Is science or culture considered a better way to win?

It isn't that I mind settling more cities, and I did see my science numbers go up with as little as three cities instead of one, but...I just...don't enjoy it? Sure I can beat up the AI but that does me little to no good playing against my friends. It's frustrating that turtle science seems to just not work against other players. Is there no way around it?

I'm assuming you've played multiplayer before.

A Domination victory is much quicker to achieve than a Science victory in multiplayer, especially if other players aren't willing to use research agreements.

It's possible to win multiplayer whilst turtling, but not very likely, unless very specific rules are in play, like science victory is the only victory condition enabled.

Science by itself is just not an effective counter against a superior military, and most players realize this. Peaceful victory conditions in multiplayer like science and culture require a strong military so that they aren't conquered, and most people would rather just use that military offensively to end the game quicker.
 
I'm assuming you've played multiplayer before.

A Domination victory is much quicker to achieve than a Science victory in multiplayer, especially if other players aren't willing to use research agreements.

It's possible to win multiplayer whilst turtling, but not very likely, unless very specific rules are in play, like science victory is the only victory condition enabled.

Science by itself is just not an effective counter against a superior military, and most players realize this. Peaceful victory conditions in multiplayer like science and culture require a strong military so that they aren't conquered, and most people would rather just use that military offensively to end the game quicker.

Oh I don't use science by itself, I normally have a fair sized military. Even my hyper expansionist aggressive friend with his massive army took about half hour to take down my city. It had 112 defense and it was completely surrounded by fighters and ranged infantry, covered in hills and a mountain (this was when I was playing Inca). Unfortunately, with him hitting absolutely insane science with his sheer volume of cities he eventually got an era ahead of me since I couldn't focus on buildings with him fighting me and then he basically wiped the floor with me.

I like playing against people, I honestly do, but if expansion is the only name of the game I may stick to coop and AI games only. No sense getting frustrated playing in a way that I can't enjoy.
 
Oh I don't use science by itself, I normally have a fair sized military. Even my hyper expansionist aggressive friend with his massive army took about half hour to take down my city. It had 112 defense and it was completely surrounded by fighters and ranged infantry, covered in hills and a mountain (this was when I was playing Inca). Unfortunately, with him hitting absolutely insane science with his sheer volume of cities he eventually got an era ahead of me since I couldn't focus on buildings with him fighting me and then he basically wiped the floor with me.

I like playing against people, I honestly do, but if expansion is the only name of the game I may stick to coop and AI games only. No sense getting frustrated playing in a way that I can't enjoy.

Actually, come to think of it, science may be the most difficult victory to pull off in multiplayer.

Why? Because all the other players KNOW when someone is starting to build the Spaceship, and if they know how to play Civ, they know that they can seriously cripple your victory by taking your spaceship assembly point aka your capital, and they should know where your capital is.

Thus, I imagine that whenever somebody tries to get the spaceship in multiplayer, they immediately become the target of every single human player. To be able to build the Spaceship successfully in multiplayer, you should be prepared to successfully defend against everyone, at the same time.

With the military forces necessary to pull THAT feat off, you'd be better off trying to conquer them instead. :: shrugs ::
 
Any reasonable human player, unlike brain dead AI, knows when you're going to win with bold notifications in your face or without them. Human players check demographics and adjust. Science race gives you military superiority. Maybe your army is not the biggest, but it's the most advanced and quality > quantity. Although they probably come together. Whoever has a shot at SV will likely to have the biggest territory and population and thus the highest production, which results in big army. Culture, on the other hand, deprives you from both. Your science is on a weaker side (you need a decent science to reach Industrial fast but it will only take you so far), production sucks and hence your military suffers as well. I'll be very surprised to hear about CV's in MP, unless some sort of gentlemen agreement took place.
 
Science and culture are only viable, IMO, if you are playing FFA and there are still at least 4 Civilizations alive in the lasts eras.

Science/Cultural victory should be the same. It would balance the game more.

