Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Someone earlier mentioned the Civ IV vassal states in passing, and the way vassals were able to contribute to someone else's victory joined with some thoughts I was already having to form the question: why do we need to have a single winner to the game?
The idea of the single winner is pervasive across every iteration and every design of Civilization and nearly all of its rivals for most of game history. There is one winner, and many losers, and it's in the best interest - indeed, one might call it a prime directive - of every other civilization to drop everything and betray every alliance when it comes to stopping another civilization from winning the game, because even your closest' allies victory translates to your defeat. This makes alliance far less meaningful and far more fickle than they should by any right be, because the game has no means of accounting for allies working together rather than against each other.
But does it need to be that way? I'm not disputing that it should certainly be possible to win alone, but rather asking whether there could, in fact, be room in the game for multiple civs to collaborate - and win together. After all, "victory" represent achievements so great that they have never been managed at any time in history - and most of the greatest achievements of human history were the fruits of cooperation, not of one nation or culture going at it alone.
How this would be done I haven't thought at length about, though the existence of alliances of different levels and different types in Civ VI suggest an easy path where a maxed out alliance of a certain type comes with the ability (and commitment) between the two civilization to share that victory, if either of them win. EG, if two nations have a maxed out science alliance, then not only do they both get to count each other's pieces and great work toward completing a spaceship - but the moment either of them win a science victory, they are both the winner. Likewise military - if at any time the two allied civilization meet the conditions of the victory condition that match their alliance type, they win.
Of course, there could still be point ranking of the remaining civilizations, so people who really need to know who did best in all the game could still have an answer, with points granted to represent both civilization's contribution to final victory, and of course again, the possibility would remain to go at winning the game alone. But even that, in this version, rather than encouraging backstabbing and fighting, would encourage both civilizations to throw more energy toward contributing to their victory condition and thus score more points.
Just idle food for thought that I haven't had time to fully develop.
The idea of the single winner is pervasive across every iteration and every design of Civilization and nearly all of its rivals for most of game history. There is one winner, and many losers, and it's in the best interest - indeed, one might call it a prime directive - of every other civilization to drop everything and betray every alliance when it comes to stopping another civilization from winning the game, because even your closest' allies victory translates to your defeat. This makes alliance far less meaningful and far more fickle than they should by any right be, because the game has no means of accounting for allies working together rather than against each other.
But does it need to be that way? I'm not disputing that it should certainly be possible to win alone, but rather asking whether there could, in fact, be room in the game for multiple civs to collaborate - and win together. After all, "victory" represent achievements so great that they have never been managed at any time in history - and most of the greatest achievements of human history were the fruits of cooperation, not of one nation or culture going at it alone.
How this would be done I haven't thought at length about, though the existence of alliances of different levels and different types in Civ VI suggest an easy path where a maxed out alliance of a certain type comes with the ability (and commitment) between the two civilization to share that victory, if either of them win. EG, if two nations have a maxed out science alliance, then not only do they both get to count each other's pieces and great work toward completing a spaceship - but the moment either of them win a science victory, they are both the winner. Likewise military - if at any time the two allied civilization meet the conditions of the victory condition that match their alliance type, they win.
Of course, there could still be point ranking of the remaining civilizations, so people who really need to know who did best in all the game could still have an answer, with points granted to represent both civilization's contribution to final victory, and of course again, the possibility would remain to go at winning the game alone. But even that, in this version, rather than encouraging backstabbing and fighting, would encourage both civilizations to throw more energy toward contributing to their victory condition and thus score more points.
Just idle food for thought that I haven't had time to fully develop.