A New Way to Diplomatic Victory!

[Albow]

Diplomatic Victory, as it currently stands, does not make a whole bunch of sense, nor is it much fun (unless the game was really really close). Basically, go big, sign MPPs, build UN and there you have it. Victory.

My proposal is this: Diplomatic Victory should be a bit like cultural victory, its about getting enough points (lets assume 10000 but could be any number).

So, you need 10000 Diplomatic points to 'win' a diplo victory. So, how do you ge diplomatic points?

1. You gain X number of points per turn if you are elected chief of UN (no auto victory, but certainly a good way toowards it)

2. You gain X number of points if you give a city back to another civ, who was your ally during a war against someone else (like the US liberating France in WW2)

3. If you end a war between 2 other civs (this of course would mean such a diplomatic option would need to be added)

and mostly, I think a diplomatic win should be based on how many multicultural cities you have.

What is a multicultural city? A city where there are citizens from 2 or more civs (ie Zulu and Roman). This would need to change the game mechanics so that cultural assimilation is either an option (like a fascist govt or dictatorship) or player has some control over.

I think that for every city that is multicultural, you should gain 1 diplo point per turn. 2 per turn if there are 3 nationalities and 5 per turn for 3 nationalities or more.

This would change the feel of civ dramatically! You would have empires seeking out citizens from others to come and live with them. The drawback of course is that if you start a war with these other cultures, their citizens within your empire will be unhappy. So the choice will be, very culturally diverse and run for a diplo victory, or stay very xenophobic and try for other victory types ...

Thoughts?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Excellent idea Albow. I had very much the same thought regarding diplomatic victory myself, and feel that it could also be applied to the 'Space Race' victory as well-rather than leaving it all up to a single mission!

Another victory condition I had considered (and which ties into the Diplomatic victory) is the 'Moral victory'. In this, you accumulate points according to your development in social and governmental techs, social and humanitarian improvements and wonders, as well as your general behaviour. In some ways, you could almost consider it an 'anti-domination' victory, as a small nation like Switzerland could win the game by being the most peaceful and neutral nation in the world, and by building wonders like The Red Cross, the Geneva Convention and such-like. Basically, though, a % of your unmodified morale victory score would contribute to your Diplomatic victory score, and vice-versa.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Albow]

Cool. I agree that there really needs to be a re-think about victory scores, and victory types. They have such a profound impact on players strategy, and indeed the whole game in general.

Did you like the concept of having more multicultural cities? I think this would add a really unique new twist instead of just conquer and suppress ...

 

[rhialto]

I want this to replace the existing diplomatic victory.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I love the idea of multicultural cities. Have a look at the Culture-Spreadiing Model thread, and you can see how I and other posters would love to see culture move and accumulate in a very different fashion, as well as having populations move from city to city-both internally AND between nations! All of which would lead to the creation of truly multicultural cities. Assimilation would still be possible, but would either take a VERY long time, or could be done very quickly, but at a MASSIVE cost to your international reputation.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kayak]

Very interesting. It would be possible to have many different "victories" at the same time this way. I could have a Moral Victory as the Greeks say, but the Germans could be ahead with diplomatic points, and the Chinese win in culture. That would be a lot like real life.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That would be my hope, Kayak. I have mentioned in other threads that I would LOVE to see all victory conditions be achievable concurrently-with the ultimate victory going to the nation with the most victories won, with any tie-breaks being sorted out by demographic placings. This might also help to take out some of the boredom of the late game, as the ultimate victor would be a LOT less certain!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Kayak]

You have my complete and fanatical support on this one.

 

[sealman]

Not bad but I am unsure about the points for multi-cultural cities.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In the real world, a diplomatic "victory" (U.N.) is featured only by the most powerfull country. You are the most powerfull but you just don't "win" by weapon, that's all. It is not a reward for "points" you have collected for your behavior, it's a real "victory", something that gives you a decisive advantage on other countries or a manifestation of an advantage you already have.

 

[dojoboy]

I like the idea. But, ending wars between 2 other civs, although a good feature (as in SMAC), should be somewhat difficult. I always felt it was too easy in SMAC. All you had to do was ask, and they would agree, unless they accepted payment to delcare a vendetta.

 

[Kayak]

In the real world, a diplomatic "victory" (U.N.) is featured only by the most powerfull country. You are the most powerfull but you just don't "win" by weapon, that's all. It is not a reward for "points" you have collected for your behavior, it's a real "victory", something that gives you a decisive advantage on other countries or a manifestation of an advantage you already have.

In the real world the UN is never a victory, only a stalemate with one permanent security council member vetoing the proposal. And in the real world all "victories" are fleeting, never permanent. Has the US "won" I doubt it.

In this game, however, there are final victories cause you gotta end it somewhere. If the final victory depended not on one thing you did well, but several, it would make the game oh so much more fun later on.

 

[playshogi]

Winning by earning diplomatic points is a good idea. But why should you earn diplomatic points by owning multicultural cities? Especially since the most typical way to acquire a multicultural city is by military means.

