ybbor
Will not change his avata
Love it great, this definatly needs to be intigrated with civ4. just one question, how will border expansion play in?
The Culture-Spreading Model
- Thread starter dh_epic
- Start date
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I, but probably not many others, think that cultural borders should help in controlling teritory in your national border. If you can exert military control over it, you can claim its your territory. You'll have more resistance if territory does not have any or much of your culture. This would make fortifications and outposts a lot more important, especially since many powers maybe claim the same territory. Think Kashmir.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
IMO, the idea is slightly broken in one respect.
"Blocking" culture seems fairly easy. Kill whoever comes your way trying to spread their culture.
"But playing against the AI will allow this to be viable because they won't do that!"
Still broken. You block the AI's culture, they don't block yours. That's broken. And what about MP? I'd like to see some sort of peaceful way of winning no matter who you're against.
Fixes? Perhaps, but I'm still not convinced.
"Blocking" culture seems fairly easy. Kill whoever comes your way trying to spread their culture.
"But playing against the AI will allow this to be viable because they won't do that!"
Still broken. You block the AI's culture, they don't block yours. That's broken. And what about MP? I'd like to see some sort of peaceful way of winning no matter who you're against.
Fixes? Perhaps, but I'm still not convinced.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
At the most basic level, cultural borders would work more or less the same way. If your city has a lot of your own culture in it, it'll spread the borders out further. I'm not sure if you'd need 100 of any culture or 100 of your culture to spread the range of influence, for example, but I'd lean towards your culture only. So you need to get your culture growing to get the borders out.
So what's the effect of a foreign culture in your city? Besides just being there, as evidence that their culture is spreading all over the world and putting them closer to cultural victory... it could have different happiness effects under different governments, and even prevent assimilation if it reaches a high enough level. And if it reaches an even higher level still, it could culture-flip the city.
I do think that Sir Schwick is hinting at an interesting proposition, though, if the game were more advanced and had other mechanisms... correct me if I'm wrong, Sir Schwick, but are you hinting at this idea? That if foreign culture infiltrates enough cities, and the cities become unhappy enough, it could lead to a kind of civil war or seccession? Or am I just putting my words into your mouth?
Anyway, if there were no civil war, borders would probably still follow Civ 3 to a large degree. At least that's what pops into my head.
So what's the effect of a foreign culture in your city? Besides just being there, as evidence that their culture is spreading all over the world and putting them closer to cultural victory... it could have different happiness effects under different governments, and even prevent assimilation if it reaches a high enough level. And if it reaches an even higher level still, it could culture-flip the city.
I do think that Sir Schwick is hinting at an interesting proposition, though, if the game were more advanced and had other mechanisms... correct me if I'm wrong, Sir Schwick, but are you hinting at this idea? That if foreign culture infiltrates enough cities, and the cities become unhappy enough, it could lead to a kind of civil war or seccession? Or am I just putting my words into your mouth?
Anyway, if there were no civil war, borders would probably still follow Civ 3 to a large degree. At least that's what pops into my head.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Trip -- if you start killing missionaries that float your way, then you're dealing with an international incident, enough to start a war. And if you start a war with every one of your neighbours, you're in for a real wild ride. That's a choice people should be free to make, and that choice has consequences.
Just as much as if you choose peace, then there's no stopping the infiltration of culture units, really, unless you form a serious blockade. And we know how difficult that can be in Civ 3. So, knowing that someone is trying to expand their culture into your borders, you need to hit back with your own culture. You start throwing units right back at them, trying to impact their culture. Maybe you'd change your government or engage in some kind of culture purging (book burning? segregation?) which could start just as much of an international incident and war.
Not to mention that units aren't the only way to transmit and spread culture. Trade is also a factor. Aussie and Sir Schwick have gone so far as to suggest natural "osmosis" -- movement of culture points between cities if one has a high concentration of culture and the other has a low concentration.
Balancing the numbers would be key, so it moves in ways that make the game winnable, but not easy. And that's also balanced as it's compared to conquest.
