Which victory conditions do you disable in BWN?

[Cissnei]

Do you disable any victory conditions? Which ones and why?
I disable everything except culture victory and domination. Time victory is stupid, diplomatic victory is very easy to win in BNW and science victory is boring. I think culture and domination victories are the most realistic and hardest to get, and it makes games long and challenging

 

[Doviello]

I disable the same victory times, for the same reasons. But now i wonder how a diplomatic-victory-only game would go, without any city state in the world, since the AI never votes for someone else to win.

 

[NyQuil]

But now i wonder how a diplomatic-victory-only game would go, without any city state in the world, since the AI never votes for someone else to win.

It would basically be domination?

Then you vote for yourself?

Except you'd have to wipe out the entire civilization.

It's actually a new game mode - Extermination victory.

EDIT: "The amount of votes needed to win a diplomatic victory depends upon the number of civilizations in play at the start of the game." Hrmm, you have a point.

 

[Machinegunkenny]

I disable time.
Having a time limit is just lame and anticlimactic.

 

[Socratatus]

I disable Time. I see no reason for this victory condition and it always annoys me when it happens.

Who can win Time? You can`t, as long as Humans are around there`s always a chance that the `winner` might become the `loser`. And 2050? Why 2050? what`s so special about 2050? Will the world end then? maybe. But we and certainly Civ5 don`t know that. It`s nonsense.

 

[Jacozilla]

Other than when going after specific achievements, I disable all but domination.

Time - arbitrary and lame.

Science - lame and illogical, launching spaceship with carpet of doom surrounding your capital negates your impending obliteration?

Diplo - super lame. Whole idea of UN actually ordering world around is a fantasy desired and promoted by progressives desiring the subjugation of national sovereignty.

Culture - actually makes sense, just don't enjoy winning in this fashion.

Domination became harder with BNW harsher warmonger penalties, and need to hold all capitals, so enjoy that challenge and I've always preferred the whole crushing other civs from ancient to modern times war game aspect.

 

[NyQuil]

Whole idea of UN actually ordering world around is a fantasy desired and promoted by progressives desiring the subjugation of national sovereignty.

More like an absurdist straw man employed by conservatives and libertarians against meaningful international collaboration.

 

[duende29]

I don't disable any and aim for Domination. That way if I'm winning, get bored but don't want to quit the game outright I can do DV or SV.

 

[crawf0rd]

I disable time victories. I have ever since a runaway Oda nearly beat me just because he had a ton of cities. I dislike time victories.

 

[redwings1340]

It would basically be domination?

Then you vote for yourself?

Except you'd have to wipe out the entire civilization.

It's actually a new game mode - Extermination victory.

EDIT: "The amount of votes needed to win a diplomatic victory depends upon the number of civilizations in play at the start of the game." Hrmm, you have a point.

Hmm, I would make sure to rush for the forbidden palace, just in case...

 

[redwings1340]

I disable time and diplo. Time just because, even though it probably never makes a difference, and diplo because I don't change my strategy around that victory. I still want all of the city states whether that victory is in there or not, so I think it's a badly designed single player victory.

 

[Yzman]

Other than when going after specific achievements, I disable all but domination.

Time - arbitrary and lame.

Science - lame and illogical, launching spaceship with carpet of doom surrounding your capital negates your impending obliteration?

Diplo - super lame. Whole idea of UN actually ordering world around is a fantasy desired and promoted by progressives desiring the subjugation of national sovereignty.

Culture - actually makes sense, just don't enjoy winning in this fashion.

Domination became harder with BNW harsher warmonger penalties, and need to hold all capitals, so enjoy that challenge and I've always preferred the whole crushing other civs from ancient to modern times war game aspect.

So civ is just a war game to you. Why even play it?

On Topic, I don't disable anything. Disabling a victory condition almost feels like cheating to me since the AI has one less way to attempt to beat me. After all, time and diplo are the most likely ways for them to win, with space coming close behind that. I don't believe an AI has won domination ever, except maybe on a duel map.

 

[El Caballerion]

Question... if you disable TIME victory, does the game keep going until a player (from the other victory conditions) becomes the winner?

