Every Civ Should Have a Unique Way of Gaining Victory Points

[sTAPler27]

I recently made a post about how the victory conditions are very western European centric in the Exploration age and since Mongolia has a unique ability that allows you to play in a more standard Mongolian style I wondered why more Civs don't have an ability like this. It would diversify the gameplay by not mandating that everyone play a game where they're forced to colonize or spread their religion and can gain points with equally impressive feats. For example maybe Spain would get extra militaristic points for capturing or founding cities with natural wonders or multiple luxuries.

 

[Zaarin]

I think it would be a bit overwhelming if every civ had unique victory point mechanics, but I'd certainly like to see more of them.

 

[Leucarum]

I definitely agree it'd be nice to see more of them while not being ubiquitous. The objectives could get samey otherwise.

Majapahit stealthily has one too I guess since relics = culture track, anything which flat out gives you them is another way to score.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I would much rather have each civilization have unique victory conditions, and... get this, the game doesn't end if one civ meets those conditions

 

[GeneralZIft]

I would much rather have each civilization have unique victory conditions, and... get this, the game doesn't end if one civ meets those conditions

So who wins

 

[gdr_willter]

Tyrant always says the game need multiple winners in the same time. But well, I'm not sure about that idea especially for the competitive game like Civ franchise.

 

[Arcaian]

That's... not what those words mean? If achieving victory conditions doesn't end the game with a victory, then those conditions are not, by definition, victory conditions.

I'm not certain it's Tyrant's intention, but I think the implication might be that individual civs can gain their victory without that being a competitive thing where everyone else loses. If America wins by making everyone love blue jeans and rock'n'roll, but Japan wins by sending a rocket to the moon, why do we have to care who did it first? Both of them achieved a fundamental victory goal they were building towards, and both are winners in the modern era. I think it's an interesting idea, even if it's not Tyrant's intention

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I'm not certain it's Tyrant's intention, but I think the implication might be that individual civs can gain their victory without that being a competitive thing where everyone else loses. If America wins by making everyone love blue jeans and rock'n'roll, but Japan wins by sending a rocket to the moon, why do we have to care who did it first? Both of them achieved a fundamental victory goal they were building towards, and both are winners in the modern era. I think it's an interesting idea, even if it's not Tyrant's intention

Oh yeah no, that was absolutely my intention. Thanks for noticing!