Just as much as if you choose peace, then there's no stopping the infiltration of culture units, really, unless you form a serious blockade. And we know how difficult that can be in Civ 3. So, knowing that someone is trying to expand their culture into your borders, you need to hit back with your own culture. You start throwing units right back at them, trying to impact their culture. Maybe you'd change your government or engage in some kind of culture purging (book burning? segregation?) which could start just as much of an international incident and war.
Not to mention that units aren't the only way to transmit and spread culture. Trade is also a factor. Aussie and Sir Schwick have gone so far as to suggest natural "osmosis" -- movement of culture points between cities if one has a high concentration of culture and the other has a low concentration.
Balancing the numbers would be key, so it moves in ways that make the game winnable, but not easy. And that's also balanced as it's compared to conquest.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Consider this, you are giving up a potential source of culture. If there is only your culture, yoru enemies have your culture pllus theirs in cities, meaning they have control over more terriotry which generates more money and power. So, cultural strategy has to be one-upmanship with specific times to resist culture.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
What does culture do for you?
Besides shaping diplomacy and a culture victory, the only use for it within your model that I see would be to try and flip enemy cities. Building up "culture attackers" and then assaulting a single city until it succumbs seems like a pretty bad exploit that this system opens up.
Expanding borders? Seems like with so much culture flying around you'd have to toss the border expansion scheme out the window because if you leave it as it is now then all civs' cities would have border expansions in no time, whereas if you increase it then a poor civ that's isolated ends up never expanding its borders.
Besides shaping diplomacy and a culture victory, the only use for it within your model that I see would be to try and flip enemy cities. Building up "culture attackers" and then assaulting a single city until it succumbs seems like a pretty bad exploit that this system opens up.
Expanding borders? Seems like with so much culture flying around you'd have to toss the border expansion scheme out the window because if you leave it as it is now then all civs' cities would have border expansions in no time, whereas if you increase it then a poor civ that's isolated ends up never expanding its borders.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK first up I want to say that though 'Net National Culture' would still have the greatest impact on determining your borders. However, when it comes to determining the final 'shake out' of the borders between two neighbouring nations, your relative military strengths would come into play. This 'strength' would be determined by a combination of how many forts and airbases you have within your borders, as well as the number and 'strength' of military units you possess as well! Now before you say this favours warmongers, remember TWO points, the first is that military strength is more of a tie-break between two nations who are roughly matched culturally. Also, given that my model also assumes maintainance costs for terrain improvements AND unit maintainance costs based on their 'size', 'strength' and tech level, then you see that having a good military strength is tied very closely to your economic health! The other thing is that, as I mentioned previously, it should be possible to claim foreign or unclaimed territory by building AND occupying forts, colonies, airbases or outposts close to your normal borders (and in some way connected to your home nation). The amount of land you can claim would depend on the type of terrain improvement you're occupying-with a fort/airbase claiming a radius of 2 hexes, and a colony/outpost claiming a radius of 1 hex. These improvements, and the land they claim, can be traded to another nation within the framework of diplomatic agreements.
Now, to your concerns Trip. Within my model, 'culture units' are only an adjunct to the normal flow of culture that results between two or more nations with relatively open borders (how open would determine how quickly said culture flows!) I pointed out that the unit approach is the high risk strategy. That said, though, there are several fixes that could be applied.
1) Make the AI better appreciate the VALUE of culture units-both in their use and their defence against them!
2) Allow for a civ to demand culture units leave their borders, much as they can with existing units, and have failure do so be reasonable grounds for war or, at the least, cease all diplomatic ties (the latter immediately halts any 'osmotic' culture flow, and reduces the effctiveness of culture units- wheras war nullify's the effects of culture unit 'attacks' altogether!)
3) Constant 'culture attacks' against an ally would be grounds for an end to said alliance, which severely restricts the flow of culture across borders.
4) The strength of your culture units would be based on the cultural strength of your nation, therefore a culturally weak nation would be hard pressed to 'flip' a city from a significantly stronger culture! i.e. you CAN'T ignore your normal cultural development to focus on a 'quick fix' because it WON'T WORK!!
