Culture Victory: Is there any point in t3 governments?

[Archon_Wing]

If you switch to a t3 government, you receive a tourism penalty if the other civs have not reached a t3 government, and also if they have a different one. If you are winning a cultural victory, the AI will generally be behind in the civics tree unless they are a cultural civ.

On the other hand Theocracy makes Rock Bands cheaper to produce. In this case, when would the extra bonuses from higher governments outweigh this? Maybe when you run out of faith?

And as a related question; what is the latest point on the civics tree your CVs end up on? (eg, what is the endgame civic to aim for and why). My general goal is to get Social Media for the card that boosts tourism to civs with a trade route and Environmentalism for a +25% increase in tourism. At that point it seems further investment in culture doesn't seem that important as T4 governments seem even less relevant.

 

[Victoria]

All valid observations.

 

[bengalryan9]

If you switch to a t3 government, you receive a tourism penalty if the other civs have not reached a t3 government, and also if they have a different one.

I had no idea this was a thing. I wish the game was a lot more clear when it came to things like this.

 

[Victoria]

I had no idea this was a thing. I wish the game was a lot more clear when it came to things like this.

I preferred the old way, different negatives depending on which government rather than tier 3-4... yep -40% as well as -20%

 

[Scaramanga]

Having 8 government slots boosts Computers, which provides a tourism boost. If you have some of the proper Wonders or civs then a tier 3 government is not necessary of course.

 

[Disgustipated]

I tend to draw my games out. Concentrating on commercial hubs and industrial zones before theater squares. So for me I use T3 and T4 governments. Winning the game early seems too easy. I prefer to have to work for a culture victory, like over 500 tourism. Though I admit I have culture victories around 300 I'm sure. I'd have to look to be sure. With all the late game stuff in the game I actually like to see it. Otherwise I'll feel my money spent on GS was a huge waste. And often I'll wait until later to decide on a victory method. To me, it's more interesting to put together the pieces of the puzzle to generate massive amounts of tourism.

Not often I'm able to take advantage of Golden Gate bridge and build an national park, though I managed to do so a few games ago. Unfortunately I could only build one in that city. It is such a pretty wonder. I like to build it for that alone.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Yes Theocracy seems the best government for it does not cost -20% tourism and also provide discount for Rock Bands.

 

[MrRadar]

I had no idea this was a thing. I wish the game was a lot more clear when it came to things like this.

It sort of tells you. Hover the mouse over your tourist numbers from foreign civs in the CV tab and you'll see a tooltip with all the modifiers.

 

[Gilgameshuggah]

Personally I feel like this kind of micromanagement will only ruin my fun. Moving to advanced government gives you many things. I don't think the victory has ever slipped away from me for using the better governments and I always get much more score if the game gets a bit longer.

 

[Civ Chemist]

Have been asking myself the same question lately. I think it comes down to how close to a culture victory you are at that time and what your strategy is. If you are close to winning you only really need 3 policies for the late game: extra tourism from works of art, music and the +50% from having a trade route. So staying in theocracy would be just fine.

If you are planning to finish the game with Rock Bands (which are not affected by tourism modifiers) you can consider swithing to democracy. Yes, you do lose the 15% faith discount but maybe scripture and simultaneum make up for increased cost?. And then there is also to consider the fact that you can only build the national history museum after adopting a T3 government. It might not be huge, but civs like Sweden can greatly benefit from that building and someting like merchant republic/theocracy --> democracy (start building royal society) --> theocracy/merchant republic might be worth considering?

 

[Tech Osen]

It is rather odd that there isn't really any tier 3 or 4 government that benefits a cultural victory. I especially wonder what the point is of Distributed Sovereignty. If that boost to culture is significant to your game at that point you're doing something wrong when going for a cultural victory.

 

[acluewithout]

The comment about Theocracy makes me think about @Lily_Lancer 's comment about Culture Victories being about Faith not Culture.

 

[Tech Osen]

The comment about Theocracy makes me think about @Lily_Lancer 's comment about Culture Victories being about Faith not Culture.

It's hard to argue that point. Buying great artists, naturalists and rock bands with faith is the way to go.

 

[UWHabs]

Just won a culture victory as Kupe that wasn't heavily faith-based. Sure, faith output helped, but I only build maybe 4 or 5 rock bands, an 2 late national parks.

For me, I was allied with almost everyone in the game, so the extra production from Democracy trade routes was big for me. And I was making so much gold that the gold discount on buying great people was more valuable to me than a faith discount would have been.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I especially wonder what the point is of Distributed Sovereignty. If that boost to culture is significant to your game at that point you're doing something wrong when going for a cultural victory.

The extra culture is to stall out other culture victories; it's probably more suitable for a diplo victory but the reduction in combat strength is kinda crap. I guess it can be used to bloat your stats after you win.

My thought is that eventually you could reach a point where Rock Bands are too expensive and the faith buying no longer helps. But the loss in tourism sorta ruins it all.

 

[leandrombraz]

I think this penalty should be applied only if you have a different government in the same tier. It's quite bad that it encourage you to stop progressing to what is supposed to be better governments. Same for the relationship penalty for having different governments.

 

[acluewithout]

... the reduction in combat strength is kinda crap...

I really dislike the combat strength reduction for Distributed Democracy. It doesn't even make sense to me - why would an advance economy (which DD represents) have units that are flat out just worse at fighting?

I think what FXS is getting at is that a DD would not be as well geared for war. Which is fine, but I think that could be better represented by e.g. more war weariness and greater maintenance costs. A flat negative to fighting is just lame.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes Theocracy seems the best government for it does not cost -20% tourism and also provide discount for Rock Bands.

I usually don't like direct comparison of games with real life, but this made me laught. Theocracy as the best government for tourism (!) and rock bands (!!!) looks quite fun

 

[Jarms48]

I think this penalty should be applied only if you have a different government in the same tier. It's quite bad that it encourage you to stop progressing to what is supposed to be better governments. Same for the relationship penalty for having different governments.

They should just get rid of the more advanced government penalty and introduce the different government penalty at the ideology civic. Much like how rationalism (at least I think that’s the one) gives the religious tourism a penalty. Then add a wonder or a policy card that ultimately removes this penalty.

 

[acluewithout]

I usually don't like direct comparison of games with real life, but this made me laught. Theocracy as the best government for tourism (!) and rock bands (!!!) looks quite fun

I hear the Holy See sometimes gets Tourists.