I think you do not see my point. Try to look a cultural advantages from an outside point of view. Plant a McDonalds in France, China or Space it is not seen as a big deal.

People or (Aliens) do not defect because of cultural goods. You may want to stay friends with humans because they are building shopping malls on space stations near your planet and may be pushed into an alliance but you would not give up because somebody built a shopmall on your turf.

Wyrenn,
I understand your point but for a starbase to have a cultural influence a large number of people must be influenced by it. Remember that the influence effects the entire planet, not just the tiny fraction who visit the starbase.
You can't have it both ways. Either a single starbase gives a large cultural effect but multiple starbases diminish in efficiency (and other culture starbases also diminish the effect) OR a starbase gives a very small effect but multiple starbases increase the effect.
Either way works, but not together.

Paul.

Technician,
your point is connected with the problems of seperating cultural and economic benefits. A McDonald's provides definite economic benefits but in certain cultures it also provides cultural benefits. In countries such as China and Russia it shows what the culture of capitalism allows individuals to afford. Don't underestimate the strength of that effect. Will it cause Russia to join America? Possibly not, but maybe someday it will help towards a united planet of similar culture.
There are many cases in history of cities, provinces and even countries joining other countries because of the cultural influence. It's a sound concept, just needs to be tweaked so as not to be too frequency or overpowering.

Paul.

As I've said, you guys are letting the AI off the hook.

If you and I are playing galciv multiplayer, and I start building star bases in your sectors with cultural magnification modules, what are you going to do?

You are right I would send my Battleships and Transports out and teacn the Alien scum a lesson.

Mind you I also try to blow up their Starbases but they are just too tough.

I think I said it somewhere before, perhaps in another thread, but it looks to me like it applies here too.

I think it is better to have ways in the game to allow players get arround these kinds of attacks, rather than trying to hard code rules that eliminate them. After all, 1) that is what strategy games are about, 2) that is the way our own very real worldly relationships work, and have historically worked for many millennia. The metaverse will help (and I believe this has been Brad's intent) by recording the strategies we use to beat the AI, and SD will use those strategies to beef up the AI to effectively counter those strategies.

I find this exciting. Sure, I can beat the pants off the AI now, but I am unsure about what I will be able to do to it in Beta 4. I think I will have to develop new strategies. I may even become able to beat the pants off the AI again, but then there is release 1. New AI strategies to deal with and new strategies from us. Then release 1.1. etc..

But if useful strategies were ruled out by hard coding preventions of those strategies, think of how dull the game would become, and how quickly it would become dull.

Cheers,

I like starbases and the freedom to plant them anywhere, but one thing always niggled me and that was since a mere stripling I always (being dull?) considered that starbases orbited planetary bodies, or at least were adjacent to them. Deep space nine disturbs me as it floats in the middle of nowhere (but at least at a strategic crossroads.

Anyway, if Starbases influence are to influence planetary culture should they not be 'considered' to orbit planets as centres of trade, commerce and influence?

If this is not to contrived, this creates a way to limit them. One per populated planet in the star solar system (as these things are big and need an allocated orbit).

This is just offered for those who want to limit them if Stardock is considering it as a bit of a gamey way (or perhaps not?) doing so. I love messing with starbases - I like extending my range early on with them - until those pesky long range freebie warships turn up floatin' in space and give me x10 range that is.

By the way - does anyone think that black holes could provide some extra fun? for example if they always linked to the same location, one could use them strategically and need to defend them (perhaps with starbases?) like in DS9.

I wonder if people are getting the picture that the AI as it stands right now is incomplete? I'm sure the game will become MUCH harder by release....

I think most people know that the AI is incomplete, they are just voicing their opinions as to how they think it should work. This is the best way to let Stardock know in which direction the game should go.

Speaking of AI..

There is the downside of non-cheating AI players:

They're only going to be as good as I am. That is, until I start interviewing top players on the Metaverse to learn how they play.

Obviousy, with 2 lines of change I could have the AI crush anyone. Just give the AI free money and he'd just overwhelm you (and on lots of pain I will be giving the AI some bonuses).

But yea, the beta 4 AI will be considerably better than beta 3. They'll all be using the new AI engine.

Yahoo! Bring on Beta 4!!!!

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to split up the star base modules? Say something like this…

Lunar Bases
- available at the start of the game
- 1 per uninhabited star system, precludes further Lunar or Planetary Bases in the system
- can be built on any planet with a moon (gas giants? class N?)
- additional modules multiply research output
- additional modules add to social and military output, morale, economy, and influence

Planetary Bases
- available at the start of the game
- 1 per uninhabited star system, precludes further Lunar or Planetary Bases in the system
- can be built on lousy, but solid planets (class N?)
- additional modules multiply military output
- additional modules add to social and research output, morale, economy, and influence

Star Bases
- requires Artificial Gravity and Tri-Strontium Steel
- 1 per uninhabited star system, not precluded by Lunar and Planetary Bases built by opponents
- can be built on resources or within 1 tile of a star (requires a gravity well)
- additional modules multiply morale and economy
- additional modules add to all output and influence

Hyperspace Bases
- requires Hyperspace and Large Scale Building
- can be built anywhere (doesn’t require a gravity well)
- additional modules multiply all output, morale, economy, and influence

Of course you could merge Lunar and Planetary Bases and leave the choice of research or military output to the player.

