What about the little guy?

[Princeofnigeria]

I'm a little concerned with the new cultural mechanics of brave new world. From the sound of it, getting great works and finding archeological sites is much easier with a big empire, as more things will be within your borders and more Great people will be spawned. so, what's in it for the guys like me? The 3-5 city + puppet kind of guys. Are we just screwed now? Are we now always forced to go as big as we can regardles of victory, even if I don't find ir as fun RP wise? Second part of the question, is that preferable to the majority of you, to always go big regardless of victory?

 

[Calouste]

I'm a little concerned with the new cultural mechanics of brave new world. From the sound of it, getting great works and finding archeological sites is much easier with a big empire, as more things will be within your borders and more Great people will be spawned. so, what's in it for the guys like me? The 3-5 city + puppet kind of guys. Are we just screwed now? Are we now always forced to go as big as we can regardles of victory, even if I don't find ir as fun RP wise? Second part of the question, is that preferable to the majority of you, to always go big regardless of victory?

From what we have seen so far, the only way to get GWAM points, and thus Great Works before Archeology, are either World Wonders, or the respective Guilds, which are National Wonders. Small and tall has a significant advantage over going wide for either kind of Wonder.

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

From what we have seen so far, the only way to get GWAM points, and thus Great Works before Archeology, are either World Wonders, or the respective Guilds, which are National Wonders. Small and tall has a significant advantage over going wide for either kind of Wonder.

Yes, it would have an advantage for quite a long time, though after archeology you might want to start churning settlers for some land-grabbing, or even better, conquering foreign lands.

History-Flashback:

Kind of reminds me of the French sending Savants to Egypt... cool!

 

[Gali]

This is why they added GW swapping, and made all the Guilds National wonders. That way a small civ can leverage their wonder and GWAM production to build enough GW to trade for the diversity required for theming bonuses. You need to be tall to really use specialists effectively. Also get out there with archaeologists to exotic locals and city-states.

Being small and Tall is a great advantage for diplomacy. Use trade routes, DOFs and later Ideology effectively and you can survive the Diplo hit for digging in others' land. Just make sure to spread the hit out.

I'm just so happy they finally made sure you can go culture and not be stuck on 3 cities doing nothing but spamming culture buildings, Wonders and assigning artist specialists.

 

[Calouste]

Yes, it would have an advantage for quite a long time, though after archeology you might want to start churning settlers for some land-grabbing, or even better, conquering foreign lands.

History-Flashback:

Kind of reminds me of the French sending Savants to Egypt... cool!

There isn't anything to prevent you from digging up artifacts in unclaimed territory, so you don't have to settle those lands. In another thread it was mentioned that you can't rush Archeologists with gold, you have to hard build them, which puts a bit of a break on the rush for digs. It also wouldn't surprise me if there is a hard limit on the number of Archeologists you can have at the same time.

 

[JSMCAG]

Where are we getting the information that the guilds are National Wonders?
I cannot find any info about that whatsoever, and the only thing I remember relating to this was a screenshot where they were in the Wonders tab, but since the tooltip says nothing about only one could be built, and it was weirdly placed after the World Wonders (when National Wonders come before them), I thought we had concluded that was a bug...

There isn't anything to prevent you from digging up artifacts in unclaimed territory, so you don't have to settle those lands. In another thread it was mentioned that you can't rush Archeologists with gold, you have to hard build them, which puts a bit of a break on the rush for digs. It also wouldn't surprise me if there is a hard limit on the number of Archeologists you can have at the same time.

There's also the fact that you can only build Archaeologists in cities where you already have a University, so that should also mean not every city will be able to churn out one!

 

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

There's also the fact that you can only build Archaeologists in cities where you already have a University, so that should also mean not every city will be able to churn out one!

I really don't see why a University is necessary. I mean, as we all know, for archaeologists, holding a job at a university is nothing more than a token gesture to maintain an image of scholarship and professionalism.

Just ask Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

I really don't see why a University is necessary. I mean, as we all know, for archaeologists, holding a job at a university is nothing more than a token gesture to maintain an image of scholarship and professionalism.

Just ask Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.

Dr Henry Jones Jr? I don't think he is a teacher... Is he?... OH, you mean Junior! I see.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, it would have an advantage for quite a long time, though after archeology you might want to start churning settlers for some land-grabbing, or even better, conquering foreign lands.

