What conditions are required for a cultural victory and how can we see our progress?

Bump.

Jack,
perhaps you should use the small icon at the top right corner of the main map and add up all the cultural influence for each sector. This is probably the 7/8ths required. You could control every sector with less than total 50% influence (just have largest amount in each sector).

Paul.

You also have to be past the year 2200.

Its May 2199, in a huge galaxy, and your suggestion: "the small icon at the top right corner of the main map and add up all the cultural influence for each sector." is crazy. Forget about gigantic! There must be a better way to tell if my game ends in Jan 2200 months. BTW, I control 5 influence resources (gained 3 in last 12 months) and built almost all of the influence wonders.

Part of the polish list includes popup indicators that let you know in which direction you're moving for a win. If you're 7/10ths of the way towards a cultural victory, youll be told youre on the right track. if youre 9/10ths towards the cultural win, you get a message saying "it's only a matter of time". ANd the turn before you win you'll get a congratulations popup "You've successfully spread the culture of your race throughout the galaxy..." so, when the game is over, you do go "what the hell just happened?" Same will be true for other meathods of winning, we'll be sure to spell it out for the player before they win. Hopefully this will soften the jerkiness of suddenly switching to "congratulations, you've won!"

Cari said "You also have to be past the year 2200."

That is certainly a strange requirement. I haven't had a game past 2193 in many builds, even on gigantic galaxies. I often find I have locked up the galaxy by 2190. Why should I have to play another 120 turns to get my victory?

thats good.

Incidentally I thought I was cruising for a Cultural victory the other day - I was already at 59% and out producing my nearest competitor teh Arceans when suddenly their Influence (shown on the Galactic map graph) started to soar almost vertically and kept going that way. I totally lost the race suddenly.

I couldnt for the life of me work out why, what game changes could precipitate such a massive leap in influence?

Secondly I have just become confused is influence and culture the same thing?

finally, when I was at 59% Influence (culture?) with blue sectors surrounding many other races planets and culture-loaded starbases surrounding several of the remoter ones near my sphere of influence causing one or two of them to show skull and crossbones - NOT ONE planet defected to me.

Then, as soom as the Arceans got into a similar culturally dominant situation, planets started defecting like ninepins and races followed. Why?

I was playng on 'good' but wasn't as 'good' as the Arceans. How much weighting is applied to good and evil that impacts on who wins culture/influence defections?

steve

Jack I agree, I don't (yet) see the gameplay logic in this 2200 date.

I can however see the game mechanics angle (picture two race game, four planets settled, I have three in four turns - victory! 75% dominance). This needs to be prevented - but why not have a check that is more subtle? (I bet you have wracked your brains for this lol!)

What about all planets over level 15 settled, technology reached a particular benchmark which is very late in the tech tree, such as omnipotence or whatever and some other aspects that signify a 'mature game'.

s

Requiring a "mature" game sounds right, but I think requiring the tech omnipotence would be overdoing it as it is real close to a tech win. But requiring a miniumum number of tech points might sufice for the tech part of a "mature" game. It may be good to add minimum requirements in other areas as well (how about: 1). Not at war? 2). trade goods built by all races exceeds 4? 3). wonders built by all races exceeds 2? 4). Terrans have built at least 2 achievements?).

yea - or something like that which the SD Guys were confident would signify maturity in game turns and not happen too early in certain game configs. You would have to have some easy way of keeping track of progress as these are relatively comples combinations.

Thinking about it you could also have some fun tying to stop another advanced race from achieving these things first in such a 'culture race'.

To do this you would have to monitor them with spying and respond as appropriate to prevent key developments, such as by attacking trade routes or declaring war on them (with the associated consequences to yourself)

These aspects also add some nice variation and subtlety to what seems to be in this beta, the easiest of the victory options. Hmmm

I just finished the Apr2200 turn. Per UP, I have 94% of the vote. The huge galaxy has been blue for 4 months. I have 4 turns left for Near Omnipotence and been at peace with the last 2 AI. When does the game end? Where are the Dreadlords?