5) Cultural units can only be built if you have the necessary prerequisite cultural improvement. In addition, there would be units and improvements (wonders) which could be built that would reduce the effectiveness of 'culture attack', without the need to destroy the 'attacking unit'.
6) It should be possible to 'expel' a culture unit, without killing it-much as was done with the diplomats in civ2! This would allow to to clean out your empire without causing a diplomatic incident.
7) That said, regularly doing this could lower your international reputation, thus lowering your chances for a 'diplomatic' victory.
8) Culture units COULD be made into 'stealth' units, making them detectable only by other culture units, or units/improvements designed to detect them!!
9) Lastly, we could abandon the mobile unit approach altogether, and simply say that certain cultural improvements contribute 'cultural espionage' points to your empire-points which can be used to create some of YOUR culture in other nations! Being caught doing this, though, could still harm your reputation AND could still be seen as grounds for a degredation in your diplomatic standing! Success would still depend on relative culture strength and the similarity of your two cultures (as would their reaction to catching you!)
Lastly, I should point out that, in my model, you would no longer have 'city flipping' as we currently view it. As I stated previously, the greater the ratio of foreign to native culture in a city, the greater the chance of that city secceding from the home nation-becoming either an independant state OR joining a neighbouring state. This would be only one of many factors to determine the chance of seccession, however!!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Now, to your concerns Trip. Within my model, 'culture units' are only an adjunct to the normal flow of culture that results between two or more nations with relatively open borders (how open would determine how quickly said culture flows!) I pointed out that the unit approach is the high risk strategy. That said, though, there are several fixes that could be applied.
1) Make the AI better appreciate the VALUE of culture units-both in their use and their defence against them!
2) Allow for a civ to demand culture units leave their borders, much as they can with existing units, and have failure do so be reasonable grounds for war or, at the least, cease all diplomatic ties (the latter immediately halts any 'osmotic' culture flow, and reduces the effctiveness of culture units- wheras war nullify's the effects of culture unit 'attacks' altogether!)
3) Constant 'culture attacks' against an ally would be grounds for an end to said alliance, which severely restricts the flow of culture across borders.
4) The strength of your culture units would be based on the cultural strength of your nation, therefore a culturally weak nation would be hard pressed to 'flip' a city from a significantly stronger culture! i.e. you CAN'T ignore your normal cultural development to focus on a 'quick fix' because it WON'T WORK!!
5) Cultural units can only be built if you have the necessary prerequisite cultural improvement. In addition, there would be units and improvements (wonders) which could be built that would reduce the effectiveness of 'culture attack', without the need to destroy the 'attacking unit'.
6) It should be possible to 'expel' a culture unit, without killing it-much as was done with the diplomats in civ2! This would allow to to clean out your empire without causing a diplomatic incident.
7) That said, regularly doing this could lower your international reputation, thus lowering your chances for a 'diplomatic' victory.
8) Culture units COULD be made into 'stealth' units, making them detectable only by other culture units, or units/improvements designed to detect them!!
9) Lastly, we could abandon the mobile unit approach altogether, and simply say that certain cultural improvements contribute 'cultural espionage' points to your empire-points which can be used to create some of YOUR culture in other nations! Being caught doing this, though, could still harm your reputation AND could still be seen as grounds for a degredation in your diplomatic standing! Success would still depend on relative culture strength and the similarity of your two cultures (as would their reaction to catching you!)
Lastly, I should point out that, in my model, you would no longer have 'city flipping' as we currently view it. As I stated previously, the greater the ratio of foreign to native culture in a city, the greater the chance of that city secceding from the home nation-becoming either an independant state OR joining a neighbouring state. This would be only one of many factors to determine the chance of seccession, however!!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Trip,
Shaping diplomacy, yes, and cultural victory, yes... the key to mention, though, is war makes it much harder to be a cultural powerhouse. People killing your philosophers and missionaries on site makes it hard for your culture to spread out. Whereas if you have one solid ally, sure he'll get more culture in your borders, but you'll get more culture in his borders -- so you're both bigger winners than the war mongerers. In Civ 3, culture and war mongering go hand in hand.
