BNW Culture Victory and Number of Cities.
The new culture victory is revamped to no longer be linked to the accruement of social policies but does that mean one can recklessly create new cities? Here are a few questions I have been wondering about:
• Do new cities still increase the culture cost of new social policies by 30%?
• Is a wide empire now more likely to win a culture victory than a tall one?
• Social policies help any civilization, but the culture victory seems more sensitive to social policies than other victory conditions. What policies are considered critical for a cultural victory?
• Offensive tourism, how do you target a civilization to culturally dominate?
• If a civilization increases its cultural gain to offset a new city, is it more desirable to make the new city?
I'm looking forward to a healthy discussion!
It's all tourism based so more cities means more slots for great works. More potential for workable landmarks after archeology. More antiquity sites in your borders even if they're not good for land marks. More cities to crank out troops for war to steal works and wonders. The only drawback I really see is that expansion can kind of slow you down on wonders which can be good for tourism but even wide empires can build wonders. Oh and it might mean getting through aesthetics takes longer but I think that can be overcome easily enough if you are producing enough culture. The other benefit to going wide is that it should take longer for other civs to influence you with their tourism since going wide generally means more culture even if you're getting fewer policies.
In my opinion its flipped, wider seems better for culture.
I agree, wide seems to be better, especially with the Reformation Belief "Sacred Sites", which provides 2 tourism for each Pagoda, Mosque, Cathedral and Monastery.
One remark though: you need at least one tall city as well. Probably the capital, because you want it to grow to make more money from city connections. You need a tall city to build wonders and to support specialists. Apart from that, wide seems to be the way to go.
Answers to your bullet points, numbers 1, 3, and 4.
Originally Posted by Shadows
I’m almost positive that new cities increase the cost of policies by 10%, not 30%.
Critical for a culture victory would be the Aesthetics policy branch.
Offensive tourism: get open borders, a trade route, shared religion, and shared ideology. Each of these modifies your tourism output to that civ by 25%.
My experience with Immortal level (and earlier, I expect) is that you can generally get to the Hotel and Airport techs before they do, and then Internet (because why not?). The massive boosts you get to tourism from all of those mean that even without open borders , shared religion, etc., you can often overwhelm them with your tourism-y goodness.
Also, the diplomats that you send to other civs will increase your tourism output o that civ by 25%. You can also send your great musicians into their borders and expend them, giving you a massive one time tourism boost based on the tourism outputed on the turn that the musician was created.
Originally Posted by IslandBlue
I concur with Robrechtds and VicRatlhead51, going wide will definitely increase your tourism output overall. Since you will have more museums, amphitheaters, etc... Another strategy, is to take the capitals of enemy civs that have a relatively large tourism output. This will increase your tourism by a large amount! This now makes a cultural victory a good fallback plan for a domination victory gone awry.
Keep in mind that things like trade routes and shared religion will give them a bonus too. If their tourism output is higher than yours, you might be better off not setting up trade routes to them, as the 25% extra they get will give them more than the 25% you get. Another good idea regarding open borders is to buy it from the other civs. A non peeved off civ will often give you their open borders for 1 or 2 GPT, meaning you can get the 25% bonus while they won't get it. I'm not sure that having a shared ideology gives a bonus, but having a different ideology gives a -34% penalty to both civs.
Originally Posted by IslandBlue
This only applies if the target civ has a different ideology. At that point you're already getting the -34% penalty for differing ideology, so the 25% bonus from the diplomat doesn't even counter the penalty. In saying that, it's a very good idea to assign diplomats to civs with different ideologies if there is a danger of them getting away from you.
Originally Posted by Ak1hiro
Having the same ideology doesnt give a bonus, it's only a plus for diplomacy. On the other hand: if you go order you can choose a tenet that gives you a 34% bonus with others civs who also have order.
Originally Posted by Strudo76
On the other hand, having a different Ideology causes a -34% on your tourism spread...
Originally Posted by Robrechtds
But if you have enough tourism you can get civs with other ideologies to get lots of unhappiness penalties. If you chose order, you can get a tenet which gives 34% bonus to civs with less happiness. Beautiful synergy! Order rules for wide cultural victory.