Late game ideology and massive unhappiness

[Ulthwithian]

I don't think this is feasible, seeing how by the time you get into Ideologies, someone must have met all civs and started the World Congress.

Well, it depends on how early you start. If you prioritize Tourism in the early game (early Guilds, Aesthetics, religion with Religious Sites), you can actually have a fairly good Tourism output and blunt the early Culture lead.

This also implies that CV players should explore as fast as possible. Meeting someone late game nearly guarantees that they'll be the last Civ holding out from your Culture. (So basically, target the last Civ you meet with your Musicians.)

Personally, I'd recommend building at least the Writers Guild and using the Great Writers to create Political Treatises to boost your culture. This is sort of realistic/historical - if you can't overcome a foreign culture, you at least need good internal propaganda.

This is probably the best use of them, yes. The only problem is that while they're always good for Culture, their output is based on your CPT output, and so they aren't going to be huge unless your culture is always huge.

Also, remember that a lot of foreign tourism influence is based not just on their naked tourism output but also on modifiers - if you have open borders or trade routes or common religion, they will influence you much stronger.

That is, of course, mandatory against Culture players.

You sure your own pressure on other ideoligies helps defend against their pressure on you? In my last game I was the only one to adopt Autocracy everyone else went freedom or order, but I felt confident as I had massive culture output (controlling half the map with a lot of cities, a lot of wonders and artifacts). However once they started adopting their ideoligies my hapiness dropped massively (-60 or some crazy number like that), so naturally I checked the culture screen, no one had more than Exotic level influence on me and I had the same number on all of them even familiar with a few. Yet it showed them putting pressure on me but I didn't put any pressure on myself so to speak all it showed where the little pips for their pressure putting me into Revolutionary Wave, they seemed to be safe enough as other civs with the same ideoligies put pressure on each other.

It might be that it counts opposing ideologies vs. same ideologies, and not yours, exactly. That is, if I am Order, and another player is Order, and 5 other players are all Freedom, and everyone is Exotic with everyone else, the Freedom people are fine, and you and the other person are each at -4.

To me culture seemed like a rather weak defense as you only need 10% tourism of their culture to reach exotic, which seems to be enough to start putting pressure.

Everything still needs analysis, I think.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

This happened to me when I was playing as Babylon, but my happiness was initially pretty tenuous. I had adopted freedom as my ideology, to take advantage of Babylon’s UA, and produce more GSs. Greece, on the other side of the world had adopted Autocracy, and my happiness sank to -36 at its worst. I should also mention I had taken over a bunch of cities, and everyone was angry at me. I know it wasn't and ideal condition for freedom (too used to pre-BNW civ, when it could still work out to be a warmongering free society) Therefore, I switched to autocracy, annexed all of the cities, and built court houses, used tenants that make court houses and other buildings produce happiness, built the Prora, and stadiums. I had brought my civilization back from the brink of collapse form social unrest, by sacrificing their freedoms; transforming my empire into a fascist police state. By the time I was done, my happiness was back at a healthy rate. It was kind of bizarre, bombing people who were rising up against me, as I worked to put my society on lock down.

Therefore, it’s not necessarily game over, you have to possibility to fix your civilization. I find that BNW allows the player options to redeem themselves.

 

[Svest]

It might be that it counts opposing ideologies vs. same ideologies, and not yours, exactly. That is, if I am Order, and another player is Order, and 5 other players are all Freedom, and everyone is Exotic with everyone else, the Freedom people are fine, and you and the other person are each at -4.

This is correct, your own tourism has no effect, but tourism from other civs with the same ideology can help defend you. You can use this to determine which ideology to choose so you don't get bombed by unhappiness.

 

[ahawk]

My main problem with ideology affecting happiness is that AI's get extra happiness anyways at the higher levels, so the hit to them tends to be less severe than the hit would be to a human player with the exact same defensive culture. I play Emperor and Immortal games (and on rare occasion, Deity) and at those levels, it's not as likely that the AI is going to really worry about my ideology unless I am absolutely crushing them with tourism and am likely to win anyways via culture.