Of course there's a goal to flip enemy cities. Building up units and then assaulting a single city until it succumbs? Why, nobody would call that an exploit if you did that in conquest with 10 Legions. Reality is you *can* build ten missionaries and send them all at one city and flip it. That's kind of the point. The issue is how does the opponent respond to this?
They could pump out 10 missionaries and flip one of your cities. They could try to pour artists and philosophers back into that city and prevent it from flipping. They could engage in various xenophobic behaviors to rub out your cultural stain. They could even let it fly -- say "wow, he wants to blow 10 missionaries on that outlying city? I guess I'll just have to build another settler". Or in the same time it takes to produce 10 missionaries, he could produce ten Legions and conquer 3 vulnerable cities.
It's a question of your priorities -- what strategy are you playing for? If someone decides to make a "cultural end-run", they open themselves up to just as many counter-exploits. Call it "culture envy" -- the Germans start to see this French culture everywhere. Do they promote German culture? Outlaw French culture? Or just declare war on those elitist cultural snobs?
Border expansion would still work, you'd just have to tweak the numbers. Yeah, if you build 5 artists you could probably get the culture flying out and watch one of your cities expand. But that would be balanced with the value of taking the same amount of productivity and throwing it into a few temples -- something that becomes more culture-producing with age. It's a long term investment that would be balanced with the short term benefits of a quick culture-boost from a missionary or artist.
I obviously don't know the numbers -- how much culture to add or destroy for any action, how much it costs to perform these actions, or even how much culture it would take before an event occurs. But I'm a firm believer that you can make these numbers work. Just think about what would keep the game the most balanced, and thus the most fun.
(Haven't read Aussie's post yet. But I imagine he offers an alternative explanation. I think the core idea will be the same, and this is what's important to me -- Aussie is one of those people with enough vision that I'd be happy to let him bastardize my ideas I know he wouldn't be off base)
Shaping diplomacy, yes, and cultural victory, yes... the key to mention, though, is war makes it much harder to be a cultural powerhouse. People killing your philosophers and missionaries on site makes it hard for your culture to spread out. Whereas if you have one solid ally, sure he'll get more culture in your borders, but you'll get more culture in his borders -- so you're both bigger winners than the war mongerers. In Civ 3, culture and war mongering go hand in hand.
Of course there's a goal to flip enemy cities. Building up units and then assaulting a single city until it succumbs? Why, nobody would call that an exploit if you did that in conquest with 10 Legions. Reality is you *can* build ten missionaries and send them all at one city and flip it. That's kind of the point. The issue is how does the opponent respond to this?
They could pump out 10 missionaries and flip one of your cities. They could try to pour artists and philosophers back into that city and prevent it from flipping. They could engage in various xenophobic behaviors to rub out your cultural stain. They could even let it fly -- say "wow, he wants to blow 10 missionaries on that outlying city? I guess I'll just have to build another settler". Or in the same time it takes to produce 10 missionaries, he could produce ten Legions and conquer 3 vulnerable cities.
It's a question of your priorities -- what strategy are you playing for? If someone decides to make a "cultural end-run", they open themselves up to just as many counter-exploits. Call it "culture envy" -- the Germans start to see this French culture everywhere. Do they promote German culture? Outlaw French culture? Or just declare war on those elitist cultural snobs?
Border expansion would still work, you'd just have to tweak the numbers. Yeah, if you build 5 artists you could probably get the culture flying out and watch one of your cities expand. But that would be balanced with the value of taking the same amount of productivity and throwing it into a few temples -- something that becomes more culture-producing with age. It's a long term investment that would be balanced with the short term benefits of a quick culture-boost from a missionary or artist.
I obviously don't know the numbers -- how much culture to add or destroy for any action, how much it costs to perform these actions, or even how much culture it would take before an event occurs. But I'm a firm believer that you can make these numbers work. Just think about what would keep the game the most balanced, and thus the most fun.
