Culture Victory: Slightly Racist

[ShakaHulu]

Everyone knows what a giant pain in the butt a cultural victory is in Civ 6. The mechanics behind it are a train wreck. More like a global nuclear winter wreckage. It’s annoying to achieve, to put it mildly.

More importantly, it’s historically inaccurate. One culture has never peacefully replaced another culture in the history of mankind. Cultures have at times melded, over hundreds of years. But this idea of a “cultural victory” implies your culture overtaking and replacing another culture. Anyone want to speak to the Native Americans about how “peaceful” a victory it was when their culture was eradicated?

It’s a sloppy game mechanic, it’s not fun, and it is historically inaccurate. Cultures don’t dominate other cultures, and when they do it’s not a peaceful process.

Get rid of the whole cultural victory thing and come up with another peaceful victory option. An Economic Victory seems like an obvious choice, and would be the logical replacement. There are many historical examples of countries dominating other states via their financial strength, without resorting to war and without erasing their culture.

Culture Victories stink, we can do better.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Isn't the Cultural Victory in Civ 6 just a race to get a certain amount of Tourists into your empire before anyone else? At least, that's how I interpret it. It doesn't imply that you're "replacing another culture," it just means that more people are interested in your lands because of their rich, cultural history than other cultures. You could even argue that it has a little historical accuracy in the fact that some nations in history have had richer cultures than other nations in history.

Also, the Native American culture hasn't been "eradicated." There were attempts to do so, but they proved to fail in the end. NA cultures are still thriving, although less so than in previous times. Also, in my opinion, there's not even such a thing as a singular Native American culture, if that's what you're implying. The Pueblo have a very different culture than the Haida, the Iroquois, the Lakota, etc.

Don't get me wrong, the Cultural Victory has many problems with it, and in the next Civ game they would make, I hope to see the Cultural Victory improved upon and make it just more... fun. But I don't think it's racist.

A Cultural Victory in Civ 6 doesn't mean that you eradicate the other cultures in the game; A Cultural Victory in Civ 6 means your culture becomes the most influential and famous.

At least, this is my take on the matter.

 

[ShakaHulu]

Isn't the Cultural Victory in Civ 6 just a race to get a certain amount of Tourists into your empire before anyone else? At least, that's how I interpret it. It doesn't imply that you're "replacing another culture," it just means that more people are interested in your lands because of their rich, cultural history than other cultures. You could even argue that it has a little historical accuracy in the fact that some nations in history have had richer cultures than other nations in history.

Also, the Native American culture hasn't been "eradicated." There were attempts to do so, but they proved to fail in the end. NA cultures are still thriving, although less so than in previous times. Also, in my opinion, there's not even such a thing as a singular Native American culture, if that's what you're implying. The Pueblo have a very different culture than the Haida, the Iroquois, the Lakota, etc.

Don't get me wrong, the Cultural Victory has many problems with it, and in the next Civ game they would make, I hope to see the Cultural Victory improved upon and make it just more... fun. But I don't think it's racist.

A Cultural Victory in Civ 6 doesn't mean that you eradicate the other cultures in the game; A Cultural Victory in Civ 6 means your culture becomes the most influential and famous.

At least, this is my take on the matter.

Good points. Victory to me implies some sort of dominance, but I suppose you could interpret it another way. Even if we do suppose though that a cultural victory implies massive tourism and prestige as opposed to overtaking, it still is a sloppy game mechanic.

I mean rock bands, seriously?? That’s how I’m creating a Civilization to stand the test of time, rock bands?

 

[Browd]

Well, the trite (but accurate) response to all of that is that this is nothing but a game, and about as far from being a history simulator as it is possible to imagine (while still having enough historical "flavor" to fit the genre). Immortal leaders, instant-reward great persons, world wonder races, comets wiping out whole cities, vampires, secret societies ruling the world (well, OK, I'll admit that one's historically accurate....).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As what @Duke William of Normandy said "culture victory" isn't necessarily about going in and wiping out the other cultures. That's Domination which I'm not sure it's a good idea to completely remove that and warfare from a game about history.

That being said I think if we do need to eliminate a victory type in the future it could be religious victory. Of course ideally the idea of a religious victory can be part of a culture/tourism victory considering how linked they already are in Civ 6.

