reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,212
No one needed a mughal fort man.
Isn't a Culture Victory Redundant?
- Thread starter RuleroftheHex
- Start date
No one needed a mughal fort man.
chuckh89
Prince
I completely disagree,...And think that perhaps you are not applying the correct strategies to achieve victory (And, therefore the game lacks diversity)!
And to be honest with you, Cultural victories probably mimic Domination victories more than Science.
*Since many strategies involve eliminating all but one AI, then overwhelming the last participant with Tourism.
The difficulty has "Everything to do with it!", because difficulty often decides what strategies can be applied, and when carried out they have little resemblance to a SV.
If your just playing for fun, and a Victory is a Victory...And you apply the same strategy to achieve victory then your point may have merit (Redundant).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
But, many like the Challenge that the HoF offers, and therefore are trying to achieve a victory in the lowest number of turns (And IMHO, even the casual player is trying to defeat his enemies ASAP)
Morcar_olmig -Turn 104 Victory (Cheiftain)(Great Plains Plus) on Marathon
-Strategy=Domination with 3 Cultural CSs, and Liberty Free Great Musician Bomb
Glory 7 - Turn 148 Victory (Emperor)(Small Continents) on Standard
-Strategy="Sacred Sites", and Liberty GM Bomb
Vadalaz - Turn 98 Victory (King)(Great Plains) on Standard
-Strategy="Greek Liberation Strategy"
Vadalaz - Turn 111 Victory (Immortal)(Tilted Axis) on Quick
-Strategy - "Sacred Sites, and Liberty GM Bomb"
http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ5/ind...tion=Culture&dtSc=0&exp=2&pubID=100&submit=Go
Most Diety and some Immortal Cultural Victories follow the more Traditional path, many involve taking out the stronger cultural competitors with conquest.
*You can argue that these are Elite players, BUT I was able to apply all the same strategies when playing these Gauntlets (And, I am far from Elite).
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
All those players applied different strategies, and the victories don't follow any pattern on the Science tree. And, REALLY only Deity (Maybe Immortal?) requires Hotels, and Techs above the Industrial Era. The primary social policy starter for Cultural Victories in the HoF is "Liberty" (GM Bomb), not "Tradition" like Science Victories.
What you said "proves" nothing, and the "Most Effective strategies" are NOT "conventional, and very similar to SV".
Effective = Works best, and in the lowest number of turns,...The list of Sub Turn 150 victories clearly demonstrates that "Conventional" is not the "Most Effective"
I think if you learned more about these Non Conventional approaches, and honed your skills to incorporate them into your game, THEN you wouldn't have such a strong opinion about Cultural Victories redundancy, and would enjoy the challenging diversity they can provide to a game player.
-
HorseshoeHermit
20% accurate as usual, Morty
Winning doesn't represent reality at all.
And what is progress? Building nuclear bombs?
johnny_rudeboy
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2013
- Messages
- 288
You can win a cultural victory with most civs long before you can win a SC victory. And if you have Brazil, France or Polynesia then you can achieve that victory much faster.
I would recommend to not invest to much into religion but let other civs spread theirs to your cities (and others). Makes it easier to keep open borders, they do all the job but the result is the same, you will share your religion with at least 1 civ, most likely more since 1 civ always stands out with faith generation and ability to spread it. You will miss out on having your religion as the world religion for 50% extra tourism in the capital. But to achieve that you first of all have to invest a lot in diplomacy and will also upset all the other civs who have a religion of their own and they will closer their borders for you and your musicians.
I would recommend to not invest to much into religion but let other civs spread theirs to your cities (and others). Makes it easier to keep open borders, they do all the job but the result is the same, you will share your religion with at least 1 civ, most likely more since 1 civ always stands out with faith generation and ability to spread it. You will miss out on having your religion as the world religion for 50% extra tourism in the capital. But to achieve that you first of all have to invest a lot in diplomacy and will also upset all the other civs who have a religion of their own and they will closer their borders for you and your musicians.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
Unless you're running a Sacred Sites gimmick or are going for DomV veiled by CV (where you basically use DomV strategies to eliminate the biggest threats and CV is left to mop up the rest), you need lategame techs for BNW's CV; even if you are playing a risky early-tourism strategy, you need to meet all players to get the most out of your tourism, which means you need Astronomy ASAP if you're playing on a map where players may start faraway. Brazil, France, and Polynesia need Hotels and Airports to really start their tourism generation, which unlock in Modern Era and Atomic Era respectively, and if even one of your opponents ends up having a large culture generation that slows down your CV, you need Internet in Info Era to have a reasonable chance at winning a CV. BNW's CV is also heavily reliant on tourism bonuses unlocked through Ideologies (Futurism being the main one in multiplayer), so getting first Ideology for those two free beliefs is vital, which means you will want to have good science all the way through Industrial as well.