(Haven't read Aussie's post yet. But I imagine he offers an alternative explanation. I think the core idea will be the same, and this is what's important to me -- Aussie is one of those people with enough vision that I'd be happy to let him bastardize my ideas
I know he wouldn't be off base)
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Okay, so you can expel other civs' culture units. Fair enough, teach the AI the value of culture units and teach them to get rid of them if they don't want to.Aussie_Lurker said:
We've now opened up a new problem. Why would you want to let someone else's culture in? What are the benefits of it? I think I alluded to this issue in my last response to dh_epic and I think it's a legitimate concern.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
The benefits of letting someone else's culture in. The only benefit I've really thought of so far is the fact that it makes it more likely that you let my culture in. If France hits me up with the occasional missionary, I say "that's cool, we have a good relationship, maybe I'll send some missionaries over to France too".
Then again, if France bombards me with 10 missionaries, I might feel like it was an act of aggression, and declare war.
There's just an intrinsic benefit to cooperation.
Although, in the case of Type B AI Civs (as opposed to megalomaniacal Type A AI Civs) you'd also find yourself a new potential ally if you guys became quite similar. So there would be diplomatic benefits as well.
I'm all for other suggestions, though...
Then again, if France bombards me with 10 missionaries, I might feel like it was an act of aggression, and declare war.
There's just an intrinsic benefit to cooperation.
Although, in the case of Type B AI Civs (as opposed to megalomaniacal Type A AI Civs) you'd also find yourself a new potential ally if you guys became quite similar. So there would be diplomatic benefits as well.
I'm all for other suggestions, though...
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Suppose you generate 10 culture internally and could gain another 5 externally. If you just stick with internal, the opponent who has the same set-up but plays nice will be gainign a 5cpt lead on you. This means if you let this situation continue, they will start to far outstrip you. Also, since there is a tiny amount of feed-back from buildup, they will gain incrementally, but so will their allies. Over even as little as 50 turns they would gain a minimum of 250 more cp then you. Also, your a much easier enemy to hate because you have little in common with the other guy. The people who shared in general will band together against isolationists such as yourself.
I do not support flipping, or missionaries.
Another purpose of spreading culture is to reduce animosity towards your invading armies. If the enemy is already saturated with a lot of your culture, you will not seem like so foreign leadership. "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"(Pete Townsend, The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again, Who's Next) There would be cultural die-hards who didn't like anyone but themselves, but that is to be expected. better 5 people hate you then 5 hundred thousand. Also, it would be much easier to convince poeple to rise up against their current rulers(France supporting America in the american revolution to create trouble for England) if they had their culture.
I do not support flipping, or missionaries.
Another purpose of spreading culture is to reduce animosity towards your invading armies. If the enemy is already saturated with a lot of your culture, you will not seem like so foreign leadership. "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"(Pete Townsend, The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again, Who's Next) There would be cultural die-hards who didn't like anyone but themselves, but that is to be expected. better 5 people hate you then 5 hundred thousand. Also, it would be much easier to convince poeple to rise up against their current rulers(France supporting America in the american revolution to create trouble for England) if they had their culture.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
Ahhh, I see. So it's basically cultural warfare.dh_epic said:
The problem, dear dh, is what you've just said yourself - which I'm assuming will be much to your chagrin in about 3 minutes. What you're describing is war for rich men who like to spend money frivolously.
Build 10 missionaries, spend them to go flip a nearby city...
Or...
Build 10 Legions which can kill those missionaries before they arrive, defend against the 3 units you've been able to afford to build because you've been spending shields on those missionaries, and can then attack you and conquer your empire.
Hmmm...
Cultural Warfare = Warfare except Cultural Warfare < Warfare. You're describing a way of fighting that doesn't involve normal units, except in addition to being able to defeat each other they can also be defeated by normal units. Thus normal units always > these special units.
Sending 10 Missionaries to flip a city is obviously a hostile action - just as hostile as sending 10 Archers. Why worry about declaring war on the enemy civ when war has already been declared? Sending 2 Missionaries will accomplish zip except for a waste of resources.
Therefore, if Civ A sends 10 Missionaries to Civ B, it's time for war and those 10 guys are sitting ducks.