 

[Evie]

Even putting aside the tourism aspects, cultural victory can also be understood as establishing your culture *in addition* to preexisting ones, where people speak your language and understand your culture in addition to their own, rather than in replacement of their own - a cultural lingua franca (hmmm, I wonder which country sould be particularly suited to a culture win), rather than assimilation.

For example people in countries without the US constitution talking about "pleading the fifth" or Miranda rights when they have neither, because that's the globally widespread American way of refering to the right to being informed of your rights when arrested, or the right to not self-incriminate. American culture hasn't replaced those cultures, but the American cultural reference are globally understood.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Even putting aside the tourism aspects, cultural victory can also be understood as establishing your culture *in addition* to preexisting ones, where people speak your language and understand your culture in addition to their own, rather than in replacement of their own - a cultural lingua franca (hmmm, I wonder which country sould be particularly suited to a culture win), rather than assimilation.

For example people in countries without the US constitution talking about "pleading the fifth" or Miranda rights when they have neither, because that's the globally widespread American way of refering to the right to being informed of your rights when arrested, or the right to not self-incriminate. American culture hasn't replaced those cultures, but the American cultural reference are globally understood.

In my mind it's "You give us K-Pop while we give you soda pop. Let's see which one is globally bigger."

 

[Wolffleet]

I agree achieving cultural victory is annoying. Has anyone looked into the culture victory formula? Is there a way to make it more understandable or edit it? I know we can change the amount of tourism required per foreign tourist has anyone messed around with it?

 

[Zegangani]

I agree achieving cultural victory is annoying. Has anyone looked into the culture victory formula? Is there a way to make it more understandable or edit it? I know we can change the amount of tourism required per foreign tourist has anyone messed around with it?

You can change the Criteria itself if you want to, and you can actually also merge the Religion Victory with the Cultural one. However, you should know that the AI has certain conditions to met in order to start following a Victory Strategy, so you also have to merge these (so that AI has to follow both victories, religion and cultural, at the same Time), otherwise the AI would follow, let's say, a Strategy for Religion, eventhough it had only met criteria for the Culture Victory, which is a bad Strategy.

The Conditions/Criteria seem to be hardcoded, and are triggers for the AI to start following a Victory Type. I wanted to make an Economic Victory Type, but since there aren't ways to make AI follow a Strategy for an EV (There are some conditions for Exploration, Expansion and Naval Strategies), I gived up on it.

But If you want it for Multiplayer though, then who cares about AI? . . . *WE SINGLEPLAYERS DO!!*

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The real problem with "Cultural Victory" is that it applies only at the End of Game, whereas many cultures achieved massive dominance during earlier (temporary) periods. That counts for nothing in the game now, yet had tremendous influence IRL.

Things like French becoming the international diplomatic language throughout Europe from the 17th to the 19th centuries, or the massive influence Chinese culture had on every other East Asian culture group, or the Arabic Culture that dominated the Near East in the wake of Islam's spread - and then got 'subverted' by the influence of Persian culture that spread right over and through it.

And the influence of American English and American popular culture today - which is probably only temporary, just like the earlier examples . . .

In any case, even the 'dominant' cultures ever completely wipe out other cultures - they merge, with elements of both (but heavier from the dominant direction) being taken up by the resulting cultures.

Good examples: the Normans conquered England, but Norman French did not become the language of the English, instead within 200 years all the Norman kings were speaking English - an English heavily equipped with words derived from Norman French, but grammatically and primarily Germanic English and not a Latin/French dialect. Better known is perhaps the constant influence of Chinese culture submerging their conquerors' over the centuries.

Note that in Civ, having a military conquest 'overturned' by the cultural dominance of the conquered group doesn't happen: but perhaps it should, giving the would-be Domination Player another thing to worry about . . .

 

[Evie]

I mean, are ANY of the victory conditions really representing permanent states?

Domination victory is a civil war waiting to happen, and no great empire has ever been more than temporary. Religious victory is a schism waiting to happen, and even the most dominant religion have eventually splintered. Science victory is an Alpha Centauri waiting to happen, and human history will resume its course on some far-off world. Diplomatic victory is...okay, nobody even know what that is, but I still don't see any permanence to it.

You can't win history, because history only ends when everyone loses.

 

[Zegangani]

Note that in Civ, having a military conquest 'overturned' by the cultural dominance of the conquered group doesn't happen: but perhaps it should, giving the would-be Domination Player another thing to worry about . . .

