, per pop point. And maybe even the length of the sleep period (max 3 or 4 turns?)

    Now, we don't loose a riduclous number of units to possibly only 2 revolting pop points. But we are DEFINITELY affected in our plans and actions by this event. The troops are disorganized and unusable to us for a few turns. They have retreated to a friendly supply and re-organization point. They HAVE taken some casualities, and so has the revolting city. And some of the revolters, swept up in fevor, have taken up arms, although they are mostly defensive and likly to stay in place (the later could also be included by making them automatically fortify in the rebellous city).

    Admittedly take a litte coding but not TOO MUCH. And since this code is only run AFTER and IF a rebellion occurs, there shouldn't be a hugh hit in terms of the game speed.

    Just some ideas.
     
  7. warpstorm

    warpstorm Yumbo? Yumbo!

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2001
    Messages:
    7,688
    Location:
    Snack Food Capital of the World
    What troops? Your ex-soldiers all decided they liked the superior culture of insert name here better and left their gear behind. They didn't even fight at all.

    This was a real fear for the 19th century British Empire. The concept of troops 'Going Native' was a very real consideration for them.

    This was a recurring theme in Kipling's works.
     
  8. JALVB

    JALVB Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    Lisbon - Pt
    royfurr

    I agree with the damage distribution and i think the city should lose pop. (it's a good idea... the city would become weaker with each succeeding conquest).

    But, i don’t think it's good to make the units "force sleep" for a few turns... a new "game concept” would be needed and I’m afraid it might create new problems (bugs) in the game.

    I don’t think units should go to a friendly city, since it would allow them to recover almost immediately (due to barracks in most cities) and come back to the front.
    If the units remain near the city, damaged, they will be vulnerable to a counter attack unless you retreat or have reinforcements.
     
  9. Crazy Jerome

    Crazy Jerome Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Messages:
    210
    Well, if the idea is simple implementation, I say instead of instant kill, do a lethal bombard attack on each unit based on the best artillery available to the flipping CIV and the size of the population. Then retreat each surviving unit to a random square next to the city. (Each unit could go to a different square.)

    I'm not sure about the best ratio for the population. Maybe a combination of previous ideas, perhaps a bombard per unit and then one more per population point--with the population bombards occuring last and concentrating on the most damaged units.

    The artillery is probably the closest correspondence to bombs, molotov cocktails, blowing up supply dumps, and the like. Large armies will take relatively little damage, especially from backwards CIVs. A small force might be wiped out entirely, especially in a metropolis.

    This will make it very easy to explain. You park your tanks in a city and it flips to a CIV with cannon technology. Ever tank gets one cannon attack and then the crazed population goes after the hurt/trapped ones. If the flipping CIV has a force ready for counterattack, they can take a lot of advantage of your hurt, scattered troops. If not, your troops will easily regroup and take the city back, though it will cost them time.

    As a bonus, this will give another incentive to getting high defensive troops into the city right away, as they will withstand the bombardment better (less chance of damage) and with a bit of luck will cover your attackers when they retreat. This might not matter so much when mechanized infantry come along, but will change cavalry rush into the teeth of a comparable culture. :cool:
     
  10. ETO_Peregrine

    ETO_Peregrine Martinet

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Messages:
    70
    Location:
    USA
    Crazy Jerome, I like that idea. But instead of virtual artillery, why not enable the resistors to just attack the garrison based on their number and cultural strength. The simplest implementation would be to let the city attack its garrison at a strength equal to the number of resistors times some factor based on the current flip formula, just as if there were an actual unit trying to retake the city. The number of attacks could also be proportional to resistors. I also suggest that a resisting city be treated as enemy territory for units fortified there, so they can't take advantage of the city/barracks bonus to unit healing until the city is pacified.

    I think peacetime flips should simply displace the garrison and use up all its MP for that turn.
     
  11. zurichuk

    zurichuk King

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2003
    Messages:
    836
    Location:
    Zürich
    this is my cause of action, there's no way i'm risking any more than a handful of troops on a small chance of a flip, a small chance that however is there, i'd rather station my troops outside and keep taking the city back on a not so considerably higher chance of a flip
     
  12. robcheng

    robcheng Sleep-deprived Addict

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Messages:
    318
    Location:
    Pacal's Doghouse
    I agree with Warp. After all, if you accept the whole notion of culture flipping of whole cities with millions of people in them, then why not the culture flipping of a garrison with only thousands of men. Do you really think a little military training or field combat is going to keep them from succumbing to the enticements of the richer civilization?
     
  13. royfurr

    royfurr "Klotzen, nicht Kleckern"

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    USA
    Ah, a reader of Kipling. Outstanding!

    But, this is part of the problem: the prespective on the issue. Most people don't look at this as defecting troops. It's rebelling resistors wiping out the troops. The "defender" isn't GAINING the lost units. So people naturally look at it as the "loss" (destruction) of the troops, not defection. Even though it is occuring in the context of the cultural balance of the two civs. Personally I am a "rational" warmonger: I attempt to build as much as I can to keep a strong economy and to a lessor but still significant expent, culture: the more to keep the military strong and gobble up my neighbors. Thus keeping culture strong reduces this entire problem for me. And THAT is why its so ANNOYING when those unlikely "dice rolls" wipe out large "armies"- I have been DOING what one should to reduce flips- kept culture up.

    Most people have a problem with this issue due to large (number of) units being lost. "going native" if I recall was far more of an individual choice: entire units defecting en masse didn't typically occur, ESPECIALLY during active hostilities.

