Civ 7's Victory Paths can Use Some Work to Feel Less Western Specific

[Zaarin]

I don't miss a total RV. I'd like there to be more options within religion, though. Not much, just some beliefs that benefit having followers in your own land. I can't imagine it would take much to just change a belief.

We already have too much RV for me. I think religion should bolster any victory like it did in Civ4 and Civ5.

 

[TheGrayFox]

First, I think you should acquaint yourself with the conventional definition of imperialism, which stems from the age of (Western) imperialism:

Imperialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm very well aware of the traditional definition of Imperialism and how it is used in academia. Notice how you linked us to the section of the "Age of Imperialism" and not the definition of what Imperialism is itself. Here let me help everyone understand the subject further

Aside from that, you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing. The original poster appears to be conflating a western perspective with having content that only represents Western historical trends. To wit, to point out the exact same argument:

Incorrect. The original poster didn't appear to be doing or conflate anything, all he did was point out that the game is produced by westerners and is about imperialism. You're not going to escape western bias, a western slanted historigraphy, and depitictions of imperialism born from that bias in a Civ game.

There is a difference between having a western perspective and representing only Western historical trends. You seem to be claiming that just because Firaxis necessarily has a western perspective, the content they make must also be limited to representing Western historical trends.

This is pretty straightforward, but it can be confusing for people who aren't used to thinking with any precision.

No one is arguing that this game must only represent ONLY western historical trends. Again this is your strawman. All that was pointed out is that this is a game about imperialism created by westerners. You seem to be claiming that anyone who points out these facts to you are saying that the game is ONLY about western imperialism and thats just bad argument. Again, my thinking isn't "imprecise", your argument is just incredible uncharitable.

 

[aelf]

I'm very well aware of the traditional definition of Imperialism and how it is used in academia. Notice how you linked us to the section of the "Age of Imperialism" and not the definition of what Imperialism is itself. Here let me help everyone understand the subject further

View attachment 716289

There's an obvious reason why the Age of Imperialism section comes up so early and the picture used at the top is a cartoon of Cecil Rhodes. Even what you cited says the term is mainly used to refer to 19th and 20th century imperialism.

I mean, there's dense and there's arguing for the sake of arguing. Pick one.
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling. The_J

Incorrect. The original poster didn't appear to be doing or conflate anything, all he did was point out that the game is produced by westerners and is about imperialism. You're not going to escape western bias, a western slanted historigraphy, and depitictions of imperialism born from that bias in a Civ game.


No one is arguing that this game must only represent ONLY western historical trends. Again this is your strawman. All that was pointed out is that this is a game about imperialism created by westerners. You seem to be claiming that anyone who points out these facts to you are saying that the game is ONLY about western imperialism and thats just bad argument. Again, my thinking isn't "inprecise", your argument is just bad and uncharitable.

Again, this is a nonsensical reply in the context of the topic. The thread is discussing how the game can avoid having a Western-only representation of the Age of Exploration. So responding by saying, "Well, actually, Firaxis is a western company" is meant to do what exactly?

Once again, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Let's give a simple analogy:

---

Someone (Person A) says to a male writer, "Hey, you should try to write more female characters."

Someone (Person B) else responds to that by saying, "But he's a male author."

Person A replies, "Why can't a male author write female characters?"

Another person (Person C) then responds, "No one is saying a male author can't write female characters."

---

What Person C said is absurd and contributes nothing to the exchange except to be contrarian. This is what you're doing, and I think I know why.

 

[TheGrayFox]

There's an obvious reason why the Age of Imperialism section comes up so early and the picture used at the top is a cartoon of Cecil Rhodes. Even what you cited says the term is mainly used to refer to 19th and 20th century imperialism.

I mean, there's dense and there's arguing for the sake of arguing. Pick one.

You want to talk about dense?. Imagine skipping the actually definition and etymology part of the article to try and make an objectively incorrect argument about how Imperialism only applies to 17th-20th century empires.