Remember, the OP's thinking was that BNW's CV has so much overlap in terms of execution style with SV that it's essentially redundant. Despite requiring Great Works and relying on the actions of other players (which is the main reason CV is nigh impossible in competitive multiplayer, because nobody will actively help you to win), almost all of the actions needed to win a peaceful CV run in parallel with the actions needed to win a SV: turtle and grow earlygame, aim for rapid acquisition of Research Labs to unlock key lategame techs, make sure you can afford working a lot of specialist slots later on, try to get those sweet Rationalism policies ASAP, try to get first Ideology for key tenets, use specialists to spawn desired GP's after Research Labs (GS for all SV and CV early on, GE for Order SV, GWAM for CV), buy desired GP's with faith, wait patiently after Research Labs to build up enough of the desired global yield to eventually win (science for all SV + gold for Freedom SV, tourism for CV), target the strongest players with spies to speed up your wait (tech steals for SV, diplomats for tourism modifiers for CV), use lategame hammers on projects that serve no other purpose than to increase victory progress (SS projects and Hubble for SV, Great Works-housing buildings and Tourism buildings and culture wonders for CV). Individual civs might be more suited to one victory type over the other, but all of these tailorings are just "color changes", ie. they are only suited towards one victory condition over the other because they give a direct bonus to only one victory condition's version of the parallel actions: faster GS generation for Babylon boosts the SV version of spawning desired specialists, Brazilwood Camps and Chateaux boost the CV version of waiting for a global yield to accumulate after Research Labs, Korea's science from specialists boosts the SV version of waiting for a global yield to accumulate after Research Labs (but benefits both CV and SV for trying to get Research Labs ASAP and aiming for first Ideology).
Although you would say that CV only requires a handful of techs while SV requires a lot more techs, this is as superficial of a difference as the fact that CV requires a lot more culture/tourism buildings to be built than SV. The extra time and specialist slots spent towards acquiring those Info Era techs for an SV player are spend towards acquiring tourism for a CV player. Likewise, the extra hammers spent towards building Ampitheaters, Opera Houses, Museums, Broadcast Towers, Hotels, Airports, Archaeologists, and culture-oriented wonders for CV are spent building SS parts, Apollo, and Hubble for SV. The extra culture gained as a side effect of having more cultural buildings when aiming for CV usually mean more extra tenets, but those extra tenets are often required to maximize tourism output, while SV does not actually need those extra tenets.
Unfortunately, I cannot compare SV finish times with CV finish times in HoF games because players tend to win via CV-veiled DomV in CV games, which can obviously be done much faster than an SV. However, I conjecture that when comparing CV HoF entries that are purely peaceful (ie. no offensive wars to eliminate AI players), completion dates are roughly equal to entries in similar SV games.
Puhi
Warlord
I find on immortal about a third of my CV come with only getting hotels from refrigeration, followed by the international games boost and great musician bombs. For another third, I will need airports from radar too. Only about a third of the time do I need to tech all the way to internet.
I agree science is important in a CV, but you often don't have to tech too far down the tree to get it done. What really helps is starting next to Egypt and taking him out once he's built a bunch of wonders and great works.
I agree science is important in a CV, but you often don't have to tech too far down the tree to get it done. What really helps is starting next to Egypt and taking him out once he's built a bunch of wonders and great works.
Acken
Deity
That sounds like a good amount of differences to me. Less techs, different buildings to make, often more production required, AI dependent, some different policies etc.
And some games do it totally differently: Futurism CV, SS CV.
Expecting a totally different game experience that ignores science doesn't sound very realistic to me in a civ game.
If someone wants to truly see what redundant victories look like, try CivBE.
And some games do it totally differently: Futurism CV, SS CV.
Expecting a totally different game experience that ignores science doesn't sound very realistic to me in a civ game.