1. Archeology fills only one GW slot. It could be considered main one as it's located in Palace and Museum, but it's still better to have music and writings if you want to play tourism.

2. As far as we know, you don't need to own land to dig. That's the main point of Explorarion.

So I think small and tall will be better with tourism. for the whole time.

 

[alpha2117]

Honestly we did need something to reflect larger civs later in the game. Look at the real world today Russia, USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Indonesia, China, India, South Africa are all massive in size. The post colonial era with increased transport, education, communication and manufacturing technology allows for much larger and more cohesive civilisations than we traditionally had. Things that give those civs advantages late in the game actually reflect reality where small focused civilisations started to fall behind with the age of exploration.

 

[asmartlittleman]

I think that bigger civs land wise will be able to exploit archeology better since you have more land to dig artifacts but smaller civs will be able to produce more great artist, musicians, and writers. This is a nice balance since archeologists will only be able to dig up artifacts which probably won't have the same theming bonuses as great works. This gives both sizes a decent shot at gaining tourism but smaller civs will still have an advantage since wonders like the louvre will have more slots for great works (smaller civs can produce wonders faster with traditon)and artifacts and the great musician has an alternative use to boost tourism. Also smaller civs will be able to complete asthetics faster! So in the end both wide and small gives the player options to boost tourism just differently one focusing on archeology and another using great people and wonders. Plus smaller civs will more likely have better diplomatic relations thus increasing tourism and possibly have puppets which you plunder more great works\artifacts. I like this dynamic as it does not force you to play small to generate tourism and possibly a CV.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Honestly we did need something to reflect larger civs later in the game. Look at the real world today Russia, USA, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Indonesia, China, India, South Africa are all massive in size. The post colonial era with increased transport, education, communication and manufacturing technology allows for much larger and more cohesive civilisations than we traditionally had. Things that give those civs advantages late in the game actually reflect reality where small focused civilisations started to fall behind with the age of exploration.

I dont understand what you are talking about. Its totally the other way round. Earlier Empires were bigger. Now you DONT need to own huge chunks of land to be important. Most of the countries you mentioned were earlier part of bigger Empire. Later it has been more important to have better technology and control trade, you dont need to own huge land mass to be important.

Rome, China, Persia, Mongol Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire... Not really small.

 

[General_Sahib]

I really don't see why a University is necessary. I mean, as we all know, for archaeologists, holding a job at a university is nothing more than a token gesture to maintain an image of scholarship and professionalism.

Just ask Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.

.....I suppose archaeologists and camels are not allowed in the same hex either?

 

[alpha2117]

I dont understand what you are talking about. Its totally the other way round. Earlier Empires were bigger. Now you DONT need to own huge chunks of land to be important. Most of the countries you mentioned were earlier part of bigger Empire. Later it has been more important to have better technology and control trade, you dont need to own huge land mass to be important.

Rome, China, Persia, Mongol Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire, Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire... Not really small.

In general terms the large Empires of the Ancient world tended to splinter and fall apart relatively quickly. Often they were forged by one ruler and they then started to decay after that leaders passing. The Empires of the Khans or the Lion of Macedon started collapsing the moment they died whilst Rome began to decay after the death of Julius Ceaser with Octavius having to fight the cream of the elite before becoming Augustus which forever weakened them. The Romans continued for a good long time after that but after Augustus dies the slow decline began to accelerate as less and less competent leaders took the reigns.

The Empires of the age of exploration were huge but again they started to splinter as the administration of such large empires was difficult with the technology of the time. The British lasted longest largely because the Magna Carta had opened them up for a more diffused style of rule long before they started to create colonies which led to them having a better understanding on how to implement colonial rule. The USA split off as did others though and they struggled as time went on.

The Modern Age in comparison features a number of large stable countries which cover land area which would have been considered huge by most countries in history and their level of stability appears to be good. The current tech levels allow for easy communication, transport and a sense of unity that was rare in large entities of the past.

Look at South Africa - a transition of government like the move to the ANC would have been bloody and violent in the past but today was relatively smooth. Had it been in the era of ancient Rome we would have ended up with 5 or 6 squabbling factions all saying that they were the true RSouth Africa and fighting each other.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I really don't see why a University is necessary. I mean, as we all know, for archaeologists, holding a job at a university is nothing more than a token gesture to maintain an image of scholarship and professionalism.

