demographically take over cities/tiles?
Should it be implemented somehow? In Civ4 we were able to take over cities this way if we had a culture that was influential enough. "City X" would revolt, and would join your empire. In Civ5 we cannot take over cities this way.
The way the borders are in Civ5 are way too static once there are no more tiles to expand.
Last edited by mastika09; 04-28-2012 at 02:02 AM.
No thanks. It was a dumb idea in Civ IV and would be in Civ V as well.
I think there was an option if we wanted to have this or not in Civ4.
This might be controversial, but I actually miss being able to take over tiles through cultural expansion (not cities; that always felt a bit cheap). It gave an additional incentive to boost culture and added some spice to border disputes. Also, from the point of view of a peaceful player, it meant that I might not have to declare war on my neighbour to get hold of that tasty resource tile just outside my borders. Being able to take over small bits of territory at a time rather than the huge chunks of land you get from taking over cities just feels more realistic.
That's what you can use the Great Artist to do with his Culture Bomb...
That is what I do with my Great Artists...it ticks off your neighbor a little, but it avoids war...
Originally Posted by donald23
Yeah, but hey, eventually if a civ's culture is much weaker in comparisson to yours it would be realistic for you to be able to take over a city(cities) that is close to your borders. Not having to wait specifically for a great artist to show up for you to do this. So bit by bit your territory can expand and you dont have to wage war to conquer others. It is more covert. With a great artist it is literally a culture "bomb." It can add as an additional aid in taking tiles but more realistically it occurs in incremental steps (again, ill use civ4 as an example for this with its demographic percentages on the tiles :P)
Also, for example, with the espionage system that is coming, you can cause instability/tension with your spies in other cities between two other civs if you see the demographics are like 50/50..
I had a stupid idea ages ago.
It was that we'd be able to buy tiles that belonged to other Civ's, but make them 4 times as expensive.
Yes, this does happen irl. China, Japan, India and several other countries are buying out land in Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the Pacific.
Like, you open some sort of screen that shows land around another civs city that is for sale, and you ask the other civ for the land at a price, and they come to you wanting to buy land.
And once you buy all the land around a city, that city becomes yours, but at a large diplomatic penalty that might cause war.
Just a little stupid idea I had. xP
I seem to recall, way before Civ V came out, that they stated you could trade/sell land via the diplomacy screen but then this feature never made it to the final product. Of course, maybe I'm remembering wrong. If anyone else knows?
Originally Posted by HKY09
I like conquering all of a rival's cities around the capital, then filling in the gaps by building cities. Finally, buy up all the land you can that is left next to the capital's borders, and then culture bomb until only the square with the capital city on it is left
You know what I really wanted? For you to negotiate borders through diplomacy if you're bordering another civ. Then, after the "treaty", borders couldn't be changed permanently (except through war). It would be very interesting (and realistic).
I remember them talking about selling/buying land as well, so your not crazy , I wish they actually went through with that mechanic, it could have been extremely interesting. Imagine selling what you believe to be worthless land early in the game only to find out later that it is one of the only plots near by with iron or uranium
Not the same. Civ V is like throwing a 10l bucket at someone compared to a tidalwave that Civ IV could be. City flipping was a genious idea. Getting city on other terms than war, and still there is defense mechanics if you bothered.
Originally Posted by donald23
Its a freakkin shame they didnt include it in Civ V.
Culture flipping a city doesn't really work for me (although I did enjoy it in Civ IV). Unfortunately borders and culture are two very different things, but civ has them tied together. Something tells me civ VI will break the two apart for good :S.
I'd like the ability to purchase tiles from AI you aren't at war with (would bring up diplo screen), but it could be exploited way too easily.
What would be cool is if you could steal population through culture. So instead of losing the city entirely, you'd just steal a citizen at a time from the enemy city that has inferior cultural output. This would slow or flat out reverse growth in outlying settlements, but that sounds cool to me. Obviously you couldn't steal any citizens from a level 1 city.
The culture bomb is a pretty weak and feeble simulation of culture-flipping. You certainly cannot do what the OP suggests, and actually absorb a city into your empire.
Originally Posted by donald23
It was fun to do in Civ Rev, but when I played Civ IV it seemed pretty impossible to flip a city with culture. Basically, not worth the effort.