If someone wants to truly see what redundant victories look like, try CivBE.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
Again, less techs is just a manifestation of shifting towards one global yield production over the other (max'ing tourism through GWAMs and culture specialists vs. max'ing science through GS and scientist specialists). The only non-victory effect of building different stuff is that going for CV's nets you more culture for tenets, but because the tenets you'll be unlocking will go towards tourism-boosting tenets (if you unlock those early, you'll be picking up the tenets that you would've picked for SV instead), so the difference in practice is minimal. You don't necessarily need more production for CV, since you can space out a lot of those buildings throughout the game, while you really need a burst of hammers or gold/GE for SV. CV isn't more necessarily more AI-dependent than SV, it's just more dependent on stuff that only the AI would do (eg. trading Great Works, keeping Open Borders, not building up cultural buildings in defense as soon as they realize you're going for CV).
Different policies are an odd one, mainly because there are some differences other than speeding up progress towards the desired victory condition, eg. Golden Ages from Aesthetics and gold from Sovereignty, but I consider the differences too minor to represent a significant difference compared to DomV policies vs. SV policies, or maybe even DiploV vs. CV policies.
Besides the fact that trading science output for tourism means that you have less time to go for techs that are necessary for empire defense (eg. Rocketry) if you're going CV, the biggest difference between CV and SV that applies to all CV strategies is that CV can be passively countered by other players while SV cannot. If even one player simply ramps up their culture output as soon as they notice that another player might win a CV, it could greatly slow down the CV player to the point of even making CV impossible; warring can also slow down the CV player, but why spend thousands of hammers on units when you can spend a fraction of that on culture buildings? Since you cannot sabotage a city's production in Civ5, the only real counter to SV is to war the other player and hope whatever damage you deal to their economy slows them down long enough to secure you the win.
The other big difference would be the fact that eliminating a player can be used to speed up CV, but this is also indirectly the case with all victory conditions: because of the snowball nature of Civ5, defeating a player to get their good cities will give you more production, population, and yields to work with without needing to invest in infrastructure for new cities, and these extra yields could be used to speed up any victory condition.
Like you said in a previous post, Civ5's DiploV could also be considered redundant, so it's not just CV that has this issue.
Why could there not be a victory condition that does not rely on science? After all, science is just a yield that is spent to unlock new entities and/or boosts to existing entities, not unlike policies. Firaxis could come up with a system to let players win by gathering yield that can be earned through expending units on specific tiles or through building specific buildings in cities where you have wonders built (BNW CV), but these things need not be tied to unlocks earned with science. They could also create a system where players can win by constructing a wonder that is unlocked by filling any 5 out of 7 trees of bonuses, which is done by gathering an amount of a certain yield that depends on when and how often the player acquires new cities (pre-BNW CV). They could also come up with a system of allowing players to control mini-AI players through a variety of game systems and be able to win by controlling a certain amount of said mini-AIs as if they were "capture points" of sorts (DiploV), with various rules on controlling these AIs to ensure that players couldn't instantly win by abusing the system (eg. multiple avenues of control coupled with the need to capture and hold these mini-AIs for a certain amount of time). They could implement a victory condition that starts off all players with a finite amount of a new yield that can be transferred, lost, and/or regained through various actions, and the player who owns a certain % of the global amount of that yield wins (as a sort of FFA tug-of-war, call it "prestige" or "national unity" or something). None of these would need to strictly rely on science, simply keeping up with the world would be enough (Autocracy's spy steal style).
The best part is that if there are a fair amount of victory conditions that don't need science to win but also don't hinder your chances at winning victory conditions that are more science-reliant, meaningful player interactions would increase: players who turtle and tech could end up losing early into the game if they aren't actively trying to oppose a player pursuing such a non-science victory condition, and letting players safely transition into pursuing lategame, science-reliant victory conditions would free them up to gamble on trying for earlier, science-independent victory conditions (currently, gambling on the only victory condition that isn't necessarily science dependent, DomV, can turn out extremely poorly if one of your opponents puts up a significant enough resistance to slow you down while everyone else techs far ahead of you).
Acken
Deity
You really do need more hammers. You simply have more to build and the midgame archeo spam + wonders is a production bottleneck. SV rushbuys only needs its gold in the last 2 turns and the endgame surprisingly coincide very well with when you start to bring in a huge amount of GPT due to TP spam.
It is dependent on AI performance.