It would be neat if Culture in Civ 7 is a combination of Religion and The Loyalty Systems of Civ6. Culture would have Influence per City, asserting Influence on nearby Cities like the Loyalty Pressure, but without the flipping, as well as by Trade Routes and with Cities accummodating different Cultures at the same Time, like Religion.

But I do agree with Evie, tho. I think the Victories are just means to make the Player have some sort of "Award" to chase and to get by the end of the Game (if successful). which, tbh, would make the Game lack of something if it didn't exist in Civ, but I would rather have some sort of Global Ranking or something like that (maybe having each victory type counting more to the GlobalRanking when you choose one (or more) of them).

 

[Phrozen]

Even putting aside the tourism aspects, cultural victory can also be understood as establishing your culture *in addition* to preexisting ones, where people speak your language and understand your culture in addition to their own, rather than in replacement of their own - a cultural lingua franca (hmmm, I wonder which country sould be particularly suited to a culture win), rather than assimilation.

For example people in countries without the US constitution talking about "pleading the fifth" or Miranda rights when they have neither, because that's the globally widespread American way of refering to the right to being informed of your rights when arrested, or the right to not self-incriminate. American culture hasn't replaced those cultures, but the American cultural reference are globally understood.

Best example is that the word 'POLICE' appeared frequently on the backs of police officers in non-English speaking countries because thanks to Hollywood everyone knows what the symbols 'POLICE' mean.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Note that in Civ, having a military conquest 'overturned' by the cultural dominance of the conquered group doesn't happen: but perhaps it should, giving the would-be Domination Player another thing to worry about . . .

I've been advocating for that to come in play for Civ 6. Maybe Civ 7 each citizen can be assigned a certain ethnicity. Cities where a minority group is actually a majority would have more of a cultural presence in multiethnic empires and contribute tourism toward their "home" civilization if they aren't completely wiped out.

But I do agree with Evie, tho. I think the Victories are just means to make the Player have some sort of "Award" to chase and to get by the end of the Game (if successful). which, tbh, would make the Game lack of something if it didn't exist in Civ, but I would rather have some sort of Global Ranking or something like that (maybe having each victory type counting more to the GlobalRanking when you choose one (or more) of them).

The Global Ranking victory already exists in the form of Score Victory, in my opinion.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I mean, are ANY of the victory conditions really representing permanent states?

Domination victory is a civil war waiting to happen, and no great empire has ever been more than temporary. Religious victory is a schism waiting to happen, and even the most dominant religion have eventually splintered. Science victory is an Alpha Centauri waiting to happen, and human history will resume its course on some far-off world. Diplomatic victory is...okay, nobody even know what that is, but I still don't see any permanence to it.

You can't win history, because history only ends when everyone loses.

The major differences between Real Life/History and Games are two:
1. Games have rules that are written down and specific: Real Life has a set of rules that are changing all the time not necessarily with any warning and rarely written down - or if they are, they are written entirely in a Linear A transcription from Classical Olmec.
2. Games have a beginning and an Ending. Real Life is a process that didn't start when you were born (you have Ancestors, for better or worse, that stuck you with your Starting Position) and won't end when you die - that's one reason we have Estate Lawyers and historians both arguing over what your and everyone else's life meant.
(There's a Third Major Difference, which is that no one really knows everything that happened in History whereas supposedly you can tell everything that happens in a game, but given how many people are still surprised by events in Civ VI, I'm not sure how much of a difference that one really is)

So, any game's "Victory Conditions", like Starting Positions, are arbitrarily determined based on an equally-arbitrary start and end date or point. And, as mentioned already, that's why it can and has been suggested that the End of Game in Civ should just be a Start of Game for Alpha Centauri - or BE, for that matter. For the Start of Game, look up all the Mods for a Prehistoric Start and debates (partly energized by Humankind's Neolithic Start) over an earlier 'Starting Point' - All of which are interesting, but are all based on an artificial creation of a Starting Point for a Game that has little to do with the real life Process of turning Hunter-Gatherers into city-builders, which was enormously variable in time and technique and requirements.

So, yes, Civ In Isolation will end at an artificial point in time with a temporary "Victory" which might have the real lifespan of a Mayfly in a Frog Convention, but the alternative is to keep playing a single game until your face hits the keyboard in a tedium-inspired coma . . .