Edit: In an optimal scheme, if a warmonger declares war on a cultural/scientist civilization, a third one should take advantage of this and declare war on the first.
 
Basically, long story short, stick to single player or coop and avoid multiplayer vs games if I don't feel like playing an expansionist.
 
Forgive the double post, but it seems there's no way to delete/redo previous posts to avoid it.

For the moment at least I think I'm just going to be a masochist and attempt tall science empires, despite them apparently not really being good anymore. That said, who would you consider best at it? I've seen some great tall Korea and Babylon science games, as well as some good ones with a few other civs. As far as I'm able to tell those are the two best but it seems like nobody agrees on which is better for pure plowing through the tech tree.
 
Babylon and Korea are better than anyone else at tall science. You could probably get a good game going with the Aztecs too, all that population and the extra beakers from jungle start will look very sexy after Education.
 
Babylon and Korea are better than anyone else at tall science. You could probably get a good game going with the Aztecs too, all that population and the extra beakers from jungle start will look very sexy after Education.

The question is though, which will pump out more science? At T180 or so I think my Babylon game has ~8 GS planted (it's going to be a slow game, not a single AI is doing RA's with me), so that's currently 80 beakers per turn. Korea would need to fill 40 specialist slots to match that (both have access to the +2 science per specialist in policies so I don't count that in either of their favor), but their UA does give them a few free RA's. They also get +2 science for each planted person but mass production of all GP's just for the two science per plant is very wasteful of GP's in my opinion. The problem of course is that the Korean UA runs out eventually, it's only for buildings in the capital, so once you build each science building you're SOL there. On the other hand, GS's take up a lot of space. Not sure which is better here =/

I do seem to enjoy Babylon more so that's certainly a bonus in their favor.
 
Forgive the double post, but it seems there's no way to delete/redo previous posts to avoid it.
You can edit your previous posts. But in case you have a new question and such, I thinks it's better to double post, otherwise people might not notice you've added something.

For the moment at least I think I'm just going to be a masochist and attempt tall science empires, despite them apparently not really being good anymore. That said, who would you consider best at it? I've seen some great tall Korea and Babylon science games, as well as some good ones with a few other civs. As far as I'm able to tell those are the two best but it seems like nobody agrees on which is better for pure plowing through the tech tree.
Are you still talking about MP? You lost me a bit. :) The consensus says, Babylon is better due to number of GS you can generate and early academy which allows early university and basically early everything. Although I haven't played much with either Korea or Babylon, I'd suggest to try the Inca. Extremely powerful mix of unique improvement, unique ability and start bias. Viable for both tall and wide.
 
I'm still talking about MP yes, I'll play pretty much anybody against AI. I do enjoy the Inca but I enjoy having abilities that force feed more science way too much to not use Babylon or Korea. I'm just having a lot of trouble deciding who pumps out more science in the long run.

Babylon is more fun in my book, which makes me think I should keep playing them even if Korea is a bit better, but if the difference in bulbs is huge...
 
The lead Babylon gets with the early GS is too much for Korea to bypass later on. I'd also think that Babylon is "safer" at higher difficulties, since their science boosts are guaranteed, where as Sejong's can vary depending on number of science buildings or wonders built.
 
So science or expansionist?
For pure science (tall empire) Babylon and Korea will be always at the top.
Inca and Siam are my personal favorites.

Sorry to quote one from a while back, but just wanted to pick some brains.........
I'll almost always try to use Siam for culture, and if that's too slow then fall into diplo/lose to a SV civ. As such am very inexperienced with Siam and the SV. With culture I'll usually just plow into legalism right away, for SV's is the Wat legalism trick viable/worthwhile (or even still operational?!)? If so, what do you do with your policies, as education is not far from rationalism at all. Dip into liberty after Trad opener for a 3-4 city REX then open Tradition? Then after surely even if you got the Tradition extras it can't be good to finish it before at least taking the opener and 3 on the left of rationalism? With Siam of course SP's would be easier to come by, but I'd wanting to be putting 1-2 on patronage left side as well. Would be interesting to see how others use it. Finish Tradition early? Dip into Liberty then finish Tradition before rationalism? Dip into both and hit rationalism? Finish liberty?! Anyone any time for patronage?

edit: seconded on the Inca. They kickass.
 