If Civ A sends 2 Missionaries to Civ B, Civ B can laugh it off as a waste of resources and "expunge" culture as it builds up gradually while doing nothing for Civ A.
That's basically the same as the current warfare system, only it's weaker. "Counter-measures" are merely a way of preventing damage by this inferior way of attacking. Thus no one will engage in cultural warfare and no one will have to try and counter it. What's my cultural counterpunch? My 30 Knights!
Sorry dh, there are some big holes in this proposal. There needs to be a reason why Civ B lets those 10 Missionaries in, or alternatively there needs to be a tangible benefit for Civ A sending only 2. Ideally, there should be a motivation for both.
Your own culture has to provide you more benefits than possible flipping at a well-defined and clear threshold (which is easy to defend against) or an impossible cultural victory (since as you get close every civ expunges your culture so you can't win).
Additionally, an enemy's culture has to provide you with more than border expansion which you can provide yourself, especially if the primary application of this enemy culture is to your detriment.
Fix those problems and I'll take another look.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
This model only really works if the attitudes of your citiznes towards other civs and WW was increased in these manners. Making war with a threatening civ who is a cultural brother is considered a faux pa(spelled wrong) if there is a non-cultural relative that is threatening. Your people will always want to feel like they are teh good guys, and the bad guys have no relation to them. Japan was a relatively easy enemy to make in WWII because it was easy to convince a majority of Americans, who were mostly anglo-saxon or at least not Asian, that the Japanese were culpable of terrible deeds compared to themselves.
The advantage of spreading culture is that your neighbors will have to look elsewhere. About the only way they can try to gain territory without upsetting hte people is 'cultural annexation' or a declaration of rights to that territory, similair to Nazi Germany 'annexing' parts of Serbia(Balkans?), and this means no razing or butchering citizens. This would raise some interesting debates that lead to conflicts, multiple sides have cultural claims to territory and there is one proven method to determning the owner.
Isolationist powers will not have to worry about border debates, but is more likely to be picked on. They also cannot assert many cultural claims of their own, and their actiosn will be viewed in much worse light.
The advantage of spreading culture is that your neighbors will have to look elsewhere. About the only way they can try to gain territory without upsetting hte people is 'cultural annexation' or a declaration of rights to that territory, similair to Nazi Germany 'annexing' parts of Serbia(Balkans?), and this means no razing or butchering citizens. This would raise some interesting debates that lead to conflicts, multiple sides have cultural claims to territory and there is one proven method to determning the owner.
Isolationist powers will not have to worry about border debates, but is more likely to be picked on. They also cannot assert many cultural claims of their own, and their actiosn will be viewed in much worse light.
Xerol
Emperor
The system seems good, but there's one thing I'd really like to see: A tileless system. That way, the culture of each city is a circle instead of that squircle approximation. (Dibs on that word, Squircle.) The circle would gradually increase in size instead of jumping out, say about 1 pixel per 2 culture points, but with a logarithmic expansion, so that it's like the 10/100/1000/etc. jumps in Civ3.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK Trip. Again in MY model, open borders are required for even a basic degree of diplomatic relationship-be it trade, mutual defense, RofP or alliance. You can close your borders to all comers, but this will effectively prevent you from trading goods, trading techs and forming mutually beneficial pacts with other nations. Also, without contact with other civs, you lose the bonus to tech research gained via a greater flow of ideas between civs. Also, isolation will lower your chances of a diplomatic victory AND make it incredibly difficult to woo minor nations to your side! Lastly, if the 'Memes' model for social tech development, put up by Rhialto, is adopted then isolation will severely stunt your sociological growth. The point is, though, that once you open your borders, then culture will naturally flow across them-from high concentration to low as it were-and trade in luxuries, manufactured goods and luxuries will bring with it a fraction of the culture of the nation from which you recieve them! I think that limits SHOULD be placed on how effective cultural units can be in any given turn, either by giving a flat maximum amount of culture that a missionary or other culture unit can 'deposit' in another city-based on the net culture of that units nation. Another option would be to say that every attempt to 'deposit' culture in a turn, after the first, actually increases the populations resistance to it-leading to a sort of 'diminishing returns' situation. Another option, of course, would be to allow one culture unit to be 'sacrificed' to create one 'cultural outpost' within a city. This outpost will allow a greater flow of culture from your nation into that one city each turn. They can still be switched off via the closing of borders and war, and certain improvements could actually minimise or negate their effectiveness.
