I have yet to try to go for a DV and I get a bit discouraged by reading these comments. But I don't really mind that some victory types are harder to achieve or takes more time than others. It might need some adjustments though.
That's about it. Gold doesn't help since the AI have a limit to how much favors they sell and eventually will stop selling if you're hoarding favors, so Civs like Mali won't do much aside from being good at everything else. If you ignore the issues pointed out in this thread, cultural Civs are good since you can reach the future era faster, where you get to convert CO2 into favors, you get +5 favors per turn from policies and 50 favors every time you research the last civic, which is repeatable. Through culture, you also unlock spies, you get policies that improve your spies and more envoys. Civs with good production also have an advantage once it gets to that final fase but again, only if you ignore the issues pointed here. For now, Sweden, Canada (with cultural victory disabled), Hungary, America, Georgia, Greece, Catherine's France (spies), Egypt (100% alliance points from trading) and Sumeria (Gains Alliance Points per-turn for being at war with a common foe) are the only Civs with a real advantage. Special mention to Eleanor though, since she can peacefully eliminate whole Civs, reducing the amount of votes against her without hurting diplomacy.
Honestly, it doesn't matter because generating Diplomatic Favor is not the problem. It's the lack of opportunities to convert your favor into victory points that's the issue.
This is just a fundamental problem with the concept of a Diplomatic Victory in a Civ game.
The idea that you can have a competitive game where each player is trying to win, but one of those victory conditions requires some sort of election by the other players is just a non-starter.
Thinking about it, I totally agree with that !
And in the end I think Diplomatic Victory should be some kind of "peacefull" or soft Domination Victory. Each civilization would vote for you if you suprass them by x% on all major fields (science, culture, money, military power,...) recognizing that you're the leader and they cannot catch up.
It would solve late game end turn clickfest when you know you will win, but it's just a matter of time to reach the victory condition. Therefore improving the whole game, because this has always been an issue with Civ games.
And if let say you're way ahead all civs but 1 which is still more or less not that far from you. You would send a big army to his border, maybe start a war and show him who's the boss if he doesn't understand. And he will have to sign peace treaty with a "OK you win" agreement, end of game, diplomatic victory.
In real world, that's very much like how diplomacy works.
Won two diplomacy victories so far on emperor with little to no interference from the competition. Just save up your points for when those vote become available.
Guess my first victory was mostly a case of FOMO, getting those points just in case. When I had eight the victory was inevitable because there is a point to be had in both the tech and the civic tree.
Before you have 8 points and the AI flag you as winning, you just need to invest one vote more than the AI that have more favors. Ex: The AI that have more favors have 210 favors, which is enough for 7 votes, so you invest 280 favors to get 8 votes and win. Once you got 8 points every leader will vote against you, so you need to outvote them all, which can be impossible depending on how much Civs are in your game and how much favors they have. By that point you just invest everything you got and pray for the crab god intervention.
Norway probably has the biggest advantage because they can enter the ocean sooner. Meet other civs faster therefore more chances at the emergency RNG game.
I'm torn. If the AI tries too hard, you'll have what we had in the early days of Civ 5 where every other civ would DoW on you when you started winning. Who wants that?
I'm torn. If the AI tries too hard, you'll have what we had in the early days of Civ 5 where every other civ would DoW on you when you started winning. Who wants that?
The AI has never tried to win with consistency in a Civ game.
Again, if opponents "trying to win" is unfun, that's a serious indictment of the game's design. The solution is not to make opponents refuse to play the game. The solution in that case is to fix the design.
The AI has never tried to win with consistency in a Civ game.
Again, if opponents "trying to win" is unfun, that's a serious indictment of the game's design. The solution is not to make opponents refuse to play the game. The solution in that case is to fix the design.
Correct, this is one of the largest legacy failings of the series as a whole, though I'm not sure the earliest Civ titles struggled to the same extent as things were less advanced back then. At least, I suspect Civ 1 AI wasn't programmed to intentionally throw the game to the extent of Civ 4/5/6 AIs.
Correct, this is one of the largest legacy failings of the series as a whole, though I'm not sure the earliest Civ titles struggled to the same extent as things were less advanced back then. At least, I suspect Civ 1 AI wasn't programmed to intentionally throw the game to the extent of Civ 4/5/6 AIs.
I think the issue is that they're trying to emulate a scenario in which there are no actual winners (real life) so any "ending" to the game is going to feel tacked on.
That all said, I have not done diplomacy at all but I have no real reason not to believe all the posts here that say it seriously needs work.
I'm torn. If the AI tries too hard, you'll have what we had in the early days of Civ 5 where every other civ would DoW on you when you started winning. Who wants that?
This is part of the reason why I'd like to see the victory tracks have in game effects.
Gaining cultural/religious dominance over a civ should prevent them from going to war with you (and vice versa). Diplomatic influence should be reflected in an ability to form a coalition, i.e. sway others to join you in your wars. And grievances can be reflected in a loss of diplomatic influence, so that you're restricted in how far you can go during those wars and maintain your allies.
Disjointed game mechanisms are what creates the dichotomy between the AI "playing to win" and "playing as a foil". An AI leader who already sees you as the world leader in a particular area should be actively pursuing their own victory objective, not trying to stop you achieving yours. Other AI leaders, though, should be quite willing to step up and actively oppose your dominance, until such time as you convince them to do otherwise.
This sounds very good. Plus the voting of the AI should depend on the Alliance level. Such as on Level 3 they might vote for you, on Level 2 they will not put much votes against you. So you will have incentives to be peaceful and make alliances.
I think the issue is that they're trying to emulate a scenario in which there are no actual winners (real life) so any "ending" to the game is going to feel tacked on.
That all said, I have not done diplomacy at all but I have no real reason not to believe all the posts here that say it seriously needs work.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