I’ll spoil it bud, the concept was invented and defined during this period but what it defines applies to all times and empires. You’d understand this if you read the article you linked

Again, this is a nonsensical reply in the context of the topic. The thread is discussing how the game can avoid having a Western-only representation of the Age of Exploration. So responding by saying, "Well, actually, Firaxis is a western company" is meant to do what exactly?

Once again, I think you're being deliberately obtuse. Let's give a simple analogy:

Lashing out won’t change that your argument is built on uncharitable assumption and all representation in the exploration age isn’t western. Making the entire argument moot.

---

Someone (Person A) says to a male writer, "Hey, you should try to write more female characters."

Someone (Person B) else responds to that by saying, "But he's a male author."

Person A replies, "Why can't a male author write female characters?"

Another person (Person C) then responds, "No one is saying a male author can't write female characters."

What Person C said is absurd and contributes nothing to the exchange except to be contrarian. This is what you're doing, and I think I know why.

Good thing OP wasn’t asking for more female characters then but rather for a western game about imperialism to not be about imperialism. You’re not escaping western imperialism being depicted and alluded to in late game civ. It’s a game about imperialism made by westerners

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't mind the 4 paths, but agreed that it definitely feels like the diplomacy has increased importance, enough that it wouldn't be hard to push it to its own victory condition. Although I do think if it was just CS and actions, that gets a little too much of just needing one resource. Everything else you at least need production/gold/science/food/etc.... I wouldn't really want a win condition that was effectively "first to 5000 influence points wins".

I think something along these lines could work:
Antiquity Age: Delian League-Befriend 10 Independent Powers
Exploration Age: Ecumenical Council- Spend enough influence toward endeavors with all other civs whose settlements you have converted. (Though maybe a Hanseatic League would work better?)
Modern Age: League of Nations- Spending enough influence to have treaties with all other civs of a different ideology. (When completed unlocks the U.N. victory project)

 

[stealth_nsk]

I already wrote about it, I totally expect some form of diplomatic victory to actually be the 4th era domination victory, because:

1. If there will be 4th age, UN will be one of its themes
2. Also, contemporary age is an age of nuclear deterrence, so victory by conquest shouldn't be available there in a direct form
3. This allows adding diplomatic victory without breaking previous ages

 

[Maiq]

I already wrote about it, I totally expect some form of diplomatic victory to actually be the 4th era domination victory, because:

1. If there will be 4th age, UN will be one of its themes
2. Also, contemporary age is an age of nuclear deterrence, so victory by conquest shouldn't be available there in a direct form
3. This allows adding diplomatic victory without breaking previous ages

That sounds terrible! A Domination victory without war?

 

[Zaarin]

That sounds terrible! A Domination victory without war?

You can win the first two Domination legacy paths (with difficulty) without war, and Domination Victory did not require war in Civ4.

 

[Ornen]

There is a difference between having a western perspective and representing only Western historical trends. You seem to be claiming that just because Firaxis necessarily has a western perspective, the content they make must also be limited to representing Western historical trends.

This is pretty straightforward, but it can be confusing for people who aren't used to thinking with any precision.

now where did I say that, bucko? ur the one who can't keep it straight

 

[Ornen]

as a side note, anyone mind if I start a thread focused squarely on victory conditions? in my view, this is one of the most interesting changes to the game.

was thinking about starting a thread before this one got posted, and it might yet help to have a more general thread that is not squarely concerned with western vs non-western perspectives on history (a very interesting topic, but also one distinct from talking more generally about the VC)

 

[Maiq]

You can win the first two Domination legacy paths (with difficulty) without war, and Domination Victory did not require war in Civ4.

You know what everyone means when they talk about Domination victory right?

 

[Zaarin]

You know what everyone means when they talk about Domination victory right?

No, I've never played a Civ game before.

