VainoValkea
Emperor
You don't need armies for every game. You don't always have insane tourism pushers. Even if you do, you still have methods for dealing with them. So I still don't see your point.
Instead of just repeating that you don't see my point, could you respond to my question?You don't need armies for every game. You don't always have insane tourism pushers. Even if you do, you still have methods for dealing with them. So I still don't see your point.
So how much effort should you have to expect to dedicate in every game?
Military's a good example, actually. You need some military units, but how little you need is based on how much risk you're willing to assume. Maybe you'll stockpile gold to build on the fly. Masybe you'll build walls and such. Maybe you'll bribe your neighbors into leaving you alone or making defensive pacts or declaring war on each other. Maybe you'll deter aggerssors with lots of CS alliances. You have to devise solutions, or just assume a heavier risk.
But there is no element of risk here. You just get hammered, with happiness. Finis. And as far as I can tell, the amount of culture you'd have to be generating is quite high. Not only that, but as more civ's tip towards the dominant ideology, the unhappiness ramps up for anyone trying to hold their ground.
If there was one single answer to that question, this game would have no replay value.Well, let me ask this: at one point is it "your fault" for not generating enough? What should be standard issue? Building museums in every city? Building all the guilds ASAP? Fast-tracking archaeology and building archaologists pronto?
How much of a strategy that you aren't trying to do are you required to do just to defend yoruself?
Well, that was certainly an obvious answer, as far it goes (which is not far at all).Shouldn't that be obvious, really? Enough not to get trampled upon by the others. So exactly the same as with the military, science and CS fronts.
The reason people are not responding is because it demands some specific considration, rather than the flippant and reductive dismissals that have become this forum's hallmark of late. Yes, there are lots amped-up Chicken Littles running about after thee expansion, but the result is not to continue to assert "everything's fine" and "deal with it" with equal adamancy.steveg: There is no 'good enough' measure for Culture, as it depends on who else is in the game, and what they focus on.
Very similarly to how there is no 'good enough' measure for Military, as it depends on who else is in the game, and what they focus on.
The reason people may not be answering your question (at least, to your satisfaction) is because they disagree with the implied assumptions of that question.
You sure you didn't mean 80% isntead of 8?If there was one single answer to that question, this game would have no replay value.
Look. Playing the 4-city tradition opener every time, stealing one CS worker every time, teching to your first lux, then archery, then your second lux and then beelining education was pretty much a formula that would work 8% of the time in G&K, and we're all very sorry that you can't look online for a guaranteed series of steps that amounts to a to-do list for playing BNW yet. There isn't a single answer to how much culture, science or military you need because it's going to be subject to who you end up next to, what your terrain is like and whether you get a poop draw for resources. Probably once some really great players have hammered on BNW for awhile someone will come out with something that will give you a better target for how much is a good number to win.
However, you don't need a strategy guide to tell you that that number sure ain't zero.
Well, that was certainly an obvious answer, as far it goes (which is not far at all).
You sure you didn't mean 80% isntead of 8?
Well, I'm sure I could write a strategy guide that only wins 8% of the time too
It's just plain going to be easier to identify what's a clearly bad idea than to give an exact accounting of what the good ideas are. I don't have to be able to give you a precise number of how much tourism will keep you safe in order to tell you that that number is probably greater than what the OP clearly wants to have (pretty damn close to zero).
i usually have 30-70 tourism in my games, with around 150+ culture, but i dont usually focus in culture as a primary, but i feel that now, unless i am winning culture and focusing on it, there is no way i can just stop the tide of influence, its an all or nothing game now, and thats just bad
True, I'm not in the OP's extreme camp. I do think that there's something amiss though. I gotta take a minute when I get home to load that game back up so I can snap some screenshots. Perhaps once I provide screenshots I will be able to present the case in the light I desire, and perhaps you guys can help me come up with some answers that will answer those questions I posed (which I think are important ones to consider).Well, I'm sure I could write a strategy guide that only wins 8% of the time too
It's just plain going to be easier to identify what's a clearly bad idea than to give an exact accounting of what the good ideas are. I don't have to be able to give you a precise number of how much tourism will keep you safe in order to tell you that that number is probably greater than what the OP clearly wants to have (pretty damn close to zero).
steveg: I take your meaning.
I would think that a comparable effort to that of military or science should be the standard.
So if you need to build, say, 3 units for each of your cities to defend yourself in the typical game, then take that production total, and apply it tculture buildings and other cultural benefits, and that should suffice for you.
If we are not allowed to say, 'everything depends,' then I hope you cannot say that the above is not sufficient. At this point, we are all talking about low sample sizes, and I at least am speaking in theoretical terms. One game will not change the theory of this.