The reason I’m suggesting this, is that the early availability of "influential" star bases in a relatively peaceful galaxy seems to impose a cultural and/or military struggle.

End transmission.

And now for something completely different…

I know the AI isn’t complete, and I’ve actually seen it start to adapt to cultural conquest (defecting planets were building News Network), but I’m not sure that there aren’t a couple of inherent problems with cultural conquest.

If you’re going for military victory, each planet you take over adds to your cultural influence while (presumably) subtracting a similar amount of influence from your enemy. With only a couple of invasions, you can find yourself pretty far down the path of cultural conquest. All my games have ended in cultural victories.

I think the reason that cultural conquest is proving so difficult to model is that it doesn’t work that way in real life. Being affected by the most influential culture in the world can make you resent that culture as easily (or more easily) as it can make you admire it.

What seems to happen is that cultural influence tends to strengthen ties between cultures that are morally (and historically) aligned and weaken, or not affect, ties between morally opposed cultures. In other words, cultural influence brings about changes in international relations, economic benefits, immigration, and cultural homogenization, not mass defection. Maybe cultural influence should effect other game mechanics without resulting in cultural conquest?

End transmission.

Captain Bizarre said "What seems to happen is that cultural influence tends to strengthen ties between cultures that are morally (and historically) aligned and weaken, or not affect, ties between morally opposed cultures. "

Cptn B.

I am sitting here trying to figure out why your view of history and mine don't quite, well, synchronize. The one glaring example I see is Russia's switch to capitalizm. After 45+ years (which excludes my pre-teen days) of newspaper articals, many history channel documentaries, and a few books on Russian history, I am still amased that it happened. Why it happened may not be quite clear yet, but it certainly wasn't conquest. And I do remember some of the news articals from there about the uproars over the introduction of Coka Cola into the USSR. But it happened without any external affect I can think of other than cultural influence. Since this one particular switch was so big and so sudden, can we really say that this is not the start of a trend?

LJ,

I think our views do synchronise, because I agree with what you've said. But what you said was:

"one glaring example I see is Russia's switch to capitalism."

This is exactly the point I was trying to make: cultural influence may bring about ECONOMIC, moral, and other changes (internal political structure, external allegiances, etc). I'm wasn't surprised that it happened; people want to be free and it takes a lot of (misspent) money to keep that freedom from them. However, can you imagine Mother Russia, or any of the new states of Eastern Europe, ever "defecting" to become one of the United States of America? I sure can't.

Of course, you also said:

"can we really say that this is not the start of a trend?"

and I'm not sure that we can't say that it won't eventually turn into cultural conquest. But, I think if it does happen it's much more likely to occur between two countries, or cultures, that are much more alike culturally, economically, politically, and historically. (The obvious example would be Canada and the US.) And even then I just can't see it happening. Why risk the economic and social costs of restructuring your political bureaucracy by absorbing another country? Especially when that country is already allied to you or is completely overshadowed by your economy and has little or no power to affect your political policies?

If you'll recall there was a case a few years ago where an island state in the Caribbean wanted to become a Canadian province. Now my guess is that there wasn't a single one of us who wasn't all for exchanging a few weeks of hockey for a few weeks on the beach of our favourite new province, but it didn't happen (even though absorbing very tiny states is, I think, the most likely way that cultural conquest could occur). This was partly for PR reasons. Today's morally "advanced" cultures (in present-day terms) can't be seen to be acting as colonial powers.
Colonialism = bad, friendly suggestions from an economic or military powerhouse = good.

Anyway, sorry for the lengthy reply. I have a flaw in my character that only shows up when history gets mentioned.
Only one flaw, and a small one at that... honest

End transmission.

When discussing cultural influence we need to consider a much broader range of history than the past 100 years. The past 100 years have been dominated by nationalism and because of that we just can't imagine a country or part of a country switching to another country. This was much more common in history though and may be in the future as well.
I could believe that a planet would switch its allegiance just not as easily as currently happens.

Paul.

Brad,
while I agree that an improved AI will be better able to manage the starbase problem, I would like to see non military solution become available. If a powerful empire starts building lots of starbases in my territory I want to be able to stop the cultural influence without being anniliated when I try to attack the bases.
Either
(a) allow me to ban foreign starbases in my sectors (perhaps with a moral loss and only with certain government type)
(b) allow diplomatic agreements to remove cultural influences or limit them to one starbase per sector.
(c) Allow for capturing of starbases.
(d) allow espionage to target starbases for destruction.