 

[Svest]

My main problem with ideology affecting happiness is that AI's get extra happiness anyways at the higher levels, so the hit to them tends to be less severe than the hit would be to a human player with the exact same defensive culture. I play Emperor and Immortal games (and on rare occasion, Deity) and at those levels, it's not as likely that the AI is going to really worry about my ideology unless I am absolutely crushing them with tourism and am likely to win anyways via culture.

It is less severe, but it can still have a major effect. One example is in a game I played on Immortal I was one of 3 civs which chose Freedom. I had fairly strong tourism, but not crushing, I was mostly going for a science victory, but I do enjoy a bit of wonder spamming. With the world ideology Bismark was forced to switch from Order to Freedom. Shaka seemed to refuse to switch from Autocracy even though he always had negative happiness, so because of this he went from being one of the more powerful civs to being insignificant. Only the Shoshone were able to stay happy and not choose Freedom (and just barely). In fact in every game I have played so far (4 immortal games) there has been at least one AI hit pretty hard by unhappiness from ideologies.

 

[ahawk]

It is less severe, but it can still have a major effect. One example is in a game I played on Immortal I was one of 3 civs which chose Freedom. I had fairly strong tourism, but not crushing, I was mostly going for a science victory, but I do enjoy a bit of wonder spamming. With the world ideology Bismark was forced to switch from Order to Freedom. Shaka seemed to refuse to switch from Autocracy even though he always had negative happiness, so because of this he went from being one of the more powerful civs to being insignificant. Only the Shoshone were able to stay happy and not choose Freedom (and just barely). In fact in every game I have played so far (4 immortal games) there has been at least one AI hit pretty hard by unhappiness from ideologies.

I've not been so lucky thus far, then. Out of a handful of small Emperor games in BNW, I've sometimes managed not to get any unhappiness at all from ideology (going for a cultural victory as France helps ), but I've yet to really see an AI take a big unhappiness hit. Thus far, the biggest I've seen is Russia with Order at -3 happiness total because Arabia took Freedom. Otherwise, I've not really seen an AI at major unhappiness yet, though admittedly I've only played a couple of games.

So, long story short, I imagine you're right. One reason I haven't seen the hits to the AI you have is that my games have never had the World Congress vote for a world ideology... I can see that that is probably what tips the scales enough to cause some problems for AIs.

 

[OG_Pieps]

Choosing an ideology has big impacts on your civilization but still all ideologies are good. On high levels or with cultural strong opponents I recommend the following trick:
Wait with your third factory. Then observe closely which ideologies the cultural leading civs choose and if they stay happy with it. Finally join them.

Of course it's not always that easy because your long-time allies might choose the "wrong" path, but all in all it worked out fine. By joining the already leading ideology the pressure on the others increases even more and your most dangerous neighbours might see themselves in big troubles after few rounds.

 

[Svest]

So, long story short, I imagine you're right. One reason I haven't seen the hits to the AI you have is that my games have never had the World Congress vote for a world ideology... I can see that that is probably what tips the scales enough to cause some problems for AIs.

Yeah world ideology is pretty much required for it to hurt the AI on Immortal. That's why I make it priority. I have proposed it and gotten it passed in every game I have played so far. I pick the same ideology as the culture spammers, who tend to be less aggressive. This usually forces the warmongers to go into low or negative happiness which tends to put a halt to their war machine. This generally allows me to tech/culture/buy my way to victory in relative peace. If someone is still being belligerent then they get embargoed or some of their luxuries get banned, which tends to push them over the edge.

 

[pilot00]

Now you know how the Soviets must have felt.

Yeah pop music, Monroe and Rambo won the Soviets, it wasn't mismanagement on their part and failing diplomacy at all
I like the fact that people take for granted that a game mechanic is taken into account for real time events. If tourism was the case the Caribbean countries and Thailand would have been super powers now.

@ OP: If you cant deal with cultural pressure there is a good option (since you are an autocrat and all): Build units to destroy the rebels and take out the Influencing CiV ASAP. This will reduce their influence overnight.

EDIT: And close those damned borders

 

[steveg700]

I've read and read and I still feel like there are missing pieces here.

