Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by TimeWeaver, Mar 17, 2013.
Did they ever track down what happened to that horse meat?
The Good thing about Europe is that there are a lot of people you can blame, and the language and media barrier makes it harder for them to refute you.
Apparently the source of the meat was traced to Ireland, Romania, Italy, Belarus, Planet Namek, and others.
Hmm, the new Tourism mechanic has me really intrigued because the original cultural victory always seemed quite lacking to me, but its current description makes me feel uneasy on several levels:
- First of all this is a separate yield from the rest, such as faith was. However, faith and religion help you in order to gain several other victories since beliefs help you to gain science, gold, culture etc... so, which kind of benefits does tourism provides besides helping to win a cultural victory? I think that tourism should not be one - dimensional, and that at the very least, it should generate gold and happiness as well, and perhaps even increase war weariness of other countries if they decide to go on a war against one civilization that they feel admiration towards its culture (or that they regulary visit as a touristic spot).
- Second, I would need to know more about the whole "making other civs in awe with you", because right now I don't like the whole "there's another brand new bucket for you to fill" type of approach regarding tourism. I think that we would all agree that a cultural victory should revolve about other civilizations wanting to be you, that is, about your culture "infecting" others, rather than reaching arbitrary thresholds. I would like to know in dettail how are they going to translate that into gameplay mechanics if they want to diverge from the original route, which also consisted into filling one bucket
- Third, and regarding the whole "defensive culture VS offensive tourism", I hope that they have took in a account that since tourism is a late game yield and that you compete against the whole world, it ought to have a massive production in order to catch up
- Fourth, I think that it is pretty hard to discern between one and another: culture generates tourism, so to speak, not to mention that the main touristic attractions of countries are wonders rather than great works per se (I don't think that it is too much far fetched to suppouse that the Pyramids attracts more visitors than the original Hamlet manuscript). Tourism ought to be produced by several means and in conjuction with cultural buildings in order to be realistic, me thinks
- And finally, I am also concerned with how will a small empire compete in the cultural race. One of the few things that I liked about the original cultural victory is how it was one of the few incentives that your empire had in order to stay small. Perhaps some kind city - dependant bonus multiplier, or some incentive to create few touristic powerhouse type of selected cities as opposed to spreading out your tourism to several different spots would be the answer to that. The whole "theming and pairing" mechanic regarding great works seems to point towards that
I agree with your points mostly.
Regarding the secondary effects of Tourism. If I read them correctly, these would be firstly the desire to 'switch' Ideologies. If you're so big in Tourism, Russia might want to switch from Communism to Democracy. This is of course a oversimplification (and Tourism is certainly the wrong term for it), but generally, I'd like such a system. Now let's wait how they implement it. Any other effect would need to compete with it's primary provider. If it gives gold, how does that compare to the new Trade mechanic. If it gives happiness, does it make the buildings obsolete? How does it react with the World Congress banning luxuries? etc. etc. I'm hopeful the devs have answers to that
I also don't fear as much for small empires as you do. Firstly, staying small when you have the opportunity to expand should be punished imho. Late Game expansion (i.e. From the country of Australia to the capital city of Brasilia) is something fun, but at the moment mostly pointless in civ5. Anything that can change this is welcome for me. But I'm trying to say if you have surplus happiness, invest it! And you're not small anymore. TALL empires shouldn't have a problem with Tourism if they can generate enough Great Artists/Writers/Musicians to fill their museums. I also expect some per population bonuses to combat that. But we will see
Seeing as how small/tall empires seem to be the favored and easiest style of play, I wouldn't worry much about it suffering. If anything, wider play needs more perks, so tourism is a welcomed change. The change simply makes it so you aren't forced into small when going for a CV.
Assuming the new tourism system will follow the other systems, tall/small empires will compensate in some fashion through specialists, great tile improvements (or, great works), and the ability to focus on culture-related tech and wonders.
For people worrying about small empires not competing in tourism here are a few things that a small empire would be good to generate tourism.
1. The generation of great artist, great writers, and great musicians. Small empires will generate more great people since the cost is lower and the social policies you pick when small like freedom help with the generation. These great people will probably influence tourism a lot especially when you put them into the appropriate culture building.
2. Open borders and other diplomacy things will affect tourism. When you play small you usually have friends since you don't warmonger and take over civs to grow your empire.
3. Lastly social policy trees like archeology will affect tourism. This tree branch can be completed faster by a small empire plus it might not be a good pick compared to other policy trees if you play wide and have some happiness issues.
Sounds cool. I wish you could flip a city off of culture though. That was my favorite way of playing Civ4--being this really massive, passively aggressive civ that didn't really engage in war but could still capture a city like the best warmongers could.
The Japanese have an ancient and rich culture as well. Doesn't change the fact that you can't throw a rock at an anime soundtrack without hitting a jazz piece these days.
Speaking of which, I hear electroswing is pretty popular in France. Hmm, house and jazz... That's pretty American. The French just like to believe they're culturally isolated, really.
I am not sure what to think of this new culture system just yet. Hopefully you can build enough happiness buildings and other means to counter the superior culture of a civ with a different ideaology. In one article I think that is what Dennis Shirk said you had to do to counter it. I suppose the other way is to destroy that civ. Maybe you can capture the culture for yourself to use to expand your own culture and ideology. At the moment this feature seems rather confusing. It won't be interesting if you have to play for culture all the time. If you have to pay close attention to it game in and game out, it could become annoying quickly. Tomorrow they should explain it better.
One thing that makes me happy is there is no culture flipping for cities or hexes.
My guess is it will be similar to religion in that as long as you make some effort you should be able to prevent total conversion. You just won't be able to spread your own with any efficiency unless you really focus on it.
If we are to understand tourism as a way to expand our civ ideologies and cause unrest or build diplomatic blocks, Im hoping there are diferent ways to generate tourism besides the cultural route (great works, museums and wonders), for example, religious buildings and natural wonders generating tourism (that could give religous heavy civs one hell of a late game push) or for autocratic civs, military buildings generating tourism.
Also we have talked about France getting reworked to take advantage of tourism, and it does make sense.
Im thinking how the new cultural game will affect the Aztecs, if we applied the same logic as France, what if the Aztecs start to generate tourism from kills? It would make sense flavour wise with "sacrificial captives", and to be honest, it sound like a lot of fun, to mantain a diplomatic block through constant warfare.
What do the souvenirs say on them? "I was killed by a Jaguar and all I got was this lousy t-shirt"?
Culture is still in the game and tourism is a completely different number. Aztecs are fine as is. Sacrificial Captives is cultural, but I don't see the touristic appeal for foreigners sight-seeing in Aztec lands
Im thinking of how the Aztecs used their sacrificial captives. Think of the Tzompatli http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzompantli or all the trouble they would go to sit foreign embassadors and tributaries, and sacrifice their best warriors in front of them.
So yeah, in a way, it was a very cruel form diplomatic pressure.
Still if the autocracy ideology tree has a way to turning miliary output into tourism it would make the Aztecs really fun to play.
A convenient sacrificial altar in every village, how nice! Those gladiator combats in Rome last year were also rather gory. I think next year we'll go to the Super Bowl in America. Ya know tone things down a little. Whattya say, Mom, Dad? I'd like to grow up maybe just a bit normal, OK?
It's being processed in America, thanks to our illustrious President Obama.
Moderator Action: Please be a bit less graphic on our family friendly site. Removed worst of it without changing meaning. Thanks.
Separate names with a comma.