Of course, this brings me back to point (9) in my last post, which is not having units at all, but making culture 'wars' an adjunct to espionage, and managing through the espionage screen.
Lastly, like it or not, 'culture wars' have been almost as important in the history of our world as standard warfare-especially in the 20th century!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Of course, this brings me back to point (9) in my last post, which is not having units at all, but making culture 'wars' an adjunct to espionage, and managing through the espionage screen.
Lastly, like it or not, 'culture wars' have been almost as important in the history of our world as standard warfare-especially in the 20th century!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
AL, I hate to have to do this to you, but you're making a lot of assumptions there. Yes, a lot of that is (gasp!) un-Civ-like, and on the whole, all of that being implimented is unlikely. What you're asking for is Sim-Civ. My own personal preferences aside, the liklihood of getting that is quite slim. I'm sure a great cultural model can be implimented if you include all sorts of neat and new and fancy stuff like a detailed societal model, a new diplo model, a real diplo victory, etc.
Yeah, some may call me frumpy, a pessimist or pragmatic to a fault, but what are we trying to do here? Make a brand new game? Or offer suggestions that the CIV development team might be able to use? We could come up with the greatest ideas in the world, but if they require the implimentation of x, y, z and m (all of which add up to an unlikely occurance), then who does that help, except our own dreams of what CIV might be - which later turns into a sense of disappointment when all these things we thought were so great weren't in the game?
No, not trying to rain anyone's parade... I just want people to take a look at what they're doing and why.
Yeah, some may call me frumpy, a pessimist or pragmatic to a fault, but what are we trying to do here? Make a brand new game? Or offer suggestions that the CIV development team might be able to use? We could come up with the greatest ideas in the world, but if they require the implimentation of x, y, z and m (all of which add up to an unlikely occurance), then who does that help, except our own dreams of what CIV might be - which later turns into a sense of disappointment when all these things we thought were so great weren't in the game?
No, not trying to rain anyone's parade... I just want people to take a look at what they're doing and why.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Oh, it is also important to note that other factors will play into both the passive and active forms of 'culture flow'. Your government type and culture groups will have an effect (especially culture group, as an East European civ is less likely to adopt elements of a Western Europeans culture than another Western European culture might. Even less so an African or East Asian civ!)
Also, a civ which hates democratic governments will be far more resistant to the culture of a democratic civ-just as an example.
Also, your civs degree of nationalism and/or spiritualism (Social Engineering) will also determine the net flow of culture between civs!
There are other factors to consider, but these are the most important ones, IMHO!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Also, a civ which hates democratic governments will be far more resistant to the culture of a democratic civ-just as an example.
Also, your civs degree of nationalism and/or spiritualism (Social Engineering) will also determine the net flow of culture between civs!
There are other factors to consider, but these are the most important ones, IMHO!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Right Trip, you've said the evil word 'un-civ' like!!! I'm tempted to say 'talk to the HAND!!!' 
That said, how 'un-civ' like do you think the new diplomacy, trade and culture models of civ3 were BEFORE they were introduced into the game? Man, some of the complaints I heard about the seperation of workers and settlers alone would make your head spin! Now, however, we simply accept it as part of the game! The point is that everything starts out as 'un-civ' like until it becomes a part of the game. The developers have already flagged a deeper societal model via the introduction of both religion and civics to the game. My trade model is not fundamentally different from the existing one, with the exception that you would be able to trade food, shields and 'manufactured' food and shields. Culture wars is merely an extension and mild alteration to the existing culture model-hardly sim civ, just Civ+, if you will!!