What do you mean ? If you think DiploV and CV policies are different then CV and SV are different. DiploV policies are even more the same as SV. Only difference is that some SV won't be interested in Patronage... which you won't invest more than 3 policies for a diploV.
War gives different bonuses to different victories. So we agree there ? Differences.
Yes but that is in response to the OP. Considering Diplo to be LESS like SV compared to CV is nonsense.
Whether or not they could be both even further apart is another question.
To be fair I'd like CV to be more scattered in the tech tree for example rather than all the relevant stuff coming in the last third of the game. And finally the exponential aspect of science costs coupled with only a handful of tech allowing you to ramp up is a complaint I also have of Civ5 in general but not really with the CV directly, which I think, relative to the other victories is not more redundant.
The problem you're encountering is the fact that science is extremely important to your game no matter what victory type you are going for. You can't dominate the world if your units are too out of date, you can't win a culture victory if you get the key techs after the wonders are already built.
But like was said earlier, once you obtain the tech you need for victory you can then ignore science and focus only on your desired victory condition. At that point it then stops being a science race.
Although if you try to win a CV using sacred sites city spam, science is pretty much irrelevant. All you need is a ton of cities and religious buildings to win. Although you will need to defend them in some way so you can't be sporting warriors the entire game.
But like was said earlier, once you obtain the tech you need for victory you can then ignore science and focus only on your desired victory condition. At that point it then stops being a science race.
Although if you try to win a CV using sacred sites city spam, science is pretty much irrelevant. All you need is a ton of cities and religious buildings to win. Although you will need to defend them in some way so you can't be sporting warriors the entire game.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,212
Like mentioned earlier, not only CV could be redundant but other victory types could become redundant too particularly if you mastered deity. I dont remember what i was going to say but now that i think about it, theres an exception and that is a different social policy start and path that would be suitable to the victory thats being pursued.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
The difference between DiploV and CV policies and greater than the difference between SV and CV policies. For DiploV, you'll invest a few policy points into Patronage and maybe a few into Commerce. For CV, you'll go full Aesthetics. For SV, your pre-Rationalism policies are wildcards, though I usually tend to go Commerce. The bigger difference is solely because you can make Aesthetics work for SV, while you really cannot for DiploV. It's a stretch, which is why I said "maybe", but the differences between CV vs. SV policies are still nothing compared to SV vs. DomV policies.
Ah, right, post #4. DiploV is definitely redundant. OP might have used bad arguments, but the original idea still stands: CV is redundant, roughly just as redundant as DiploV IMO.
CV is not identical to SV, but it is still redundant. Lategame hammers are vital for both victory conditions, even if CV can make use of an excessive amount of hammers better than SV. War can greatly hurt both victory conditions, even if CV will have a slightly harder time defending themselves after Modern Era because they'll be getting defensive techs slower. Think about the Domination and Conquest victory conditions in Civ4: they were definitely different, and had both had their nuances, but I think it's safe to say that they were redundant relative to each other. Any position that strengthened your chances at Domination almost always strengthened your chances at Conquest and vice versa. They were basically just two sides of the same coin. This is what I would consider both CV and DiploV to be compared to SV in Civ5: you basically follow the same path for 75% of the game, and while your paths diverge in the last 25% or so, the overall gameplay pattern is extremely similar in singleplayer (CV and multiplayer don't mix well and you really cannot rely on DiploV in multiplayer because your opponents can and will stop you easily, so I'm using singleplayer as the benchmark this once).
The fact that science is important isn't necessarily the issue, it's the fact that science is important coupled with the fact that you can only excel in the science game with a set of strategies whose facets all feed into the three peaceful victory conditions identically: specialists and GPs. As one of my colleagues put it, Firaxis basically took the GP farms from Civ4 and made them mandatory for all peaceful strategies in Civ5, with the added bonus that these GP farms are now also your main source of science (and production later in the game).
The point at which it stops being a science race is the point after which all techs are truly optional in singleplayer (and vice versa), which removes the significance of the science "identity": you're all just gathering points in a global yield using the same methods, with negligible effects along the way other than to help achieve the chosen victory condition. I'll continue this thought in the next paragraph.
You still need to meet all civs to win early with Sacred Sites, since you only generate tourism against civs you've already met; on Continents or any map type where some civs can start on another continent, this means you'll need to get Astronomy ASAP (or spawn a Great Admiral and use him to cross the oceans and meet everyone).