Earn diplomatic points by:
1) building embassies
2) trading
3) never engaging in agressive war
4) never razing cities
5) building UN
6) building other wonders (assigned as diplomatic wonders)
a) Statue of Liberty (from Civ2)
7) elected UN leader
8) brokering peace deals
9) trading/gifting tech immediately upon discovery

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, because if what a lot of us hope for will come to pass, it will be a lot harder to hold on to truly 'multicultural' cities by force of arms alone-either you will lose them to seccession or insurgency at some point in the game, or they will attempt to emigrate back to the 'Old Country' as quickly as possible OR you will end up forcibly assimilating them-either way, you will end up with a culturally homogeneous state. However, by having a culturally strong nation which is a beacon of peace, freedom and morality, you will be able to attract millions of foreign nationals to your own lands-thus leading to multiculturalism!

Perhaps, though, this should recieve lesser points than for other diplomatic actions!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[AK47]

g'day to y'all,

instead of starting a new thread, I'll just post my ideas here. I didn't read the above (yet) so not to get "polluted"; this is straight out of my head after playing civ for about 13 yrs now.

DIPLOMATIC VICTORY should be achieved by point scoring throughout the game. Here are some ways of getting points:

* whenever you sign a Right of Passage, Mutual Protection, Trade Embargo or Military Alliance pact.
(maybe you should also be able to negotiate the number of turns such a pact should last, and loose points for breaking an agreement early)

* who controls the UN should be able to put a general trade embargo to vote. If the majority agrees, all civs have a tade embargo with the civ in question. This trade embargo should give extra points to the UN controller.

* One should be able to broker a peace deal between 2 other warring fractions (througout the entire game, as soon as you have embassies with both nations). For that, the negotiation table shouls be 3-ways instead of bilateral. Extra diplomatic points if you manage to conclude a deal like that.

* Maybe penalty points whenever somebody starts a war.

* and I would definitely not let the game be finished by a single vote in the UN on who's most popular...

If I think of more later, I'll put it here too. Now I'm gonna check what's already been put forward in this thread.
Ta!

AK.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In the real world the UN is never a victory

Why not? Plus I'm refering to the Civilization 3 victory type of course.

Has the US "won" I doubt it.

They are the ruler of the actual world. They police it. They are the U.N. Finally, their culture is spread everywhere and capitalism also, it will be hard to consider they did not win anything.

If the final victory depended not on one thing you did well, but several, it would make the game oh so much more fun later on.

There is victory and victory. Considering the object civilization, a victory is not a reward for things you made. It is an accomplishment, the particular way you have conquered the whole globe, you expansed the best. It is the very end, when things won't move again. From this point of view, i can say that civ3 UN diplomatic victory is a kind of early victory maybe... but at the actual point of view of the reality, it is yet a final victory, because it hasn't been surpassed. It is with our time to say that UN is the mark of a diplomatic victory.

 

[predesad]

I think building the UN should contribute to diplomatic victory, but not determine it. The UN should have a lot of power and therefore to a lesser degree the nation which builds it. Sanctions should be imposed on civs for various transgressions. I don't really have a complete idea of how it should work, but i "wish" the UN meant something, but did not dictate the diplomatic victory. diplomatic points may be a step in the right direction. right now the "sure" way to a diplomatic victory is build the UN, wait for the biggest (or next biggest if you are the biggest) to go to war with someone else, or start the war yourself. Sign an alliance an MPP, ROP with the other guy, then bribe everyone else in similar manner to go to war with that guy. Then UN vote has you for building UN & the second guy who everyone hates because you got them to go to war with them. It's like a one shot diplomatic attitude condition and a very poor model of overall game diplamatic relations / behavior.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[Albow]

This is exactly why I proposed the points model ... its all about how you have gone all game, not just one last gasp, where people take advantage of the MPPs ...

As for the acusation of war being the only method of multicultural cities, this isn't necessarily true. Even now, in Civ 3, you can purchase a worker from another civ and put thm into a city ...

It would be great if, as Aussie said, this population movement was a bit better represented than the current system.

Also, the reason I thought multicultural cities should be so important is because they make a player really need to choose. Do you go for a mono-culture with its benefits of stability, or go for the risk of multiculture but have a shot at a different victory type.

 

[AK47]

I think the UN wonder should do ONLY this:

* Allow voting for general trade embargo's (with diplomacy points if you succeed)
* Making the warring parties less demanding and easier to agree when you broker a peace deal (for which you should always get diplomacy points)

AK.

(+ maybe like 500 points for building it / or maybe X points per turn you have it)

 

[mhIdA]

I think at this given point is a mainstream idea of a diferent types of victories and achived by point and note a single events.
I think multicultural cities doesn´t give diplomatic points but cultural points.
- Aussies Lurker tell about a moral victory but this to me is like a social or spiritual victory.
- I agree with the ideas of playshogi.
- Modelling of to broke a peace deal between 2 other warring fractions it can done but is lying with cultural groups and the main influence of a civ to another.
- The population movement could be possible with migrants and refugee units.