The other big overhaul which I would like to see, and which could easily be done, is to eliminate the 'one victory ends the game approach'! Instead, the game finishes at a random time between 2100 and 2500 and, when it does, you tally the scores you have gained in the various 'victory conditions' (like diplo, science, economic, space race and culture). The civ with either the most number of individual victories OR the most number of total points is the overall winner of the game (with ties being worked out on demographics!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
That said, how 'un-civ' like do you think the new diplomacy, trade and culture models of civ3 were BEFORE they were introduced into the game? Man, some of the complaints I heard about the seperation of workers and settlers alone would make your head spin! Now, however, we simply accept it as part of the game! The point is that everything starts out as 'un-civ' like until it becomes a part of the game. The developers have already flagged a deeper societal model via the introduction of both religion and civics to the game. My trade model is not fundamentally different from the existing one, with the exception that you would be able to trade food, shields and 'manufactured' food and shields. Culture wars is merely an extension and mild alteration to the existing culture model-hardly sim civ, just Civ+, if you will
!!The other big overhaul which I would like to see, and which could easily be done, is to eliminate the 'one victory ends the game approach'! Instead, the game finishes at a random time between 2100 and 2500 and, when it does, you tally the scores you have gained in the various 'victory conditions' (like diplo, science, economic, space race and culture). The civ with either the most number of individual victories OR the most number of total points is the overall winner of the game (with ties being worked out on demographics!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Although I do think a 'culture spreading' model is necessary, it is getting a bit convoluted and complex. In the spirit of Trip I am attempting to simplify it here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources of Culture:
1) National - This is generated by structures and events the player is responsible for.
2) Local - This is generated through corruption, structures and events that the 'local entity' is responsible for.
3) Osmosis - This is generated through trade and is greater from high-culture areas to low culture areas.
4) Cross Culturation - This is generated whenever two strong cultures are present in a city and parts start to converge into a mixed form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Effects of Culture:
1) Open, indescriminant, and somewhat ruthless acts of war against opponents with little or nothing in common culturally are readily tolerated and not peanlized by the international community of cultural brothers.
2) Claims to territory based on strong cultural presence, or 'cultural annexation', and any military action are easily jsutified. Of course any actions of this sort must be declared and war crimes are not tolerated as readily.
3) Attacking a cultural-neighbor when both of you face a great non-cultural enemy will be considered in poor light.
4) Coming to the aid of cultural-brothers against non-cultural brothers is considered appropriate by the international community.(Hellenes supporting Greek-speaking uprisings in Persian cities)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
War Weariness:
1) Wars with clear ideological difference suffer less protest then those without.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the only real tenets. Strategy will be to determine how and when you can wheel your influence to gain what you want without causing problems with the international community. Also, it means that if you lose a lot of territory early in the game, but laid a cultural groundwork, reclaiming them later would not be a problem. The international community might even help you reclaim part of your lost lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources of Culture:
1) National - This is generated by structures and events the player is responsible for.
2) Local - This is generated through corruption, structures and events that the 'local entity' is responsible for.
3) Osmosis - This is generated through trade and is greater from high-culture areas to low culture areas.
4) Cross Culturation - This is generated whenever two strong cultures are present in a city and parts start to converge into a mixed form.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Effects of Culture:
1) Open, indescriminant, and somewhat ruthless acts of war against opponents with little or nothing in common culturally are readily tolerated and not peanlized by the international community of cultural brothers.
2) Claims to territory based on strong cultural presence, or 'cultural annexation', and any military action are easily jsutified. Of course any actions of this sort must be declared and war crimes are not tolerated as readily.
3) Attacking a cultural-neighbor when both of you face a great non-cultural enemy will be considered in poor light.
4) Coming to the aid of cultural-brothers against non-cultural brothers is considered appropriate by the international community.(Hellenes supporting Greek-speaking uprisings in Persian cities)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
War Weariness:
1) Wars with clear ideological difference suffer less protest then those without.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the only real tenets. Strategy will be to determine how and when you can wheel your influence to gain what you want without causing problems with the international community. Also, it means that if you lose a lot of territory early in the game, but laid a cultural groundwork, reclaiming them later would not be a problem. The international community might even help you reclaim part of your lost lands.
Similar threads
- Poll