 

[sTAPler27]

God I hope their are more victory paths, 4 just isnt satisfactory for me. Honestly surprised diplomacy isn't in the base game despite its increased importance.

To be fair diplomacy was only really fleshed out in the DLC for 5 and was absent from 6's base game so it's not that wild but given how bare bones the victories are I don't see why they couldn't implement it unless the last age wasn't intended as such given the "victories" feel more like the other Legacy paths than proper end game conditions.

 

[Maiq]

No, I've never played a Civ game before.

We can tell bud.

 

[Krikkit1]

I already wrote about it, I totally expect some form of diplomatic victory to actually be the 4th era domination victory, because:

1. If there will be 4th age, UN will be one of its themes
2. Also, contemporary age is an age of nuclear deterrence, so victory by conquest shouldn't be available there in a direct form
3. This allows adding diplomatic victory without breaking previous ages

I'd like a 4th age to just go down to 2 Victories

Diplomatic (Domination: requires Military and Cultural Legacy Paths complete to open up)
Expansion (Colony Ship/?Mars colony: requires Scientific and Economic Legacy paths complete to Open up)

Military would be a lot more Diplomatic as it would probably focus on getting foreign military bases in allied civs or CS... but with 4th age mechanics to proxy/covert war IPs into your ally, or at least away from someone else.

 

[sTAPler27]

Everything else you at least need production/gold/science/food/etc.... I wouldn't really want a win condition that was effectively "first to 5000 influence points wins".

I mean the economic victory basically requires no actual gold and for culture most you need to do is unlock the religion civics and the civics based wonders (or just conquer them)

 

[sTAPler27]

We should be careful what we wish for with additional victory conditions. I don’t think Diplomatic and Religious victories have ever been satisfyingly implemented, and while a lot of effort went into Civ 6’s World Congress, I think it ultimately added very little to the experience of playing the game.

I'll be be honest I don't hate 6's diplo victory. My biggest complaint is just how the majority of it is a guessing game with the AI. It sucks that the bennefits from playing diplomatically aren't as evident because you can't pick proposals. Besides that the crises and international competitions are a unique mechanic that actually seem like an attempt was made to make diplomacy more than who can Suze the most city states.

 

[aelf]

You want to talk about dense?. Imagine skipping the actually definition and etymology part of the article to try and make an objectively incorrect argument about how Imperialism only applies to 17th-20th century empires.

I’ll spoil it bud, the concept was invented and defined during this period but what it defines applies to all times and empires. You’d understand this if you read the article you linked

Lashing out won’t change that your argument is built on uncharitable assumption and all representation in the exploration age isn’t western. Making the entire argument moot.

Good thing OP wasn’t asking for more female characters then but rather for a western game about imperialism to not be about imperialism. You’re not escaping western imperialism being depicted and alluded to in late game civ. It’s a game about imperialism made by westerners

lol ok. The icing on the cake is not understanding how analogies work. Talking to you is completely hopeless. Zero capability to understand arguments.

now where did I say that, bucko? ur the one who can't keep it straight

So what's your objection against the idea of moving away from purely Western representation of colonialism?

 

[lymond]

Moderator Action: Stop attacking each other. Discuss the topic and make cogent arguments. The attacks stop now. -lymond

 

[aelf]

I'll be be honest I don't hate 6's diplo victory. My biggest complaint is just how the majority of it is a guessing game with the AI. It sucks that the bennefits from playing diplomatically aren't as evident because you can't pick proposals. Besides that the crises and international competitions are a unique mechanic that actually seem like an attempt was made to make diplomacy more than who can Suze the most city states.

I feel like Civ 6's diplo victory needs to be sneakily won. You almost need to get the last 4-5 points from other sources other than votes because all AIs will band against you to make you lose victory points, even allies since forever. It's kind of silly.

I suppose it's trying to mimic how other players would behave, but it just makes the victory type not what it says on the tin even in the single player mode.