In a game I was playing last night, I was taking a -13 unhappiness hit from an opposing civ's ideology. Culturally, I wasn't that bad off. I didn't aggressively build opera hosues and museums, but I was stilling generating around 180 per turn. That was from a combination of pantheon and follower beliefs, being allied with every culture CS in the game, having an extra point of culture per city from liberty, and creating landmarks with archaeologists, and converting every GA into a painting. I wasn't playing the culture game to the Nth degree, but it wasn't negligbile either. I don't even think any civ has reached "exotic" with me on the cultural victory track.

Many questions:

1) How does Tourism spread? Does it radiate like religious pressure? Does it requires a trade route?

2) Do idelogies bomb each other with tourism, or does one trump everyone the other two? Can a Freedom civ make an Order civ miserable at the same time the reverse is happening?

3) Can a civ pull out of the downward spiral of unrest? Will my people always be dissidents, even if I start building broadcast towers throughout the empire?

4) Does the bonus cuiture generated by a GW count towards the culture that tourism has to overcome?

 

[Meloncat]

Yeah pop music, Monroe and Rambo won the Soviets, it wasn't mismanagement on their part and failing diplomacy at all
I like the fact that people take for granted that a game mechanic is taken into account for real time events. If tourism was the case the Caribbean countries and Thailand would have been super powers now.

@ OP: If you cant deal with cultural pressure there is a good option (since you are an autocrat and all): Build units to destroy the rebels and take out the Influencing CiV ASAP. This will reduce their influence overnight.

EDIT: And close those damned borders

Don't think of tourism as 'tourism' in the actual, real life sense. Tourism ingame is simply exported culture (named differently to keep things simple, I'd imagine). So a place being a tourist hotspot isn't what makes it the victor, but rather a combination of having their culture exported and adopted by the rest of the world as well as being a center of travel and trade. For a real life reference America's cultural victory over the rest of the world wasn't because people come to visit America but rather because American cultural facets (the jeans and pop referred to in anger by civ leaders, hollywood, mcdonalds, ect.) have become so pervasive and dominant.

For an ideological context in the real world we can think about how up and coming powerful and vibrant civilizations would spur jealousy and an interest to emulate in others: The comparatively well-to-do and virile Fascist Italy of the 20s and 30s or Germany of the 30s encouraging fascist movements elsewhere, the Soviet unions stronger hand encouraging international communist movements to spontaneously develop in the 30s-50s (and relying on momentum or purely external machinations once they started to lose the culture war against the West).

Unlike real life, history wouldn't end the second the Soviets lost a culture war against the West, but their own citizens could/would/did become be unhappy seeing greater freedoms and economic opportunities outside of their own land.

Civ's application isn't perfect but it's a very neat feature, one of the many things which makes the endgame now much more than just "choose your target victory at turn 0, build towards it like you're in a vacuum, and then win".

What I think Civ needs is the ability as a tenet or a social policy or building to pull a closed society (The North Korea button!): You get massive diplomatic penalties with anyone not of your ideology, massive trade penalties of anyone not of your ideology, limited to order or autocracy, but you are able to aggressively curtail tourism (50-75%). Maybe make it so the cost of this policy increases with the number of territories you own: A tall civ will do fine, a broad civ cannot hope to pull Best Korea.

 

[Teholb]

3) Can a civ pull out of the downward spiral of unrest? Will my people always be dissidents, even if I start building broadcast towers throughout the empire?

Last night, the WC enacted Freedom ("FREEDDDDOOOOOMMM!!!!!" *chop*) as the World Ideology. I, along with two other civs, had chosen order. With enough mass purchasing of culture buildings, I was able to resist the tide of Freedom breaking on my Ordered shores. For a while, I was getting something like 30-45 unrest. But once I was able to secure myself, I shmoozed like no other and got the WI repealed later.

You can certainly escape from a culture collapse. At least, on Emp. Might not be the same on higher difficulties.

 

[steveg700]

Last night, the WC enacted Freedom ("FREEDDDDOOOOOMMM!!!!!" *chop*) as the World Ideology. I, along with two other civs, had chosen order. With enough mass purchasing of culture buildings, I was able to resist the tide of Freedom breaking on my Ordered shores. For a while, I was getting something like 30-45 unrest. But once I was able to secure myself, I shmoozed like no other and got the WI repealed later.

