Classic domination victory needs to be brought back

In civ 4, domination victory was about controlling a certain % of the world's population and landmass (which could be customized) instead of holding everybody's capital. I personally liked this victory condition much more and would like to see it return.

Thoughts?

I totally agree.
I hate this new "feature" that also implies that certain cities cannot be razed! Ridiculous.

ViterboKnight said:

I totally agree.
I hate this new "feature" that also implies that certain cities cannot be razed! Ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Oh, and then there is also that. Not being able to raze capitals. It doesn't make any sense. You are punished for taking cities because you lose happiness, and yet the only way to win a domination victory is by taking and holding all the capitals. It's extremely stupid.

Agree with this. Classic domination worked well and they should bring it back.

Thormodr said:

Classic domination worked well

Click to expand...

The problem was that it was it pretty much all the time before a "total annihilation" victory which seemed "funnier".

um, with the % of world population etc....thats not really domination or china has already won in real life. yet the usa is more powerful than china. and russia has more landmass.

i think what you are really describing as domination is CULTURAL domination, isnt it? which pretty much the usa is doing right now, imposing its culture on other nations. i want to say something about vassals at this point, as part of domination. i do think being able to have vassals, particularly when a nation for no reason says its afraid during diplomacy. if you can make the whole world vassals, CS and other civs, thats a total domination through fear, and i would count it as military and cultural and diplomatic victory all rolled together. and about as rare as horses laying golden eggs probably.

former domination conditions were very boring. now its not much easier but much less tedious.

andreafin said:

um, with the % of world population etc....thats not really domination or china has already won in real life.

Click to expand...

China has less than 25% of the global population. That would be a low amount for winning a civ game (especially on a duel map?). If the winning threshold is 70% or higher that would require China to acquire all of Asia and Africa to win (for example).

yet the usa is more powerful than china. and russia has more landmass.

Click to expand...

Civ rules make it very hard to model a high population low production society or a low population high production society. There is no good way for Civ to model the position of 1950 USA, where 5% of the people held 50% of the world's production/trade. (Although we do have pillaging, building destruction, and tech differences in Civ, which do this in some degree.)

hardcore_gamer said:

Oh, and then there is also that. Not being able to raze capitals.

Click to expand...

Capitals being impossible to raze actually makes sense to me. Rome tried to destroy both the capital of Carthage and the capital of Jerusalem because of the hostility between them and the Carthaginians and Judeans. Yet both those cities stand to this day. Carthage became the center of Africa during the Roman Empire and is today part of Tunis, the capital of Tunisia. Jerusalem of course was the prize of the crusades and is the capital of Israel. Berlin was split in half after WW2 instead of being destroyed. Mexico City is the site of Tenochtitlan of the Aztecs. And, like the song says, what's Istanbul was once Constantinople. Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

It doesn't make any sense. You are punished for taking cities because you lose happiness, and yet the only way to win a domination victory is by taking and holding all the capitals. It's extremely stupid.

Click to expand...

If city trading is allowed and you really want to ditch some capitals, you can give the capital to another civ. The rule isn't to hold capitals; it's that you are the last man standing with their own capital.

You're not going to like this, but I think it should actually be harder to hold and keep capitals. If a Civ has deep unhappiness, I think the capital and any of the former cities belonging to an enemy should have a chance of defecting and starting a "war for independence" against the owner. Holding down entire civilizations has always been a major PITA for empires, and this could slow down runaways (AI or human).

yes civil wars. im sure i had one in civ ii (i think it was ii not the original civ) but one was it. it never happened again all the times i played. i want civil wars! but only in civ not real life thanks