Still, Sacred Sites is one the more interesting cases for CV, as it's the one that highlights *true* choice between science and culture. When you start getting your Sacred Sites rolling, there are still plenty of key techs you may want to get down the tech tree: Renassiance-era wonders, Oxford into Radio for Ideology, Industrialization for Factories, Archaeology for dig sites, techs needed to unlock guilds, Metal Casting for workshops, techs that increase improvement yields, etc. The method to generate more tourism (faith production from beliefs and settling cities with settlers produced primarily with hammers because there's a significant falloff to production generated from food) also does not directly overlap with the method to generate science (growth from food tiles). As a result, opting to sacrifice science production to instead go for tourism is a true choice, since you can win either way, but you will need to play quite differently depending on the choice you make. By contrast, you lose extremely little by forgoing science production in favor of tourism after you get Research Labs: there are very few techs that you actually need, and you can still get those at a reasonable pace simply from the remnants of your efforts to get Research Labs ASAP (high population, all science buildings built, all specialists generating science yield from Secularism). Even in the worst case scenario, you'll only need one more tech than usual, Rocketry, because nothing unlocked after Mobile SAMs and Rocket Artillery is a better defender and Rocketry's only prerequisite is a tech you'll already be getting for Airports.
IronfighterXXX
Work Hard - Play Hard
What???
Could you be so kind and explain what makes that aesthetics work for SV, and especially what makes that aesthetics work for SV and doesn't work for DiploVictory?
SV and DiploV are almost identical, with exception of WC timing, so policy choices are almost identical too (for me usually tradition, patronage to scholasticism, rationalism, freedom or order)
Obviously as Acken demonstrated in this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13926385&postcount=157 game is easy enough that you can win with any policy choices what doesn't really mean that they are good.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,212
I would ask the same because if youre going for dipv commerce or rationalism could be useful and for sv only rationalism could be useful.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
What???
Could you be so kind and explain what makes that aesthetics work for SV, and especially what makes that aesthetics work for SV and doesn't work for DiploVictory?
SV and DiploV are almost identical, with exception of WC timing, so policy choices are almost identical too (for me usually tradition, patronage to scholasticism, rationalism, freedom or order)
Obviously as Acken demonstrated in this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13926385&postcount=157 game is easy enough that you can win with any policy choices what doesn't really mean that they are good.
Aesthetics works for SV only when you're doing a permanent Golden Age strategy, though this usually means you're running Persia for the longer Golden Ages. Together with Universal Suffrage, Golden Ages last twice as long with Persia, so if you go one policy deep in Aesthetics (maybe 3 into free Great Artist if you really want) and just work your two Artist slots, you can effectively have a Great Artist ready each time your Golden Age expires, putting you into a permanent Golden Age. The gold boost that Golden Ages give in BNW is minimal unless you're really lucky with your start and have a bunch of gold-giving resources around you, but by contrast, the hammer boost from Golden Ages is huge in the lategame. Lategame hammers are more important for SV than DiploV, so if Aesthetics *can* work for SV (it can, but requires a lot of prerequisites, similar to peaceful Liberty in Tradition vs. Liberty), it is less likely to work for DiploV. The permanent Golden Age strategy also results in more culture for everyone and better combat performance for Persia, so even if it's hard to make it work, it can give you an edge that you cannot get from Patronage or Commerce when it does.
But yeah, I realize my argument for this specific point is fairly weak. However, the difference between ideal DomV policies and ideal SV policies is still significantly greater than the difference between ideal SV policies and ideal CV policies. DomV is the only victory condition that is not redundant, the other three victory conditions are parallel forms of one another, with the only exceptions being Sacred Sites CV and CV-veiled DomV.
Acken
Deity
And futurism CV.
And for domination it also depends what kind of domination we're talking about.
A XCOM rush is almost a SV
A Artillery domination is like a SV for at least 2/3rd of the game
And a XB game is nothing like a SV
And for domination it also depends what kind of domination we're talking about.
A XCOM rush is almost a SV
A Artillery domination is like a SV for at least 2/3rd of the game
And a XB game is nothing like a SV
I definitely agree with this. Rushing artillery or xcom is pretty much like a science victory until you reach those units.
However a planned xbow attack is probably going to be a liberty game getting as much production as possible prior to machinery and flooding the world with xbows.