I would most definitely vote for reducing the effect of cultural influence when at war. If I'm at war I would expect my cultural influence to drop. It should totally plummet if I'm the one causing the war.

At the very least the race I'm fighting against would see an increase in cultural resistance. I would expect other races with good relations to my enemy to also see an increase in cultural resistance.

I would expect cultural resistance to also be connected to the government type I have. An Imperial government type should have a +50% cultural resistance (restricted ideas), with a star Federation -25% (planets are free to leave).

I would also expect every trade good received from another empire to lower cultural reistance by 5% (not too much as you don't want to make a economic victory approach automatically result in cultural victory).

Finally I would like diplomatic options to respond to / ban cultural improvements on starbases in my sector (and vice versa for aliens).

Paul.

Solitair, excellent stuff in my humble opionion.

Paul,

I agree with you as far as you went, and think these would be good ideas for 1.1 (we have to have something to look forward to after 1.0 ships).

I would also expect that some increase in influence would be realised with those races that are inclined to agree with your position if you are at war.

Also, I thinik some of the amounts you suggest are a bit high, such as those for cultural resistance.

The idea of diplomatic options could be a step towards war (if the other side refused to comply), which sounds good to me.

Soltair,

I'm not sure I understand why cultural influence would change while at war. From what I can tell from the manual culture is tied to things unrelated to military production. Being at war with an enemy does not remove the desire of the populace to receive the cultural goods (i.e. music, ideologies, goods, etc.) nor the ability to receive them.

War does block the ability to receive them legally (i.e. government regulated and taxable). In the absence of legal ways to receive these goods, black markets will evolve that will supply these to the other empires.

War also doesn't prevent the other empire from atempting to empathize with the opposing side nor attempting to defect because they tend to agree with the other side.

As for the cultural resistance, it appears to be slightly built into the model in a somewhat backwards sort of way. Improving the government type reduces the effect of morale on limiting population growth (at least according to the techs). Larger populations have lower morale, lower morale planets are more likely to defect.

As for the starbase issue... I'm not so sure. An influence adjusting starbase in your area isn't really an act of war. If their culture is getting too big in an area there is always the option of fighting fire with fire (i.e. build clutural starbases of your own).

Without borders it is hard to differntiate between who "owns" an area of space. The influence map, to me at least, doesn't correspond to actual borders but rather who is making themselves heard the most.

There was another condition. year had to be >2200. Just changed it to 2190.

Mindlar,
it is a well proven fact that when relations deteriorate and especially when war occurs there is often a major backlash against the culture of the oppossing race. This has been clearly seen in most significant wars of the 20th century and across most cultures.
As for the building of cultural influence modules near your systems, just ask why they were built. Cultural influence modules are built to increase your cultural influence. If this is in sectors not containing your planets then this is only being done to influence other races planets. This is a method of conquest and as such there should be diplomatic options to try to counter this. Yes you could go to war or build bases of your own, but neither of these would currently let the AI know WHY you're upset. Diplomatic options would greatly enhance this.
As Jack pointed out though, this may be something for a future update after the initial release. It would require some AI programming.

Paul.

Brad

thats what this thread is all about - having somethng more subtle than a fixed date. I think there are some good ideas in here.

s

How do others feel about having your popularity of other civilizations affect your cultural influence?

Brad

I don't understand the question.

s

I think there should be some negative effect allowing for a backlash against the culture of percieved enemies of the state.

Paul.

I think the protagonists should each feel a reduction of influence from each other, the supporters of the protagonists should feel an increase of influence from the side they support and a decrease in the influence of the side they are against, and the protagonists should feel an increase of influence from their supporters. (Or does some of this balance out somehow?)

Some of it does seem balance out (specifically the supporters-self part), but it would still provide another useful indication of the current situation, and the supporter-enemy part does provide a means to reduce an opponent's influence wrt allies, instead of just wrt yourself.