Loosing to a cultural victory

vamp07 · August 16, 2003, 07:57

Hi,

I’m a little confused. I just lost to a cultural victory. I was definitely loosing the game. I was trying to do some spying and after 2-3 of my spies got caught the game suddenly informed me that I lost to a cultural victory. Nothing seemed to happen before this. I did not loose cities to the culture of other civs which is what I would have expected. Can anybody give me some pointers on how a cultural victory works? I read the manual but it seems light in this area. It was the fist time I played a game all the way to the end and I had been emphasizing my culture as a way to stay in the game.

Thanks

CerberusIV · August 16, 2003, 08:24

A cultural victory occurs IIRC when one civ accumulates over 100,000 culture points or one city over 20,000 culture and that civs culture is twice its nearest rival.

One of the AI civs must have been way ahead on total culture or had a city with several GW's and all the cultural improvements.

Religious and scientific civs tend to be strongest on culture because of the cheap city improvements they get.

You probably need to focus on having a reasonably large civ with culture producing improvements in your core cities.

vamp07 · August 16, 2003, 10:11

Thanks

Does the manual talk about points needed for cultural victory anywhere?

zorbop · August 16, 2003, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by CerberusIV
A cultural victory occurs IIRC when one civ accumulates over 100,000 culture points or one city over 20,000 culture and that civs culture is twice its nearest rival.

actually, you only need to have twice as much culture as the nearest rival for the 100,000 culture victory.

the manual does talk about cultural victory, but not in detail. the civilopedia might though.

Lord_Davinator · August 19, 2003, 13:25

the manual is useless.. I suggest you read the strategy section of the apolytion sige

gunkulator · August 19, 2003, 14:49

I'll second the useless vote on the manual. It is quite obvious that they just took the old CivII manual and made the minimum number of changes they could get away with.

vmxa1 · August 19, 2003, 15:06

Well maybe not useless, but certainly not worth much.
The strat guide stinks as well.

Mad Bomber · August 19, 2003, 21:39

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Well maybe not useless, but certainly not worth much.
The strat guide stinks as well.

True, but with the complexities of this game I doubt any one person (or company) could have written a good one.

The Mad Monk · August 20, 2003, 00:09

I believe the civilopedia does have the requirements under victory conditions.

Rhothaerill · August 20, 2003, 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
True, but with the complexities of this game I doubt any one person (or company) could have written a good one.

So why did Prima bother? Oh, to make money.

They have some fair to good strategy guides on linear based games, but for something as wide-ranging in it's options as Civ3 there is just no way. Look at the strategy and general forums. Civ3 has been out for a few years and people are still developing new and very valid strategies for the game.

vmxa1 · August 20, 2003, 02:10

Not to metion they game is not the same as the one released, let alone the one used for the guide. Many changes have been made to alter strategy. I stil would have liek to seen some real how the writer tried to win. Mostly it is just a bunch generalizations.