Impossible domination victory on continents?

[tu_79]

I've tried just a few times a domination victory. This is very time consuming for me. But every time I've tried, I end up getting a cultural victory. It seems that stealing all those capitals with wonders and works puts me in great advantage for cultural domination. This annoys me a litle because I'm making an effort to conquer them all, moving hundreds of units, only to see the fun interrupted by a sudden cultural victory that I didn't even try. I digged no archeological site, I spent most of Great Writers and Artists in their special ability, not works, I delayed guilds until happiness was hurting, all my trade routes were national, I went only after warmonger Wonders. If I knew that it's useless to try to conquer them, I'd just conquer half world and then sit and go cultural.

Perhaps in pangea it is possible to achieve the domination victory, but I can't get it on continents. I think that being constantly at war should affect tourism more than it does now. I woudn't visit a country that is at war for leisure.

BTW, the new siege unit is really good. The jump is not so huge as before.

 

[Funak]

I think that being constantly at war should affect tourism more than it does now. I woudn't visit a country that is at war for leisure.

On the other hand we don't want to be able to completely shut down a civs tourism-victory simply by DoWing them. You already pretty much kill half their tourism output towards you by doing it.

 

[tu_79]

On the other hand we don't want to be able to completely shut down a civs tourism-victory simply by DoWing them. You already pretty much kill half their tourism output towards you by doing it.

Well, it doesn't seem to be enough. If I had made some effort in having some tourism then I would understand. But I pretty much ignored everything about tourism and I still were two capitals from a domination victory when I culturally dominated everyone (King, continents, pretty standard). That prevents achieving domination victory, and it means that I spent last four hours in something completely useless. That's what really annoys me. What's the point in killing more enemy units, in taking two or three more cities, if I'm going to get the same just sitting?

It's such a pity because AI was putting a good fight. It made some smart moves that delayed me more than I expected. It opened two main fronts and throw even a diversion. I cannot brag for finish it off. Have I to play in Pangea to achieve this?

EDIT: For peaceful players that don't want a DoW to prevent all tourism, it could be allowed to have just concerts unrestricted. I mean, slowing all tourism to 25% when at war with that civ, but eating full tourism from the concert tour. That's risky because the Great Musician can be killed if you aren't winning some battles.

 

[Funak]

Just to clear things out. What you want is something that stops tourism from snowballing conquest. What I'm saying is that your suggestion would kill the ability to win a tourism victory without conquest.

 

[tu_79]

I understand your concern. If passive tourism pressure is reduced too much by a state of war, it can be worked out with stronger Great Musicians. For most civs, nothing changes. For peaceful civs that need to influence a warmonger that is at war, they would need to send their musicians well protected. If the warmonger is threatening seriously, you'd need to make a hole in its defenses (you'll need to win battles anyway), if it was just a bluff it would be easy to do the concert. For aggressive civs, this would stop them for culturally influence the civs they are at war with (but after peace is declared, the loser migth be influenced faster due to the lost of its cultural assets).

 

[Funak]

How about just having capitals count as like 5 cities when counting number of cities for tourism-bonuses? or something along those lines?

 

[tu_79]

How about just having capitals count as like 5 cities when counting number of cities for tourism-bonuses? or something along those lines?

So, as more capitals you control less tourism output? It could work, I guess.

EDIT: Because some of those capitals you conquer are going to have many wonders and great works, it's not so bad to punish tourism for this concept. The more I think of it, the more I like it.

 

[Enginseer]

Or you nerf the amount of tourism you get for "eliminating a civilization"

 

[tu_79]

Or you nerf the amount of tourism you get for "eliminating a civilization"

That would be unfair. If another civ takes a capital and I just take the rest, why should be I more punished. It is in capitals where most of wonders are built. This time I like Funak's solution best.

 

[Bromar1]

Here's an idea:

Take away most of the tourism reward for winning a war or capturing a city. To make up for it, give Arenas "Whenever you win a war or capture a city, receive X tourism."

