Diplomatic Victory = Contrived Victory

[Beard Rinker]

In most aspects of the game, the AI is programmed to be your competitor. You compete for land, resources and try to build and launch your space ship before they do.

The only exception is the diplomatic victory. The game mechanics are not compatible with competitive behavior. In what game would you vote for a competitor when you know it will enable them to win? To me this seems a contrived; a human opponent would never do this.

I suspect if this game were multi-player but was the same in every other respect the diplomatic victory would be used for an entirely different purpose. Players would use it as an informal bargaining chip; you give me rubber, aluminum and 2 luxuries and I'll vote for you at the next UN. Come UN voting time that player might change their mind... and face the consequences of a pissed off neighbor.

A nice change to this victory type would be allowing trading the promise to vote or not vote for another player. The player wouldn't have to vote as promised, but not voting as promised would be a big diplomatic black mark.

 

[Magnus]

If I were hoplessly out of an MP game yet still surviving, I would use my vote as spite against the player with the lead, especially if that player was the one who ruined my empire!

 

[rev063]

Don't forget that you need to control a certain amount of territory to be elected secretary general. That's why it's important to curry favour with the smaller civs in the game if you want a diplomatic victory. A small civ voting for you instead of abstaining makes sense strategically, if it's a choice between having the game end now and being wiped out entirely.

- rev