Sorry to quote one from a while back, but just wanted to pick some brains.........
I'll almost always try to use Siam for culture, and if that's too slow then fall into diplo/lose to a SV civ. As such am very inexperienced with Siam and the SV. With culture I'll usually just plow into legalism right away, for SV's is the Wat legalism trick viable/worthwhile (or even still operational?!)? If so, what do you do with your policies, as education is not far from rationalism at all. Dip into liberty after Trad opener for a 3-4 city REX then open Tradition? Then after surely even if you got the Tradition extras it can't be good to finish it before at least taking the opener and 3 on the left of rationalism? With Siam of course SP's would be easier to come by, but I'd wanting to be putting 1-2 on patronage left side as well. Would be interesting to see how others use it. Finish Tradition early? Dip into Liberty then finish Tradition before rationalism? Dip into both and hit rationalism? Finish liberty?! Anyone any time for patronage?

edit: seconded on the Inca. They kickass.
I tried to experiment with Legalism just a little, but was not impressed to be honest. I came to the conclusion, that Landed Elite and instant aqueducts are better than free wats. With this combo your cities are large enough so hard building them (in case you can't buy) isn't a problem. Especially if you manage to ally a couple of maritime CS early on. Another thing is, you need way too much culture to make this work. Full Liberty (let's say we save the finisher for Hubble of final GS), at least 3 in Tradition, full Rationalism, 4 in Patronage, 2 in Order. It's almost 4 full trees. Not gonna happen. And both Planned Economy and Patronage policies are too good to be sacrificed. Seems to me like giving up on free wats is the least of all evils. Further and deeper investigation is required though. Maybe there is a workaround.
 
Would you consider Freedom or Order a better choice for policies? I tend to fill Tradition ASAP, then get Rationalism unlocked with Secularism and sometimes Free Thought immediately. I normally go into Freedom for the huge bonuses to GPs and making specialists not hit so hard on food/happiness since you need to fill out every slot you can with Secularism (or Korea) in play.

I know filling out Rationalism should be done but sometimes it seems like filling out Freedom is a better choice, despite the 25% bonus to science Order can give you or the two free techs for Rationalism.
 
I tried to experiment with Legalism just a little, but was not impressed to be honest.
ya that's what I decided when playing last night. Plus the extra culture helps put 2 or so policies into Patronage while waiting for rationalim which are really really useful. After that, you've got scholasticism as an alternative/addition to the science from factories policy in order. I also think it works much better than the legalism trick imo.

Would you consider Freedom or Order a better choice for policies? I tend to fill Tradition ASAP, then get Rationalism unlocked with Secularism and sometimes Free Thought immediately. I normally go into Freedom for the huge bonuses to GPs and making specialists not hit so hard on food/happiness since you need to fill out every slot you can with Secularism (or Korea) in play.

I know filling out Rationalism should be done but sometimes it seems like filling out Freedom is a better choice, despite the 25% bonus to science Order can give you or the two free techs for Rationalism.


If you intend to complete rationalism, imo order is a much better choice, there'll be no time to finish freedom, which is the only real big bonus (opener is decent but order is stronger unless you only have time for 1 policy, in which case the freedom opener won't be working for very long anyway). Are you suggesting filling out freedom before rationalism? Sounds....odd, though admittedly I never tried it for a SV game. Rationalism just seems so much better. Would certainly only try it if I were on a culture blinder as well. Rationalism opener and 3 left side policies just seem too strong to ignore for any length of time, and finisher is way way to strong to risk not getting or mistiming.
 
ya that's what I decided when playing last night. Plus the extra culture helps put 2 or so policies into Patronage while waiting for rationalim which are really really useful. After that, you've got scholasticism as an alternative/addition to the science from factories policy in order. I also think it works much better than the legalism trick imo.