This way, being a cultural warmonger can still be powerful but you have to invest in Tourism related buildings first to reap the rewards. This creates a nice tension between choosing to build an army before or after your tourism buildings and creates more interesting decisions, thus making tourism something you have to put effort into instead of having it as a side effect of conquering everything.

 

[ElliotS]

I feel like you're just being slow in your domination victory. I've almost never gotten late game in even huge maps domination victories. Of course with a crippled culture output you'll smother them, but it still takes longer than a knife to the face in my experience.

 

[tu_79]

I feel like you're just being slow in your domination victory. I've almost never gotten late game in even huge maps domination victories. Of course with a crippled culture output you'll smother them, but it still takes longer than a knife to the face in my experience.

I was slow because I needed to wait until Astronomy for the next assault (if winning at 270 turns is slow in King, standard), as three other civs were waiting in another continent. With Authority, if I don't hit someone, science goes slow. Besides, AI seems to have the same problem as me. Also, AI did well to delay me buying a CS just in my face before declaring war while I was busy fighting in other places. I needed to hold still in that side while I put an end to the first war. I just missed two capitals and was on my way to capture the next. Most of my other games ended about turn 350, even 400, so it took me by surprise that the cultural victory came so early. I had like 80 unhappiness (war weariness I suppose), I couldn't imagine that my tourism was so high.

 

[tu_79]

Here's an idea:

Take away most of the tourism reward for winning a war or capturing a city. To make up for it, give Arenas "Whenever you win a war or capture a city, receive X tourism."

This way, being a cultural warmonger can still be powerful but you have to invest in Tourism related buildings first to reap the rewards. This creates a nice tension between choosing to build an army before or after your tourism buildings and creates more interesting decisions, thus making tourism something you have to put effort into instead of having it as a side effect of conquering everything.

Arenas are going to be built sooner rather than later. As a warmonger you want hammers and barracks, arena is the obvious next building on the list. If any, I'd say Hotels are the tourism focused buildings, so to give your idea some credit, all tourism could be negated in conquered cities until Hotels get built (but it looks difficult to code). By the way, we get tourism for capturing cities? This is as if people wanted to visit Berlin just after USSR captured the city. It makes sense to visit the city after the war, to see those monuments if they are still standing... And I don't think worldwide people were more culturally influenced by Russia just because they annexed Crimea.

 

[merill]

-100% tourism output in captured cities without hotel?

 

[ElliotS]

I'm just saying that my experience shows this is more of an aberration than anything, and thus we shouldn't bother considering balance changes.

 

[tu_79]

I'm just saying that my experience shows this is more of an aberration than anything, and thus we shouldn't bother considering balance changes.

Just to focus, what settings do you play with and how many turns do you need for domination victory?

EDIT: I wouldn't use the word aberration to describe that, it's quite rude. And your reason sounds quite weak: because you can win very fast and you don't notice this problem, that's not a problem. If I was pushing for a diplomatic victory and suddenly won a scientific victory, I wouldn't be happy either. If it happened that building your second spaceship part gives you votes enough to win, something is wrong. Or if befriending another CS suddenly gave tourism enough to achieve the cultural victory without the usual cultural buildings.
Right now you can win culturally ignoring culture, just conquer those who have.
I accept Gazebo's vision that a civ who scores too low in something cannot win, so we need to keep a few CS allied, we need to produce some tourism, we need a sizeable army and we need to keep the pace with techs, no matter the chosen victory path. But getting the cultural victory just because you steal some wonderful cities feels wrong to me.
The reason for a warmonger to take those cities is to prevent the other civs from winning, so he can keep gulbing the world undisturbed. Removing a contender is quite a reward in itself.

Both Funak and Bromar1 solutions could slow tourism snowballing from conquest. These don't prevent a warmonger from getting a cultural victory should the player choose so, but would prevent getting this victory if the player just wanted to fight.

