Ideologies are good for 3/4 Victory Types

okay so the possible combinations are:

1. Domination, Diplomatic, Culture
2. Diplomatic, Culture, Science
3. Culture, Science, Domination
4. Science, Domination, Diplomatic

-Since Freedom and Order mentioned to be good at Science, Autocracy has to be 1.
-Freedom is no doubt has a Culture so it has to be 2 or 3. Since Diplomatic seems to make more sense for Freedom than Domination then 2 is more likely.
-Order is 3 or 4. but since Autocracy and Freedom have Culture in 1, 2 or 3, Order has to be weak at Culture and be 4.

Domination will be Autocratic Nazi Germany army or Order Russia Red Army.
Culture will be spread peacefully by Freedom or forcefully by Autocracy.
Science space-race will be America's Freedom way of buying things up with money or USSR's putting all their industrial might to production hammers.

In summary, if 1,2,4 are what the ideologies will work for, then there are 2 ways to go Domination, 3 ways for Diplomatic, 2 ways for Culture, 2 ways for Science. I think this is in line with the G&K ideas, where old Order = Science, Autocracy = Domination, Freedom = Culture, and there were no clear social policies for Diplomatic in Industrial (although Patronage and Commerce take care of Diplomatic good enough).

With everything above, what ideology from real life would fit 3?
 
I don't believe that part of the article. I don't think they'll close off a victory condition to you based on ideological choice, and Beach didn't say that when he made the comment that spawned the OP. That article is just going off of the video from what I can tell, and a misinterpretation happened along the way.
 
According to this article, each ideology will actually lock you out of one of the four victory conditions. Which makes ideology choice even more important.

They are calling Portuguese UU Nao and there are also some other mistakes. Ed Beach did not say that so I dont believe it.
 
Why are you guys thinking that these will make that big of a difference? A lot of games would be won before these come much into play and even if they do, probably only a couple of them would be significant - much like certain policies are now. You wouldn't "need" anything to win, so to speak (just like you can go Piety for the fun of it while conquering everyone).
 
Why are you guys thinking that these will make that big of a difference? A lot of games would be won before these come much into play and even if they do, probably only a couple of them would be significant - much like certain policies are now. You wouldn't "need" anything to win, so to speak (just like you can go Piety for the fun of it while conquering everyone).

You have to choose an ideology. That ideology has diplomatic ramifications.
 
and diplomatic ramifications can be largely ignored.

Except if you value the friendships with other civs (I can think of several reasons, including role-playing reasons). If anything, I like civs with different victory goals so there's less direct competition. By forcing civs to foreclose a victory condition, you make it so civs that are friends are their greatest competitors.
 
Except if you value the friendships with other civs (I can think of several reasons, including role-playing reasons). If anything, I like civs with different victory goals so there's less direct competition. By forcing civs to foreclose a victory condition, you make it so civs that are friends are their greatest competitors.

And that is one of the fears that I have - making the game more palatable towards role-players. The AI are all your opponents, you either beat them or use (i.e., take advantage of) them to win, esp. as an ATM. Ideally, there should not be any "locked-in" victory traits because just as with human players, they should play to the map, conditions and geopolitical situations (e.g., recognizing runaways). I know how gaining influence with city-states can be crucial towards winning any of the victories but they're pawns.
 
It's possible to make it palatable to role-players without seriously harming strategy.
 
According to this article, each ideology will actually lock you out of one of the four victory conditions. Which makes ideology choice even more important.

If that is true that would honestly kinda ruin the game for me. Plus it doesn't make a lot of sense. Nazi Germany was the first country to send a rocket into space. Britain, France and America have all had (or still have) large overseas possessions that have covered over half of the world's land mass. The Soviet Union had many culturally significant landmarks and tried to become a utopia. Shutting them out of those kind of victories would ruin the game in many cases.
For example:

The French Republic (Freedom) is gearing up for a space race against the People's Republic of Brazil (Order) and the Greater Zulu Nation (Autocracy). The Zulu decide to invade Brazil and end up conquering half the country including its capital and most productive cities, knocking them out of the space race. Come to find out the Zulu can't even build rocket parts makes France going to be the uncontested victor in the game since they are on a different continent and has plenty of overseas allies to fight the Zulu in the event of a war.
 
If that is true that would honestly kinda ruin the game for me.

Not to worry - the article was entirely based on the Rev3Games video we all saw this morning, and we analyzed it much more thoroughly than PCGamer did. :coffee:
 
Guys, let's be honest, locking down a victory type is needlessly circuitous and wouldn't actually have any affect on the game so it would just be a waste of programming on the developer side. If I'm freedom, and I'm locked out of domination, I just conquer the world and then switch to Order. Domination VC for me! Same for any condition. All that serves to do is break game flow and immersion, so they're not going to waste their resources coding that logic.
 
Guys, let's be honest, locking down a victory type is needlessly circuitous and wouldn't actually have any affect on the game so it would just be a waste of programming on the developer side. If I'm freedom, and I'm locked out of domination, I just conquer the world and then switch to Order. Domination VC for me! Same for any condition. All that serves to do is break game flow and immersion, so they're not going to waste their resources coding that logic.

That's why we're all pretty much rejecting it immediately; it makes no sense.
 
Are there machines generating all these incorrect-info articles about BNW? Is that what happens?
Machine writing programs are tested out on gamers expecting a new release to tell if we can distinguish the terrible grammar and collage of known info from a legit Human author?

Why are there so many bad incorrect articles out there on this game?
 
Top Bottom