 

[Evie]

Well, yeah. I agree with that. The game need a start point and an end point, and a way to keep score or crown a winner.

I tend to prefer point scoring (and domination, because the game isn,t set to handle continuing after the board has been wiped) over more gimmicky victory conditions, but that's more of a personal choice best handled by disabling victory conditions (and maybe modding the game a bit so most of the current victory conditions bring other benefits even if their victory is disabled, ala the new cultural domination mechanism.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, yeah. I agree with that. The game need a start point and an end point, and a way to keep score or crown a winner.

I tend to prefer point scoring (and domination, because the game isn,t set to handle continuing after the board has been wiped) over more gimmicky victory conditions, but that's more of a personal choice best handled by disabling victory conditions (and maybe modding the game a bit so most of the current victory conditions bring other benefits even if their victory is disabled, ala the new cultural domination mechanism.)

While I'm not completely enamoured of Humankind's single-Victory "Fame" system, I am coming 'round to the idea that perhaps a better way of contemplating Victory is not how well you do at a fixed and arbitrary End Point but how well you did throughout the game: that is, accumulating Victory by increments, as in the Fame mechanic, but not all related to a single Victory Type.

That is, most of what you could do in the game would garner (or lose) 'Points' which could be related to Culture, Military Glory/Domination, Happiness of Your People, etc. The one who has the most points accumulated 'wins' a type of victory - and perhaps several factions/Civs win, each in a different category. Select your Category at the Start, you get Victory only by dominating in that category but perhaps win a Secondary Victory if instead you happen to dominate in another.

This would also allow selecting "Era Victories" where you end the game at, say, the end of the Classical, Medieval, or Renaissance/Early Modern Era with Accumulated Totals as of that point. That would make for a much more flexible 'time limit' on games (I confess, I sometimes get very tired of a game in about the third or fourth session when I'm down to slogging through the late game tedium)

It could also eliminate the Arbitrary End Point, where no matter how poorly you did for most of the game, you slog to 'Victory' at the End. It could also allow for a sort of Victory by a Civ that accumulated a whole bunch of Points early, despite having been crushed later - "The Glory That Was Rome/Greece" - or perhaps a Real Meaning to "Golden Ages" for certain types of Victory instead of just being steps on the road to End of Game in the far future . . .

 

[PiR]

I arrived here because I didn't understand the title, expecting some PC debate, but the conversation got more interesting than I expected

 

[Wolffleet]

The real problem with "Cultural Victory" is that it applies only at the End of Game, whereas many cultures achieved massive dominance during earlier (temporary) periods. That counts for nothing in the game now, yet had tremendous influence IRL.

Things like French becoming the international diplomatic language throughout Europe from the 17th to the 19th centuries, or the massive influence Chinese culture had on every other East Asian culture group, or the Arabic Culture that dominated the Near East in the wake of Islam's spread - and then got 'subverted' by the influence of Persian culture that spread right over and through it.

And the influence of American English and American popular culture today - which is probably only temporary, just like the earlier examples . . .

In any case, even the 'dominant' cultures ever completely wipe out other cultures - they merge, with elements of both (but heavier from the dominant direction) being taken up by the resulting cultures.

Good examples: the Normans conquered England, but Norman French did not become the language of the English, instead within 200 years all the Norman kings were speaking English - an English heavily equipped with words derived from Norman French, but grammatically and primarily Germanic English and not a Latin/French dialect. Better known is perhaps the constant influence of Chinese culture submerging their conquerors' over the centuries.

Note that in Civ, having a military conquest 'overturned' by the cultural dominance of the conquered group doesn't happen: but perhaps it should, giving the would-be Domination Player another thing to worry about . . .

I agree, My goal was to make cultural victory easier to obtain than turn it off. So cultural dominance occurs throughout the game. That's why I was asking for the formula so I could make this a reality. I typically play with Alternative score victory as the only wincon so winning a cultural victory too early is not a concern for me I just want the cultural dominance boost.
Also what does being culturally dominant mean what boost should that include?


This leads me to ask. Can you decline culturally? can you go from culturally dominant to not? culturally dominant over a civ.

 

[PiR]

Can you decline culturally? can you go from culturally dominant to not?

In Civ? Yes.
Irl? Yes. Look at France over Europe. Spain/England/Portugal over their former colonies.