...apart from the fact that you need universities to train archaeologists in the first place

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

1. Archeology fills only one GW slot. It could be considered main one as it's located in Palace and Museum, but it's still better to have music and writings if you want to play tourism.

2. As far as we know, you don't need to own land to dig. That's the main point of Explorarion.

So I think small and tall will be better with tourism. for the whole time.

Forgot you probably don't need to own antiquity sites. Oopsy-daisy.

 

[wigwam]

In general terms the large Empires of the Ancient world tended to splinter and fall apart relatively quickly. Often they were forged by one ruler and they then started to decay after that leaders passing. The Empires of the Khans or the Lion of Macedon started collapsing the moment they died whilst Rome began to decay after the death of Julius Ceaser with Octavius having to fight the cream of the elite before becoming Augustus which forever weakened them. The Romans continued for a good long time after that but after Augustus dies the slow decline began to accelerate as less and less competent leaders took the reigns.

The Empires of the age of exploration were huge but again they started to splinter as the administration of such large empires was difficult with the technology of the time. The British lasted longest largely because the Magna Carta had opened them up for a more diffused style of rule long before they started to create colonies which led to them having a better understanding on how to implement colonial rule. The USA split off as did others though and they struggled as time went on.

The Modern Age in comparison features a number of large stable countries which cover land area which would have been considered huge by most countries in history and their level of stability appears to be good. The current tech levels allow for easy communication, transport and a sense of unity that was rare in large entities of the past.

Look at South Africa - a transition of government like the move to the ANC would have been bloody and violent in the past but today was relatively smooth. Had it been in the era of ancient Rome we would have ended up with 5 or 6 squabbling factions all saying that they were the true RSouth Africa and fighting each other.

Looking back into the past from the distance of two thousand years warps your sense of time. Alexander's empire crumbled quickly, but many other great ancient and medieval empires lasted for centuries or millennia. To use the Maurya Empire in India as an example, that's a relatively short-lived polity compared to Rome or China, but it's still literally longer than you can imagine, longer than any human being has ever lived. South Africa has only been around for twenty years, and may yet collapse into violence (as an unfortunate number of postcolonial nations already have).

You say there are a large number of big, stable modern countries. I say you can count them on one hand. Compare modern nations to the Maurya Empire—how many have lasted 137 years? Go back to 1876, find major nations that haven't experienced violent regime change. There's the United States, there's the United Kingdom (although it has lost almost its entire territory). Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden may not be major nations (and two of them were invaded by Germany in the interim), but they're major enough for Civ 5, so we'll count them. It's a bit of a stretch, since they had a democratic constitution forced on them by the US, but we could include Japan, since the Emperor has remained the nominal head of state this whole time. Throw in Switzerland, which is definitely not a major nation but certainly a stable one.

So: seven nations if we're being very generous; one if we're being strict.

Now think about ancient Egypt.

 

[apocalypse105]

Then go for a science victory if you only have a few cities you can grow them faster and stay peacefull and get good resolutions at the World Congress like International Space Station

 

[Veneke]

... Also smaller civs will be able to complete asthetics faster! ...

And the Exploration tree - the first Civ to finish that tree has first choice on a number of otherwise hidden dig sites.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Can't remember the source, but I'm prety sure I read that you can dig in another civ's territory. Just don't expect them to appreciate it.

Going wide might be advantageous for the archaeology systems, but I think everything that comes before favors tall empires in the culture game. The artist guilds are national wonders and you'll be able to get them faster if you only have a couple of cities. It looks like great works of writing seem to be the first source of tourism, and the Heroic Epic and National Epic both have one slot for each and the Great Library has two slots. The Aesthetics tree will also greatly increase your culture which will mean more tourism with Hotels. It also looks like GWAM are not part of the old great people systems and one preview mentioned that ther spawn rate is connected to your culture output.
I think a few well developed cities that can focus their production on wonders will give you a head start for a cultural victory.
Well managed wide empires will now be able to get one too thanks to the archeology system, but I think it's going to be an uphill battle against a small wonder spammer who has more policies than you and spends half the game in a golden age.