 

[burfmeister31]

Back in vanilla Civ 5 I would disable diplo victories. The AI would always stockpile cash and it would become impossible for me to buy off city states in those cases. I think through a combination of the victory conditions changing and my play getting better I don't disable victory conditions now.

 

[Jacozilla]

So civ is just a war game to you. Why even play it?

On Topic, I don't disable anything. Disabling a victory condition almost feels like cheating to me since the AI has one less way to attempt to beat me. After all, time and diplo are the most likely ways for them to win, with space coming close behind that. I don't believe an AI has won domination ever, except maybe on a duel map.

What you're really asking is 'why even play it if you only enjoy one aspect of it'?

Obvious answer to either questions - because, um, it's fun for me?

Absolute bottom line for any gamer should be is it fun for you. If not, don't play. If yes, who cares how other people may enjoy different aspects.

I may be getting the quote wrong and who said it, but read an article somewhere that Sid or some high ranking designer at Firaxis was commenting about how they do a lot of research and strive for historical accuracy in Civ but end of the day if there's ever a choice between more accurate or more fun, they will pick the fun factor all the time.

If it's cheating and/or not fun for you to disable conditions, great - then don't do it. I'll enjoy the sandbox city building with huge warmonger emphasis style I like.

 

[eewallace]

Agree with Yzman--don't disable any of them. Part of the challenge of the game is to get the victory condition I want before the AI gets one of the others.

 

[Jacozilla]

More like an absurdist straw man employed by conservatives and libertarians against meaningful international collaboration.

International collaboration existed thousands of years before the UN and prior League of Nations ever existed.

International collaboration also exists outside today's UN - it's called bilateral relationships and bilateral treaties.

Nothing wrong with collaborating in any form, including today's existing UN though. But in Civ's victory conditions though, the WC/UN is not collaboration when you have no option to either not participate or not comply.

 

[rondiggity]

I might disable Time Victories, but honestly if I haven't won by 2050 then something else is wrong.

Diplomatic Victory acts almost like a time victory in games where you have Siam or some other CS-ally-happy civ. The difference is that something can be done about it, whether it be war or diplomacy.

 

[Yzman]

What you're really asking is 'why even play it if you only enjoy one aspect of it'?

Obvious answer to either questions - because, um, it's fun for me?

Absolute bottom line for any gamer should be is it fun for you. If not, don't play. If yes, who cares how other people may enjoy different aspects.

I may be getting the quote wrong and who said it, but read an article somewhere that Sid or some high ranking designer at Firaxis was commenting about how they do a lot of research and strive for historical accuracy in Civ but end of the day if there's ever a choice between more accurate or more fun, they will pick the fun factor all the time.

If it's cheating and/or not fun for you to disable conditions, great - then don't do it. I'll enjoy the sandbox city building with huge warmonger emphasis style I like.

I have no problem with you enjoying and playing the game you want. And of course, the question was mostly rhetorical, I know you play it because you enjoy it. My question comes more from the aspect of why you enjoy it like that? To me, disabling all of the victory conditions except domination just says, " the AI will not ever win this game. I can not be beaten and the game won't officially end until I win"

I don't find insanely hard games fun, but I also can't imagine a game being fun if I know the conclusion and have no chance of losing. The AI doesn't change its strategy based on what victory conditions are enabled and like I said, I don't believe an AI will ever really win a domination victory. It will still play evenly focused as far as I am aware and have witnessed.

I don't like combat in civ games much, so I usually go for the more peaceful victories. However I always keep all of the victory conditions enabled because this allows the AI to have a chance and this keeps the game interesting. Just my opinion. To each his own. *shrugs*

 

[Yzman]

International collaboration existed thousands of years before the UN and prior League of Nations ever existed.

International collaboration also exists outside today's UN - it's called bilateral relationships and bilateral treaties.

Nothing wrong with collaborating in any form, including today's existing UN though. But in Civ's victory conditions though, the WC/UN is not collaboration when you have no option to either not participate or not comply.

Civ is a game, which needs a winner and losers. If I could just always vote no, why even have the mechanic in the game? No sane person would ever vote an AI to victory.

Fun > Realism remember?