If you intend to complete rationalism, imo order is a much better choice, there'll be no time to finish freedom, which is the only real big bonus (opener is decent but order is stronger unless you only have time for 1 policy, in which case the freedom opener won't be working for very long anyway). Are you suggesting filling out freedom before rationalism? Sounds....odd, though admittedly I never tried it for a SV game. Rationalism just seems so much better. Would certainly only try it if I were on a culture blinder as well. Rationalism opener and 3 left side policies just seem too strong to ignore for any length of time, and finisher is way way to strong to risk not getting or mistiming.

I was looking at filling Tradition, then getting Rationalism unlock and the first left policy, maybe the second, then filling out Freedom entirely. If I was playing a higher difficulty game I would say go down the entire left tree of Rationalism, however, especially at my current difficulty the AI almost never helps with RA's anyway. I tend to play Prince because I play with friends a lot and they hate the thought of going higher, although I would personally like to at least try and get myself up to Emperor.

You would miss out on two free techs, a boost from RA's, and some happiness/gold. You might also miss 17% university boost and the science from trading posts. Of course I never cared about the trading post boost anyway, I always build farms or production boosters.

Now, if you only put two policies into Rationalism (unlock and Secularism), maaaaaybe even only one point for the initial unlock, what you could get is:

-An even higher birth rate for great people which would work one of two ways, focused entirely on scientists if you did not take Secularism, or helping you pump out a plethora of random GPs. Not sure which is better here honestly.
-You would also get what looks like a significant culture boost from +2 for each wonder. You're going to be ahead in tech, at least at my current difficulty setting, so you should get most if not all wonders ahead of the AI
-Specialists only eating half food and creating half as much unhappiness. This seems to make me think Freedom would be better for Korea instead of Babylon since you could fill out every specialist slot and be getting +4 science per (with Secularism) and they would cause very little drain on your food.
-You're playing tall so the +33% damage to cities would be a huge help, and with Tradition giving you even more damage I think it would be quite hard to take out your cities.
-Free Speech is nice but not important right now, it is a gold boost though

The big one here is +100% effectiveness on GP tile improvements. In theory, especially with Babylon, you could be adding another 100-200 science per turn upon completion of Freedom. I don't know if that would balance out the loss of two free techs in Rationalism, but it seems like the policies in Rationalism would not give you the same value as the policies in Freedom.

If I was playing as Korea I would say Freedom hands down, Secularism, Civil Society, and Democracy would be a huge increase. Still not sure if it would beat out Babylon though, +4 per specialist, maybe ten specialists per city, is only +40 bpt. If you finish up Freedom you could get +40 from only two planted GS's. It would take a lot of cities, more of a wide game than a tall game I think. With enough cities Korea would outdo Babylon I think, but not if both played tall.

Anyway, I'm not an expert in this game (far from it) but it seems like Freedom has a lot to offer a tall science nation, possibly even more than Rationalism and Order. I would love to hear from more experienced players though.
 
Not convinced on this. I think it seems more appealing because the difficulty level is low and you're (I assume) finishing on a fairly high turn time (from weak RA's etc.), due to the power being in a per turn bonus at the end of the tree rather than the one time injection of the rationalism tree (it has it's per turn bonuses at the top and is available earlier).
On higher difficulty, the RA's are worth more and that policy is so so worth getting. As it's later, you'll also find the only way to get alot out of it is to have the kind of culture generation that you don't really see in SV games, cos you're focusing on tech, but also cos you spent the whole time up to the renaissance stunting your culture, and making that kind of jump is super tough. Also the opener is not that big if you've been doing gardens/NE/LToP as well, and while the extra food is nice, you need to have it for a while for it to be worth it. Unless you got a giant second/third city not next to a mountain, the hapiness in rationalism is better, and the culture from freedom will be much smaller as you climb.
 
Instead of holding back culture to sync 7th policy with Rationalism, I have been pushing culture to sync 7th & 8th with Patronage for universal city-state friendship. I'm still not sure whether it's actually a good idea, though.
 
Top Bottom