I for one would love to see this mechanic incorporated in some way to Civ V. Tiles themselves should be able to flip (solely based on culture, not purchasing), and cities should not be impervious either. This being said, I think it would be more interesting if cities coming under the influence of a foreign culture 'revolted' to become either 'rebel' states (i.e. like barb cities in Civ IV) or to become city-states in and of themselves.
Those two options for city-flipping being put forward, there is a third I have thought of that might be quite interesting: once a city's culture percentage/rating reached a certain point of foreign influence, the city could have an 'event' (random/era-based) triggered which presents both the Civ who currently owns it, and the Civ whose culture has been building within it, to make independent choices. Based on each's decisions, relative to one another, the city either flips, declares independence, or remains loyal to its original culture. An example of such an event could be as follows:
"The people of Montreal (Iroquois) have gone to the streets to riot in response to suggestions by their governor that the people of America are barbaric brutes with primitive artistic achievements."
1- Commission an exhibit by an ex-patriot American painter inspiring a sense of cultural understanding between your peoples. (could cost 50-300 gold, could reward with positive diplo relations if both Iro and USA take the positive option, in conjunction with the bonus of pacifying the effect of the city's cultural influence regardless of USA action)
2- Grant Tenure to a professor Brent Brantford, who has dedicated his life to justifying the view that Americans are culturally brutish and inferior to Iroquois cultural achievement. (50-300 gold, negative diplo modifier, aggressively alters the balance of cultural influence)
3- Ignore the situation. (0 gold, no diplo modifier, risk city revolt depending on USA actions)
4- Make t-shirts to sell in the streets cynically making fun of the increasingly turbulent cultural clash. (receive +10-150 gold, mild diplo repercussions, mild risk of city revolt depending on USE actions)
1- Send a cultural ambassador to preach the inferiority of Iroquois culture and the right of the people of Montreal to self-determination. (spend 50-300 gold, large diplo repercussions, chance of revolt either directly to USA influence or to city-state/rebel city).
2- Send a diplomatic mission to reassure the Iroquois of your support of their continued authority in Montreal (50-100 gold, positive diplo, negative impact on American culture influence in Montreal).
3- Ignore the situation (no gold, no diplo repercussions, leaves only the chance of city going rebel/CS -- not revolting directly under US control -- and only if Iro. do nothing/make t-shirts lol).
4- Sell bumper-stickers proudly declaring 'Poutine tastes better with Freedom Fries'. (+25-120 gold, mild diplo negative modif, no city culture modifier)
The mechanic itself would likely look fairly different from that, and might have to be streamlined to be less -- err... -- specific than the example I gave, but I think this would still remain a really interesting mechanic that would make diplomacy and culture interact in a really dynamic and exciting way (could even structure different Civ personalities to act in accord to their historical personalities in these instances, making for more robust diplomatic characterizations).
Exciting stuff, I sure would love to hear ideas/feedback on this idea.
Borrowing ideas from GalCivII, I would suggest a different mechanism.
Culture "spreads" organically out as it did in IV, but cities can still use tiles not in their own cultural borders (if two cities could utilize one tile then it would go to the city whose cultural borders it is in).
If a city is completely inside another civ's culture, it will gain a localised unhappiness/revolt factor that will tick away until it converts. Obviously this method works better with straight up localised happiness but that likely won't be added so we'd have to settle for some loyalty system.
Alternatively it could still give global unhappiness for the civ, it could then ramp up until the civ was either forced to cede the city, make drastic changes, or ultimately face revolt and revolution
Tile flipping because of Culture superiority was a fun way to wage a war without actually declaring war. I would like it to be brought back because I like playing Culture focused games. However, when I was playing Civilization V I found myself going with an economic/military play style because Culture lacks the same power as it had in Civilization III and IV.
I have a feeling they said that, although that could have just been me misinterpreting how the game's mechanics worked prior to release (Since this was my first Civ game, I had very unusual ideas).
Originally Posted by istry555
Also, in response to the post you quoted, those countries aren't literally buying land to build cities or bases on, they're buying farmland. To farm. It is still the territory of the country the land has been 'bought' from, except those farms are going to exclusively supply to China.