You can certainly escape from a culture collapse. At least, on Emp. Might not be the same on higher difficulties.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, or maybe I should rephrase my question. I understand that you can struggle against the unhappiness that you have, and that you can try to slow the downward spiral by boosting your culture. What I'm trying to figure out is whether the unhappiness you already have is there to stay not matter how much you boost your culture output.

Is this linked in some way to tourism? Once a civ achieves "Exotic" status, they'll never go back to being "Unknown". If that status is tied to unhappiness, then its irreversible.

 

[Paradigne]

I'm pretty sure in the only game I had this happen, Spain and I went Freedom, everyone else went Order. I had a strong tourist base set up. For a lot of turns I was at -12 happiness, quelling uprisings. Then i got hotels and airports built and my tourism went through the roof. Pretty soon my happiness went through the roof with it. I was denounced by all but Spain.

I believe that tourism alone has the ability to make your ideology preferred, even if it is the least used. I never did make a world ideology. I DID make a world religion but that is a different story (and quite awesome I might add)

 

[pilot00]

Don't think of tourism as 'tourism' in the actual, real life sense. Tourism ingame is simply exported culture (named differently to keep things simple, I'd imagine). So a place being a tourist hotspot isn't what makes it the victor, but rather a combination of having their culture exported and adopted by the rest of the world as well as being a center of travel and trade. For a real life reference America's cultural victory over the rest of the world wasn't because people come to visit America but rather because American cultural facets (the jeans and pop referred to in anger by civ leaders, hollywood, mcdonalds, ect.) have become so pervasive and dominant.

For an ideological context in the real world we can think about how up and coming powerful and vibrant civilizations would spur jealousy and an interest to emulate in others: The comparatively well-to-do and virile Fascist Italy of the 20s and 30s or Germany of the 30s encouraging fascist movements elsewhere, the Soviet unions stronger hand encouraging international communist movements to spontaneously develop in the 30s-50s (and relying on momentum or purely external machinations once they started to lose the culture war against the West).

Unlike real life, history wouldn't end the second the Soviets lost a culture war against the West, but their own citizens could/would/did become be unhappy seeing greater freedoms and economic opportunities outside of their own land.

Civ's application isn't perfect but it's a very neat feature, one of the many things which makes the endgame now much more than just "choose your target victory at turn 0, build towards it like you're in a vacuum, and then win".

What I think Civ needs is the ability as a tenet or a social policy or building to pull a closed society (The North Korea button!): You get massive diplomatic penalties with anyone not of your ideology, massive trade penalties of anyone not of your ideology, limited to order or autocracy, but you are able to aggressively curtail tourism (50-75%). Maybe make it so the cost of this policy increases with the number of territories you own: A tall civ will do fine, a broad civ cannot hope to pull Best Korea.

In other words we agree, because what I meant was that the mechanic as is has no real life equivalents and nobody 'lost' due to pop stars.
To the only thing I don't agree is to what you refer loosing the culture war in the west, the Soviets never tried to win the west through diplomacy or culture. The Soviet state didn't collapse because of that. The Soviet collapse was an economic and diplomatic fail. Neither did Europe side with the US because of its culture.

They focused so much on technological advances and their warmachine that the rest of the state was improvised. Furthermore when you occupy half a continent its only natural that the other half wont like you. Its no secret that the western powers were considering deploying limited yield nuclear weapons derived from the infamous US atomic Annie, should war escalate, they had accept that the Soviet warmachine could not be stopped by conventional means. The Soviets were imagining the Soviet 'revolution' taking root in the whole Europe and were prepered to see this through.Trade with non communist states also was virtually non existent and given the fact that rest of the communist world at the time was in no better condition, that led to economic strangulation. Even Greece of all nations during the late 90s (a western state mind you in the political arena) and prior to the collapse loaned the Soviet union a sum of money.

Anyway not to derail the thread any more, they didn't collapse because of US culture took over, the Europeans feared communism long before the US and had decided their side before long after all they did try to stop communism's spread by launching a force to stop its spread to Ukraine.
It was this European fear backed with economic mismanagement that lead to their fall. They developed technologies, build armies that due to the threat of an all-out nuclear war were not used, didn't care to play the diplomatic game and all this combined with limited trade and living vast tracts of land unimproved and unused cost them.