At the moment starbases building cultural improvements are really just an act of war. There is NO reason for another race to allow them. That needs to change.

Paul.

when you ally with other race could'nt you merge your culture points. This would make races on the edge extintion still worth allying with, as the extra culture points would eminate from the new planets of your ally, or through yours if the other player has a stonger cultural influence. If you look at the US and UK we are allies and we accept that the US culturally "Exports" both to the UK and other countries, but our "morality" is shared we do not get upset. (besides we don't have to learn any forign languages because of our empire and later all the work the US did expanding its influence. eg. Commercial Pilots ALL speak English because US airlines pioneered international Flights.) The areas we do have a problem with are The middle east. where we have a backlash against "Cultural Imperialism". This is based on religion you could say morality.
So I propose
1 Allies allow cultural missions (starbases) on a reciprical arraingment. Build as you like. Or there is only one colour for the the alliance culturally as in reality it is the morallity of other races we seek to change.
1a Bases built by allies also count toward cultural influence. Just as in some parts of the world the UK may have a Historical conection that assists us to export our Culture/Morality.
2 There should be controls if the base is to be built in a sector that is morally different.IE the AI destroys them, issues ultimatum decommision or we will destroy to avoid war, war if they destroy it. If too many bases are built a Backlash with influence plumiting to nil as we have seen in some Arab countries.

Please excuse any spelling errors.

I would think that the definition of Alien would always apply with Alien races. These creatures are not human and are not subject to human cultural influences no matter how hard you try. Build a Starbase and try to sell coke to an Alien where sugar may kill it should either be ignored by the ALien or destroyed.

I would think that the definition of Alien would always apply with Alien races. These creatures are not human and are not subject to human cultural influences no matter how much you try to sell them.

Now assume Aliens can drink coke, like theme parks etc.

I been to the UK they seem to import more goods from Europe than the US and how many American watch TV built by US companies. My point we live in a Global society, trade goods help improve relations they do not cause countries to defect the cultural superior country.

Even talking in terms of cultural superiorty is insulting. Why is a middle east country any less culturally superior that the US, Britian, Japan...
Their cultures are just different.


I just won a game by building Starbases everywhere, every Alien world defected to Humanity. It was listed and a military win even though I never bad a shot. I really do not care how Stardock tweaks Starbases but I do not see winning by having aliens defect a valid win.

I still think defection should happen but be rare. An Alien world will only defect when its morality is low.

I think Technichian is correct about the global economy, but I do think that cultural influence makes a difference on whether a culture will ally itself with another. Japan today is not the Japan of 60 years ago. The US decided that it's political structures needed to change, and they did. I don't think the concept of freedom existed in Japan, because it was a Feudal system. The US changed that. Japanese children are now taller than their Grandparents due to more protien in the diet courtesy of McDonalds.
So individual planets defecting would be imposible but a general move to a simmilar cultural outlook and an allience of an entire empire would be a possibility.
Russia now has military representatives at NATO, and eastern block countries (Formaly Warsaw Pact) are about to be admitted. So a combination of economic, Military, espionage, and Cultural "leverage" achieved the unachievable.

Of course now that the "Evil Empire has" gone Terrorism and rougue states have replaced them.

I agree, "I do think that cultural influence makes a difference on whether a culture will ally itself with another."


Build a Starbase put cultural improvement in it and the Aliens in the sector look at you more kindly tend to be Allies if you are playing nice.
Do the same thing playing evil and the aliens see you more evil and are more likely to tend to war.

Only in the extreme case in which aliens planets in the sector are poor, broke and with low moral would an Alien planet consider defecting to humanity.

Technician Wrote
"Do the same thing playing evil and the aliens see you more evil and are more likely to tend to war"

Yes If you stuck it in the middle of their territory
But around the edges with good defences, and strong military. Then you could use cultural influence.
If we did'nt have to kill all the civilians to take over a planet you could stir up the subjugated people of the previos empire on the planet, Like Poland

Then send a strong militaty force to allow them to defect.

I think the most reasonable solution was provided by BrandonW. Very elegant solution!

Here is a clip from the user's guide where it talks about accomplishing the takeover of other races planets by encouraging defections using star bases:

"But unless they are pursuing the same strategy as you are, they are likely to have to fight back through a different path (like attacking your star bases or trying to get the United Planets to outlaw building star bases in foreign controlled sectors)."

Two things caught my eye. 1) the user's guide is not specific about what it takes for a cultural win. 2). It points out two actions that can be taken to counter a cultural attack (and as has been said many times, the AI just isn't up to it in Beta 3E, but should be in beta 4).

Jack,
how do you 'try to get the United Planets to outlaw building starbases in foreign controlled sectors'? You can't. Firstly there is no such UP issue and secondly the UP issues are randomly chosen with you having no input in which to vote on.
Change these two points and at least other alternative options become available.

Paul.