Should Culture still determine borders?

[moscaverde]

Altough your idea is good, Charles Li, how pratical it would be in the game? (in a way that don't get the game too focused on it)

The influence of each of these borders could be affect by civics and/maybe buildings. Kinda liked it.

 

[Trias]

That doesn't include diplomacy? Thats impossible. Every recent change in borders has been due to diplomatic maneuvers.

Israeli annexation of the west-bank, golan heights, and gaza after the six-day included no diplomacy whatsoever. It was pure land grab by military might in the aftermath of a war.

 

[Windsor]

No, I don't think culture should determine borders. I would prefer that cities claim the BFC(well, maybe only the initial 3x3 first), while forts have the little 3x3-square. You'll need to connect the these borders to make your country. The AI should be very willing to attack lightly defended forts early if they want the land. Forts give little or no defensive bonus early, can be upgraded later(castle? fortress?) . The need to defend forts from barbs and AIs, a cost to set up(worker turns and/or gold?), a maintenance cost(same as distance to palace cost?) will prevent players from blocking the AI completely with forts, but you'll get a strategic decision between setting up cities(which brings in the tile yields and trade routes) and forts for claiming land and valueable resources.

 

[moscaverde]

Borders would look like the Great Wall of China.

 

[Spartan300]

i think the culture side of things still works, 'your culture influences this land and these people want to be with you' sounds about right what i think though should be that periodiclly the AI (or you) with a strong (or weak) military could say 'i want this land as i have the power to take do you contest it?) if yes then either there is war or the status quo resumes as normal.
in any event if you want land that should be yours by right of strength only then it basiclly a declaration of war/warlike intention.

the current system is not optimal but i myself dont see a substitute (yet) that would work otherwise.

 

[Windsor]

moscaverde, you have a point. The graphics would at least have to be subtle.

But thinking about this subject for a bit more time. It's really not the way cultural borders initially claims land I'm against. It's tile flipping and the collapse after capture. Both features are both annoying and very unrealistic. The collapse on capture thing also really destroys the visual apperance.

Secondly, I belive culture is severly nerfed since it's linked to borders. There are so many things culture could do. Culture naturally spreads much wider than in CivIV and it doesn't spread in a circle. Trade and religion can give cultural influence far away while to neigbouring civs also may have completely different culture and really not affect eachother.

Culture could give you more trade routes, better yielding trade routes, better tile yields, more hapiness, a morale promotion for your troops and so on. Still, culture should of course come from something else than an ancient wonder. A citys culture should also shrink if the city looses influence. So to give culture the place it deserves it needs to be unchained from borders.

 

[UWHabs]

moscaverde, you have a point. The graphics would at least have to be subtle.

But thinking about this subject for a bit more time. It's really not the way cultural borders initially claims land I'm against. It's tile flipping and the collapse after capture. Both features are both annoying and very unrealistic. The collapse on capture thing also really destroys the visual apperance.

Secondly, I belive culture is severly nerfed since it's linked to borders. There are so many things culture could do. Culture naturally spreads much wider than in CivIV and it doesn't spread in a circle. Trade and religion can give cultural influence far away while to neigbouring civs also may have completely different culture and really not affect eachother.

Culture could give you more trade routes, better yielding trade routes, better tile yields, more hapiness, a morale promotion for your troops and so on. Still, culture should of course come from something else than an ancient wonder. A citys culture should also shrink if the city looses influence. So to give culture the place it deserves it needs to be unchained from borders.

If you unlink culture from borders, then you can make it a more gradual thing. So it will spread more along rivers or coast. Higher pop will lead to more culture spread. You could build cultural emissaries who could spread it. I mean, in Civ now, there would be no sense of American culture in China or India now, but go there and see a McDonalds in cities there, it's hard to deny that there is American cultural influence there.

I still think culture has a place in the early game, but maybe just like we sort of have religion early game and corporations late game, maybe having culture early game and the late game border equivalent would be something more diplomatic.

 

[Smokey McDope]

Something has to change. It's silly that I invade and capture a juicy city, that can't then work any tiles due to "culture". I'm forced to wipe out whole civilizations when all I want are a few cities just so they can work their tiles.

