• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

I'm fairly cetain that with one of the Major DLC's we'll see at least 1 new victory type added

The problem I found was that having the WC in the game meant you either had to play a placatingly diplomatic game or a complete warmonger game - conquer everybody else, and the WC becomes irrelevent. That meant the WC made Religious or Cultural Victories 'second choices', and so warped the entire end-game. Worse, it warped the end-game away from my favorite type of victory, the Cultural. - Unless I played a complete pacifist who was careful to never upset any other Civ in the game - and even then, the AI at seemingly random would propose punitive actions in the WC and make any 'strategy' meaningless against them except Extermination.
Yes, even at low difficulties the AI dogpiles the human player in WC, regardless of their relationship with the player. They rarely seek to advance their own interests so much as stymie the player's, and that's poor design IMO.
 
I hardly think that's a fault of the WC system itself and more of the design of the AI. I'm going to disagree about the notion that Civ5's WC system was necessarily bad, I think it was quite good.
I never found the AI dogpiled me unless my lead was crazy or everybody hated me. And I never ever found that somehow the WC system prevented me from going from any strategy such as Cultural victory - (& PS There was no religious victory in Civ5)

I think Civ5 WC did 95% of the things I wanted from a WC - it let you pressure players, it let you team up, it let you effectively change the rules of the game, and it gave you freedom to choose when and how you were going to screw your opponents.

The things it could have done better:
Had some kind of system to prevent one player from dominating the votes all the time
Had some more powerful or varied resolutions
 
I never found the AI dogpiled me unless my lead was crazy or everybody hated me.
That's a bad design in and of itself, and I was very annoyed when this was added to Civ6--and glad the community response was sufficiently negative that it was removed in the next patch. I certainly don't want to see it back in Civ7.

Had some kind of system to prevent one player from dominating the votes all the time
Being able to dominate it was the only thing that made it tolerable, but it required always building the UN and buying up city-states in the late game in every game--and if something is always "the thing to do," it's not an interesting strategy.
 
and if something is always "the thing to do," it's not an interesting strategy.
I hear Civ V was guilty of this in more ways than one… :shifty:
 
I think if you take most games and boil them down you'll find that there's one best way to do everything
Not any of the games I play.

IF the game does not give you multiple options for victory, or even progress, then the game is playable for maybe a week and then to be abandoned.

In the past year I have mainly played Farthest Frontier (in Early Access) and Anno 1800.

In Anno 1800 you can pick your AI oponents, each of which plays an entirely different game. From that decision alone you can play a military game, attempt to dominate the map and resources, or a laid-back Ignore Your Opposition type game. You can also concentrate almost entirely simply on building beautiful cities if you like - the game includes numerous DLCs of purely decorative elements designed for that - which the Conqueror or Imperialist Trader gamer can ignore.

Farthest Frontier, a Medievalish city-builder/survival game, allows you to play against raiding armies, ravenous bears, wolves, wild boars - or the map only. And you can pick a map so devoid of resources that it alone is a major challenge. Or you can play to build a good-looking medieval town.

Basically, there is no 'right' way to play either game, and while there are elements in each game you will usually play the same way, they are individual episodes, not anything like the entirety of the game.

I like that: it's why I've played close to 1000 hours in each game, and it's game designs like that that will get me to play and replay Civ VII. Lacking that kind of flexibility, no game will keep my interest for more than a few hours.
 
It's pretty obvious to me that they'll add Diplomatic Victory in the future and their Modern Age version will be about World Congress.

That said, Diplomatic Victories have never been exciting to me, but is there any other type of Victory they could add other than Diplomatic or even Religious? Industrial Victory? I wouldn't bet on it.
I feel like its hard to separate Industry from Economy, however if they merged culture and religion I guess anything is possible
 
I wasn't totally opposed to Civ6's Diplomatic Victory but their World Congress was TERRIBLE. I hated it.
Civ5's World Congress was leaps and bounds in perspective.
I don't know what they could do for Civ7 - did they announce anything like WC?
Maybe their WC will make a bit more sense than Civ6's voting-with-people-you've-never-met-before system which was truly inspirationally stupid.
5 handled propositions better because they were based on actual player choice but 6's addition of crisis system was a huge improvement a future diplomacy mechanic would suffer for lacking
 
Actually, I say "more," but really the only reason it exists is for the AI to screw over the player without consequences. E.g., even if they haven't met you in Civ6, the AI will vote to ban the resource that coincidentally only you have.
Yeah, that's extremely annoying of Civ 6. There it's just a random lottery every several turns, with little to no ability to influence it in any meaningful way.

But Civ 5 does it much better. You can see which resolutions are proposed before the vote and so you can trade resources to other players (preferring the ones with more votes), or buy some votes, to make sure that such resolution will not pass. You know, do some actual diplomacy. Such moments always felt working as intended to me. And of course you can take control over world congress, though you don't necessary have to.

I never actually felt to me that it's particularly hard to take control over world congress. It just kind of happens itself: if you play game good you have lots of gold, if you have lots of gold you can turn it into suzerenship over city states and therefore extra votes in congress. If you did good with spreading religion, you have good chance to promote it as a world religion, therefore receiving extra votes. Alternatively you can ignore religion mechanics most of the game and then adopt religion of another player for the sake of the same extra votes. If you built decent relationships with your neighbors and have good tourism output, you have decent chance to promote your ideology to world ideology. And even if you don't become the leader of world congress by such measures, you at least have decent vote count to oppose resolutions that you really hate.
 
I wonder if an 4th age, or extended 3rd age diplomacy system could be things kinda like treaties but made between a larger number of players, not necessarily all, where you then get bonuses with those civs if you sign it and follow it, major penalties with the other members if you sign and end up going against it (but has the option to decide to go against it), or small diplomacy penalties with members if you decide to not sign it. So kinda like a WC, but not all members need to accept the resolutions and an you accept and even go against it if you want.
 
In Civ 6 there was a "World Religion" resolution which showed you the religions, but not which civ they belonged to. I could never remember which religion I should be voting for.
 
I never actually felt to me that it's particularly hard to take control over world congress.
No, it wasn't hard, but I shouldn't feel forced to do so for the game to feel fun.
 
Diplomatic victory was so easy in VI that I won on accident a few times and had to disable it permanently. If that gets implemented, I hope it’s substantially overhauled.
 
Diplomatic victory was so easy in VI that I won on accident a few times and had to disable it permanently. If that gets implemented, I hope it’s substantially overhauled.
Same in Civ6.
 
WC exists for more than just diplomatic victory. Actually, I say "more," but really the only reason it exists is for the AI to screw over the player without consequences. E.g., even if they haven't met you in Civ6, the AI will vote to ban the resource that coincidentally only you have. In Civ5, you had to focus your late game on taking charge of the World Congress or the same thing would happen. Neither is fun. Might be realistic, though...
And that's the main problem with it, rly.

The World Congress should be a timer to allow the most dominant players (in terms of population) to end the game early, with them as a winner. This adds stakes, lobbying, bribery, and the like.

The only other function a World Congress could have is to unite all other Civs against warmongers, and they vote on whether they'll form one giant coalition against them.

THAT IT! It doesn't need to be more than that! If you do simply *those two things* you have a World Congress that works and doesn't get in the way of whatever you want to be doing.
 
That would actually be a good design.
 
Top Bottom