 

[Enginseer]

Let's be honest it's just that cultural victories is much easier to achieve. Since you have early tourism from events and arenas while the only thing additional about the requirement of a cultural victory is that you need an ideology. Heck, I usually head toward the aesthetic policy and I get the 3 weakest out of 21 civs influential already which paves the path onto a cultural victory.

 

[Funak]

Let's be honest it's just that cultural victories is much easier to achieve. Since you have early tourism from events and arenas while the only thing additional about the requirement of a cultural victory is that you need an ideology. Heck, I usually head toward the aesthetic policy and I get the 3 weakest out of 21 civs influential already which paves the path onto a cultural victory.

Completely depends on situation. The less players in the game the easier domination gets, domination is also the only victory-condition in the game which you can (realistically) finish before the renaissance (honestly can't remember the era requirement associated with ideologies as finishing three policy-trees earlier than that is close to impossible anyways).
Domination is also snowball galore, even with the penalties associated with capturing capitals, the more cities you capture and the more AI you destroy the easier the game gets.

 

[tu_79]

Completely depends on situation. The less players in the game the easier domination gets, domination is also the only victory-condition in the game which you can (realistically) finish before the renaissance (honestly can't remember the era requirement associated with ideologies as finishing three policy-trees earlier than that is close to impossible anyways).
Domination is also snowball galore, even with the penalties associated with capturing capitals, the more cities you capture and the more AI you destroy the easier the game gets.

Yet this can be countered. If you start with a warmonger at your side, you know you need more units, meaning your progress in other areas are slowered. The warmonger being you against the AI is somewhat different because you can match the AI having fewer units and being smarter.
I though what made easier the domination victory was map size, but perhaps number of civs also plays a role.

Let's be honest it's just that cultural victories is much easier to achieve. Since you have early tourism from events and arenas while the only thing additional about the requirement of a cultural victory is that you need an ideology. Heck, I usually head toward the aesthetic policy and I get the 3 weakest out of 21 civs influential already which paves the path onto a cultural victory.

Yeah, that could be. At least in my games I always seem to get very near to cultural win. I've been able to reach the scientific victory and the diplomatic one, but it looks like a race against the cultural one, not against the other civs. But for the domination one, I'm really behind.

 

[ElliotS]

Just to focus, what settings do you play with and how many turns do you need for domination victory?

EDIT: I wouldn't use the word aberration to describe that, it's quite rude. And your reason sounds quite weak: because you can win very fast and you don't notice this problem, that's not a problem. If I was pushing for a diplomatic victory and suddenly won a scientific victory, I wouldn't be happy either. If it happened that building your second spaceship part gives you votes enough to win, something is wrong. Or if befriending another CS suddenly gave tourism enough to achieve the cultural victory without the usual cultural buildings.
Right now you can win culturally ignoring culture, just conquer those who have.
I accept Gazebo's vision that a civ who scores too low in something cannot win, so we need to keep a few CS allied, we need to produce some tourism, we need a sizeable army and we need to keep the pace with techs, no matter the chosen victory path. But getting the cultural victory just because you steal some wonderful cities feels wrong to me.
The reason for a warmonger to take those cities is to prevent the other civs from winning, so he can keep gulbing the world undisturbed. Removing a contender is quite a reward in itself.

Both Funak and Bromar1 solutions could slow tourism snowballing from conquest. These don't prevent a warmonger from getting a cultural victory should the player choose so, but would prevent getting this victory if the player just wanted to fight.

First: Aberration - Noun "a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome." How is that rude?

I'm saying that such a thing hasn't happened to me, and 90% of my victories are conquest. (Some have been close.)

I play either huge on immortal or standard on deity. Immortal is beginning to feel much too easy though, so I'm mostly torturing myself with Deity. (Such an insane difficulty gap holy horsehocky.) I play a number of civs, but almost exclusively on Tectonic map script. Also exclusively on epic.

As I said, I win 90% of the time with a domination victory. I've never had an unexpected cultural victory stop me, hence why I described such a thing as an aberration. I'm entirely unconvinced that we should do anything, but that's just my opinion.