In order to focus our strategic planning based on long-term goals, we need to determine our preferred general type of victory condition. Instead of including each possible victory condition, it would be more accurate to group like kinds together.

What kind of victory would you like to see as the long term goal?

Military (conquest / domination)
Culture (20K / 130K)
Diplomatic
Spaceship
Histographic


This poll will remain open for 4 days and does not represent a final choice for victory type. At this point it is merely guidance on what kind of strategy to follow. Understand however that if we want to change our mind in the future the new preferred victory type may no longer be possible.

Discussion Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113496)

130k culture win, focused on that from the start.

-- Ravensfire

Go for the military option.

130k culture win, focused on that from the start.

-- Ravensfire
I would prefer a 20k win.

I support culture because it would allow us to play a game balanced between a military focus of keeping our rivals contained to make the victory condition even possible, and a builder focus of getting the right improvements built in the right places. A game which focuses on generating culture combined with the new Civil Engineer specialist allows our outlying, otherwise corrupt provinces to participate in the national goal.

If 20k/130k wins... what then? We'll need another poll won't we?

I think 130K is the deal, forget the 20 K. Everyone agrees we need 130K to balance out cities and create room for roleplay and strategic experimentation.

Why not go histographic this time? ;)

It's technically the one victory we haven't achived. Of course, it's losing badly.

Isn't there a danger that we could end up with 200 turns of nothing to do? Or at least 200 turns with noone except the DP having anything to do. He of course will have 300 workers to use in line with the instruction thread to plant, chop and irrigate 1500 tiles.
People might lose interest in the milking phase unless a variant was manufactured.

This is why I voted for culture. :)

Isn't there a danger that we could end up with 200 turns of nothing to do? Or at least 200 turns with noone except the DP having anything to do. He of course will have 300 workers to use in line with the instruction thread to plant, chop and irrigate 1500 tiles.
People might lose interest in the milking phase unless a variant was manufactured.

This is why I voted for culture. :)

I commented somewhere else on how to make histographic "exciting". We could whack all our rivals down to 1 city and then spend the rest of the game going in circles, letting them expand and then culling them back again. Or put them in an enclosed space and see which AI comes out on top of the cage match. We could get really brave and disband nearly everything, starting over in the middle of the game except for tech.

Or we could stick with the popular choice of culture. :)

I think we should go for culture. histograph will get boring and it will just be 100 turns or so of nothing but worker actions. culture would be more interesting and can get our entire empire involved like others said.

oh yeah, it should be 130,000 culture by the way, not 20K. :p

Military! Let the nations of the world tremble in fear of the very name of the Fanatannian Empire! The sound of clashing swords, firing guns, and booming cannons should echo across the globe!

Bah. You guys and your cultural victory are boring. :p

Are we going to have a runoff between the Culture victory types?

I really wish we could focus on playing the game a little more, and focus on winning it a little less. Ask yourselves: is the fun of the Demogame playing it or beating it? Let's remember we're three weeks into Term 1. I think we can hold off a little while before worrying about how to end this game.

Ashburnham: I have to disagree with you. Doing anything without a clear target or goal is not worth the time and effort. We have to have a national aspiration, else we lose the focus. The sooner we have the foundations for our long-term strategy laid out, the better.

While I agree that long-term planning is, on the whole, a good thing, my question is: is it really necessary? Let's be honest, we know we're going to win this game. Based on that fundamental truth, why don't we focus more on playing the game than on winning it? Putting all our energy into a set course this early in the game will only hinder our ability to play, rather than enhancing it. We will be neglecting other parts of the game at a time when our actions should be the most open-minded.

I think 130K is the deal, forget the 20 K. Everyone agrees we need 130K to balance out cities and create room for roleplay and strategic experimentation.

20k is harder, I doubt we can achieve it, but let's try anyways.

And no, not everyone agress that we need 130k to balance out cities and create room for roleplay and strategic experiementation. Just because you believe it doesn't mean the rest of us do.

We will see. the majority of posters wrote 130K, but you are of course free to dissent, as always.

Umm, Provo, some of us voted 130k did so for very different reasons that you did. I did not vote that way to "balance out cities and create room for roleplay and strategic experimentation." Please do not try to speak for me when you haven't asked me.

I voted that way because that seemed like an interesting way to win without the mind numbing milking of a histograph.

-- Ravensfire

I did not speak for any, I only said that the majority wants 130K for various reasons, not 20K. That was what Blackheart dissented, maybe he wants 20K.

I think 130K is the deal, forget the 20 K. Everyone agrees we need 130K to balance out cities and create room for roleplay and strategic experimentation.

Care to rephrase?

All I'm asking is stop trying to speak for others, and expect it to be taken as the reason. There are a multitude of reasons to support the 130k win. I've got one. You've got one. Everyone else has theirs. Some people have the same reason, some have different reasons.

-- Ravensfire

While I agree that long-term planning is, on the whole, a good thing, my question is: is it really necessary? Let's be honest, we know we're going to win this game. Based on that fundamental truth, why don't we focus more on playing the game than on winning it? Putting all our energy into a set course this early in the game will only hinder our ability to play, rather than enhancing it. We will be neglecting other parts of the game at a time when our actions should be the most open-minded.

You are right, my point simply is that the choice of victory condition is so fundamental, that the whole game played out must be based on that. In other words, our 'mindset' is shaped by it. For example, even if we conquer the Dutch and the Indians, all future wars would (in theory) receive a vote of disapproval thanks to our cultural background.

aaaaah Ravensfire c'mon take it easy here so the eye in the sky does not flicker :D