 

[moscaverde]

Windsor, I agree 100% with you. Actually the fun of having civilizations [that really existed] is because of their culture and influence.
Culture should be one of the focuses of the player in the game (unfortunately I don't know how). Maybe sliders or specific civics.
Even in the begining of the game culture should be strong (to mimic how, for example, egyptian culture is known by the entire world or how the roman culture influenced all the western world).

 

[Spartan300]

moscaverde
going by what you say then i think the variable everyone would need would be flexible goverment options with benefiits/negatives to choose from (i think sliding controls would suit best i said something similar under 'goverments' topic) but think it could work with culture involved too

 

[miramira]

culture could be the boarder for the ancient part of the game, but a gradual brake up into small nations would be realistic, look at the roman empire.

i just wrote a message elsewhere, but it got deleted. my suggestion way on my idea of where religious/political ideas introudced through history by the AI, which cause havok with nations and civilizations as the population get infected with the new craze and the leader has to decide to adapt to the changes.

also ethnic groups could be another factor, the barbarian tribes never die off, they just become an ethnic part of your civ that might want to brake away in the future and pursue their own dream of a nation, of course you won't want this, and a civil war will pursue.

 

[Spartan300]

i like the idea of cultures.
it would add another game element:genocide.
also if for instance you invaded a civ, took 3 cities and left them in peace you yourself would have unrest (as you do now) but the other civ's people may want to recapture their lost brethren (look at the greek cities on the edge of persia) or give the attacking civ more political reason/propaganda to attack.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, genocide is never going to make it into the game.

*Insert worn argument about media, extremists and bad publicity*

 

[Spartan300]

agreed camikazee but then again should it be right to shoot human looking graphics?
the game already uses slavery and we knowingly 'kill' our population to do so or is that ok because as we dont care so we are not discriminating? LOL
it is a shame as Genocide and race hate should be integrated as it is and has been a reality of history. before WW2 even England and many other countries often wondered what to do with the Jewish 'problem' and have done for centuries.
games also already use racial hatred for an example baldurs gate of the forgotten realms if you attack an enemy you racially hate you get a bonus.
perhaps we should stop in case the argument destroys this thread, should we start another?

 

[frizzy]

A simple fix that would solve a lot of problems: a captured city's culture should not have to start completely from zero, and some cultural buildings should survive. IOW, some of a city's culture should be "captured" by the conqueror.

I'm definitely in favor of culture being a large determinant in borders.

Where did the idea that Europe's borders froze after WWI come from? Nothing farther from the truth. Post WWI European history offers real-world examples of vassalage, flipping, border expansion, conquest, and liberation!

 

[Spartan300]

Where did the idea that Europe's borders froze after WWI come from? Nothing farther from the truth. Post WWI European history offers real-world examples of vassalage, flipping, border expansion, conquest, and liberation!

agreed. and i also agree that not every church is destroyed, but in the case of a theocratic goverment they should.

 

[Sidewinder00Q]

Something that Birth of the Federation did well, was diplomatic handling of borders.

When you built an outpost/starbase it would claim that sector and the adjacent sectors as well. If another empire places their own outpost/starbase, or a habitable system (two away from the outpost), it would put out its own claim on the adjacent sectors and turn them disputed. Neither side could use the sectors until the disputed claim was resolved. If you liked having a "Neutral Zone" between you and your neighbor, you could keep them disputed indefinitely. Or if you wanted the sectors, you could buy them in a deal, or give them a way in exchange for credits.

I would keep the current culture system the way it is, but change it to the following:

First if you have culture, you have visibility.
Second, if the region is not 66% or greater one Civilization (Excepting a city) the region becomes disputed.

Disputed territories are treated as if they belong to the other civ for military purposes, but may still be used by either civs as workable tiles. Workers may not be sent in to the territory unless there is an open orders agreement. If there are two cities in the two different civs that could work the tile, priority goes to the civ that has the higher culture value.

To end the disputed area situation, you talk to the other civ, and work a treaty. The treaty can last x turns, or it can last indefinitely. The treaty is automatically cancelled, and the disputed zone returns if either side declares war on the other. The treaty ceases to apply to the tile if either sides culture reaches the 66% plateau.

This would make some interesting three-civ border zones.