What is the problem is that your build is going to be nearly the same almost no matter what your objectives are. Go tradition, Build 4 tall cities, Grow, get science techs early and grow some more.
Your build is very similar regardless unless you're going for an earlier attack like an xbow spam. However, an all in xbow rush doesn't do very well in an FFA because the people you hit last will get far ahead of you and be nearly impossible to kill with xbows.
If you want to kill people without falling too far behind you will need to opt for an artillery rush. Even then those who are going public schools and hitting the modern era via Radio will be getting far ahead in tech until your artillery come knocking on their front door. Hopefully you can hit them before they have any good military techs.
You don't need Aesthetics period. All you need is Chichen Itza and time Taj Mahal when you get freedom ideology with oxford and use GW to trigger the tier 2. Tricky to pull off but it works.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,212
Right? Skipping aesthetics and filling out an early rationalism could also unlock porcelaintower for even better technologies.
Delnar_Ersike
Prince
Futurism CV is still very similar to SV: you aim for a quick, first ideology, then spam GWAMs until you hopefully win. You're no longer spending hammers on tourism wonders and buildings or on archaeologists, you no longer necessarily need any techs after Research Labs (maybe even Radio), and you ideally don't work any guild slots until you have Futurism, but you're still following the exact same pre-Labs strategy as an SV player (even more so because you're no longer diverting to build archaeologists and tourism wonders like a CV player), and you're still using the same method to generate tourism as an SV player would to get most of their techs (patiently and peacefully with specialists and GPs).
XCOM/SB rush is, like you said, almost an SV, though the placement of both XCOMs and SBs in the tech tree lets the player get away with avoiding a fair chunk of the post-Modern tech tree.
An artillery domination isn't necessarily like an SV though. Sure, you can go for an artillery domination strategy if you've followed the usual SV playstyle up to that point, but you need not follow the usual SV playstyle to execute successful artillery domination games: against opponents who don't get yield bonuses, the turning point of Liberty's hammer advantage is roughly around Modern Era, which means you can definitely turn a 6+ city Liberty game into one of artillery domination (and 6+ city Liberty games do not follow the usual SV path).
You also should not forget about Frigate/SotL rushes, Chariot Archer rushes, and Battleship rushes, all of which can be mixed with a variety of other DomV strategies. Battleship rushes can be executed along the way towards an XCOM/SB rush, especially if you can upgrade into them, since you don't have to devote less hammers to bombers and paratroopers that you'd be upgrading. Frigate/SotL rushes can also be executed along the way to XCOM/SB rushes, primarily because they lie in an excellent place on the tech path (unlike artillery) and because their strength is fairly high for their era.
Any game that features offensive warfare before Info Era would tilt the game's dynamic toward the DomV-style strategies that are not redundant. If I'm not mistaken however, this sort of stuff plays out very differently in Deity/Immortal singleplayer where your opponents have a significant hammer advantage from the getgo, to the point where it is often better to stick with 4-city Tradition turtling unless you're looking for a DomV specifically.
The other key thing to note is that DomV is the only victory type where you cannot win by peacefully gathering a certain, global yield type that is produced consistently over time, and where you don't win by constantly spawning and faith-purchasing GPs. Great Scientists will help up to a certain point in Atomic and Info Era, but thanks to the tech tree's layout, they're not as strictly necessary as they would be for SV. Between choosing which targets to attack, playing Civ5's combat system, and constantly dealing with the sort of area control problems that are only really present in Civ5 when warring, XCOM/SB rushes have a completely different game experience to them than SV, even if their buildup is very similar. Most importantly, you will be dealing with other players directly, and you cannot win by waiting. Sure, XCOM/SB DomV plays the exact game as SV up until around Radar, but their methods, not just their aims, diverge wildly afterwards. CV and SV's paths barely diverge before continuing parallel to each other: even after the point of divergence, you'll both be patiently gathering global yields through specialists and GPs until you have enough tourism/science+gold to win.
Aesthetics opener is helpful for its +25% Great Artist spawn rate; in practice, it translates to one or two extra Great Artists depending on when you get it. I often find that I need that one extra Great Artist for my last GA before the end of the game.
With that strategy, you'll be getting Aesthetics opener as one of your wildcard policies between finishing Tradition/Liberty and opening Rationalism.
Similar threads
- Locked
