3.5th Apocalypse Era and associated Diplomatic Victory

evonannoredars

Warlord
Joined
Nov 17, 2024
Messages
261
With all the discussion of a fourth era, I thought I might as well chip in with my own ideal 'fourth age' scenario :P

Instead of an entirely new fourth era, a '3.5th' era kicks in once the third era runs out and if nobody has won yet. This isn't a seperate era (no new civs, none of the usual stuff that happens on an era transition, etc) but rather the activation of a 'sudden death' scenario, essentially a massive crisis as a singular sub-era. New 'future' techs and civics are unlocked (possibly with some extra ones corresponding to the crisis), as well as a new victory condition.

Like crises, the scenario is random each time. Global warming, nuclear war (similar to barbarians crisis, except they got their hands on nukes?), global pandemic, biotechnological catastrophe (zombie outbreak?), asteroid strike (similar to Civ 6's apocalypse game mode), volcanic winter, etc. Unlike crises, you can't simply push through to the end. The game is forcing you to win asap or everyone loses. As such, it is possible to instead win via a diplomatic victory by becoming the foremost civ in dealing with the problem. All previous legacy paths are condensed into a single one, where you can earn points by establising global alliances through influence or force (militaristic), researching solutions (scientific), salvaging cultural artefacts (culture) and providing aid to other civs (economic). Note being the last person standing won't count as a real win either, it'll just trigger an 'empty win' with a suitably depressing cutscene.

Since it'd be possible to win the game before this point, it'd probably require for the diplomatic victory to not count towards unlocking things/achievements in the same way other victories do, or to ensure it's very possible to ensure nobody else wins. Likewise, the empty victory wouldn't count for anything.
 
Great idea.

Here's some dude who has floated a similar notion:

 
Great idea.

Here's some dude who has floated a similar notion:
Haha yeah I think the end of the game should definitely have a crisis involved in some aspect, I'm kinda surprised it doesn't - it'd make winning more engaging and less repetitive
 
Top Bottom