    So I stick with my view. Still, nice to be reminded of one of the greater English writers, so THANKS Warpstorm!

    @ JALVB- my point with the forced Sleep was to PREVENT the troops from being able to quickly return to the site of the event and force the player to deal with the event with other units- thus one IS affected, but doesn't PERMENTANLY loose the units. I am not so sure this is a "NEW" concept as there is a tool to make units Wake Up from sleep already (approach of enemy), and for the timed sleep simply have a line in code (to be excuted only for units going to sleep this way), "IF time since event >3 turns, Wake Up Else Sleep". I'm no programmer but that seems simple enough. And its easier then the "retreat to WHAT tile, is a unit already retreated to that tile? then chceck the next tile etc." approach. Still, I'd have to defer to those who know better on this issue.

    Crazy Jerome thats a very original idea. I think though that in the ancient era it won't do ENOUGH damage to the "overthrown" troops (with cats), and maybe too MUCH in the modern era (Arty/Radar Arty).

    All in all, this is likely to be a series of moot points though. It's not likley that Firaxis is going to make any such changes at this point: about all we can expect are a patch (maybe 2?) to fix REALLY buggy things in C3C. Things like fine tuning cultural flips by occupied cities probably wouldn't be considered before Civ4.

    But maybe there ...
     
  14. royfurr

    royfurr "Klotzen, nicht Kleckern"

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2001
    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    USA
    Green unmotivated troops from an inferior culture, maybe. Combat veterans, no. Individuals who have "seen the elephant" together tend to have a pretty unshakable bond.

    I don't think its a case of whole-sale millions. Just some agitators taking ACTION. MOST people are too indecisive, they just go along with the crowd so to speak. It's a little different to actively defect to an enemy you are fighting, while in his occupied territory. Far fewer have THAT much moxie. It's ONE thing to actively rebel for one's homeland while being occupied, quite another to defect.

    Still, it's unlikely that Firaxis is going to touch this issue at this time. Maybe for Civ4.
     
  15. cgannon64

    cgannon64 BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2002
    Messages:
    19,213
    Location:
    Hipster-Authorland, Brooklyn (Hell)
    Someone said that it would be unfair, because the new garrison would be defeated quickly by the army.

    This happens already. When a city that only has one or two units in it flips, I usually recapture it the next turn, no problem.

    Oh, and having one free unit given for each unit in the city is too extreme. That's like getting 10 or 20 free Muskets...:eek:
     
  16. toh6wy

    toh6wy Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Messages:
    1,403
    Location:
    Omnipresent
    In my current game, I had captured a Spanish city which was completely isolated from any other Spanish territory and had no resistors left at all. (just unhappy citizens) I assumed that there would be no chance of a flip at all because of this and stationed only a single musket there. Well, it flipped, and of course since the Spanish were in the Middle Ages, they hadn't researched Espionage and so couldn't initiate propaganda. Apparently I don't know as much about flipping as I thought I did...
     
  17. ltcoljt

    ltcoljt Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    507
    The poofing army problem was one of my major Civ3 gripes. It is entirely too risky to place a garrison in a capture city unless you could be 100% sure there would be no flip. Not sure if you need 12 or 14 units? Try 12 and then lose 12. Yeah, right. The higher you gamble on how many units to risk the worse the bet is.

    And who has 12 units to spare anyway. The smart money sends those 12 units to take the next city which reduces the chance of losing the one you just took.

    Good players either raze or leave no garrison. You can always task a few mobile units to recapture flippers.

    Now the proper way to implement this would be to use leaders. Not the abstract leaders in the game now but leader units that contribute their virtues to the units they are stacked with. Then if a city flips the garrison would be demoralized and would sulk its way home, uncontrollable unless you divert a leader to rally them and retake the city. Where would these leaders come from? Can you say military academy? Mercenary? Princes and Lords?

    But Firaxis shys away from such logical and plain fun types of implementation because they don't know how to program the AI to use features.

    The Firaxis objective is to protect the AI irregardless of the amount of punishment it's human customers have to take.

    Just so they can say the AI is hard to beat (Like we ever couldn't beat it to death no matter what they do).

    The poof in the garrisons during a cultural rift mirrors the poof in the sadly lacking minds of the Firaxis developers whenever tasked to address what is to them, the mystery of game design.
     
  18. akillias

    akillias Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    353
    SUGGESTION
    I usually do this everytime i invade a city

    1 make a settler
    2 raze the city
    3 replace normal workers with enslaved workers
    4 make a city
    5 join normal workers into your new city
     
  19. Yumbo

    Yumbo Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2003
    Messages:
    112
    Agree completely.
    As well they should. Ultimately, a much more historically accurate model. Imagine a Bagdhad where we determined that it was now going to be a US city. You think they're just gonna passively join us?
    And you've posted on this forum almost 400 times? What are you doing here? If I cared for this game this little, I sure as hell wouldn't waste nearly that much of my life posting on these forums. Maybe you need a different hobby.

    While these suggestions are interesting, ultimately they belong in the Civ4 thread. I really can't imagine a sea change on this one in a patch, especially along the magnitude suggested here by some players.
     
  20. ltcoljt

    ltcoljt Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2003
    Messages:
    507
    If nobody takes the time to point out to Firaxis the major design philosophy flaws they suffer from, then it might not cross their collective minds that they can do better.
     

Share This Page