1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

My Culture Victory feels more like Diplo Victory than Diplo Victory does

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by TheBlackHole, Sep 16, 2013.

  1. TheBlackHole

    TheBlackHole Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    I'm playing Sweden on Immortal trying to get a Culture Victory. I find that I'm actually bending over backwards to be diplomatic with everyone to maintain that 25% open borders bonus and to not have them DoW on me (so I can keep my diplomat, open borders, and trade routes). Also because I'm Sweden, I want as many friends as possible to maximize my UA, of course.

    I realized that between my trade routes, diplomats, Open Borders, and generally trying to be as nice of a guy as possible, this feels FAR FAR more like a Diplo Victory than the actual Diplo Victory does. I'm actually agreeing to all the civs' gift requests/demands, whereas I almost never do that with any other victory types. I'm trying hard to make friends and to not piss anyone off in fear of losing my tourism modifiers.

    It's so much more diplomatically satisfying to actually be diplomatically interacting with civs rather than city-states to attain a victory. I'd love if the actual Diplomatic victory involved this aspect.
     
  2. Yzman

    Yzman Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,768
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    Yes it does seem like it would be good if a diplo win somehow incorporated the other civs, but I suppose it is hard because its a game and we are "competing" with them. If you make it so that the AI can vote for you, people will complain they aren't trying to win. If you have it now, we have people complain its not diplomatic or that immersion is ruined.

    I agree with your thoughts, its just hard to imagine a good compromise in between the 2 extremes.
     
  3. EK834

    EK834 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    333
    It would be pretty easy to solve this and the other issues with the victory, actually (it's too easy, it happens too early and it relies too much on simply buying CS and not actual diplomacy).

    One possible solution would be:

    When the UN is built (it's a wonder again, an early atomic era one), a Security aouncil of 5 members is elected by everyone. The founder/buider is made a permanent member, with the second civ with the most delegates, The other 3 are not permanent. This becomes a key step in winning a diplo victory, but there's always the possibility to slip in at a next vote if you miss becoming permanent right away. On the second vote, a third permanent and 2 non-permanent members are chosen, and the next time a fourth, and finally the full council is permanent, The Council gets to vote on special resolutions and only them five, without allies, are eligible to vote for those, Permanent members have 2 votes, the three others have 1. Normal sessions continue every x turn.

    When 3 civs have entered the Information era, the UN as a whole selects 3 candidates among the Security Council to be Secretary General of the UN. The candidates have until the discovery of Globalization to gather enough votes to win. Each civ has three votes, and can split their vote. CS have two votes. The two votes go to their ally (or to the candidate their ally vote for) if it's been their ally for more than 2 eras, otherwise they split their 2 votes between their current ally and their next best friend.

    As for the AI civ, if only one candidate is an ally, the three votes go to him. If two candidates are allies, they give 2 to the one they like best, and one to the other. Otherwise they vote for the candidate they dislike the least. No abstention possible.

    After a first round of vote if no candidate has +51% there's a second turn a few turns later (3 or 5), and this time it's between only the 2 candidates that got the most votes in the first round.

    The winner gets a diplomatic victory.

    When the three candidates are chosen, it would give the signal to all civs to race for the SV or CV or to take out the three candidates...

    If a candidate loses his capital, he's no longer eligible, so that would be the warmonger solution to stop a rival from winning. Playing peacefully would not necessarily be nice too: a tactic to harm a rival candidate would be to bribe him to attack or denounce someone, or bribe other civs to attack him or denounce hm so his reputation gets harmed. You could also of course buy votes.

    When you're a candidate,the civs would become more demanding. The civs that belong to your ideology less so than the others, and as long as they're friendly they will pretty much vote for you, so it's an incentive to have strong tourism to try to force other civs to switch to your ideology before the vote. Money would help - for bribes and such, but even though having many CS might make you pass to the second turn, without some civs voting for you it wouldn't be easy to win (they could simply make it so that the total # of votes of CS in a game is always equal to 33% of total votes).
     
  4. Rohili

    Rohili King

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    A good compromise would be to make it so that every civ must vote for another civ for WL, including the human player.

    Sure, there is nothing to stop the player from throwing his vote away on Genghis Khan, but the AI can also be coded so that the AI civ with the best shot at winning a diplomatic victory will always vote for another AI civ and not the human player. That would cancel out the impact of the human's vote in terms of determining who becomes WL. However, the other AIs will vote according to their relationships, thereby making it possible to win a DV.

    This does not solve the "problem" of AI civs helping another player win by voting for him (I personally don't see it as a problem), but it does solve the problem of the human having an advantage by being able to vote strategically (thereby effectively always being one vote ahead).
     
  5. EK834

    EK834 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    333
    With relationships souring up because of ideologies (which is a great feature, btw) it would be hard to make this viable.

    I cultivated good relationships with everyone for the whole game except with the warmongering scapegoat.

    It is one of those games in which most civs picked Order, and we're just three for Freedom - and the scapegoat picked autocracy. One after the other my former allies came and asked me to denounce one of the other two Freedom civs - and the only choice you have then is which friend you lose. Within a few turns I had been denounced by every Order civs and by the Autocracy warmonger, and the "cold war" began. Two civs were forced to switch to Freedom before the end, but that still wouldn't be enough, and beside they carried residual grudges toward the three Freedom civs (denunciations and such).

    We'd trade "buy the CS" for "wait as long as possible before picking an ideology" or gamble it will be one of those 'all Order" games and go with that.

    It would leave a whole lot of it to pure chance as we don't even know which civ each AI is most friendly toward.

    The best way to get the AI and CS to vote for someone else than themselves would be to limit eligibility to 3 civs (determined by a series of factors incl. relations counting for much, but also general performance and past actions) for a first turn of vote, and only the two leading candidates for a second turn if no one had 50%+1 of the vote the first time. The bigger ideology would often win, but the vote of CS (reduced in weight compared to now, eg: 33% of the total vote, 66% for the major civs) would balance that a bit and often there would be two candidates from the same ideology and their vote would split. Picking autocracy would make it almost impossible to win this way, but that's logical since it's largely a warmongering/domination ideology.

    The problem with all such solutions is that it's a game stopper: there's no way a winner won't emerge. It could become a "bonus" to the Time victory with the vote happening at the last turn, but the problem is that winning a TV pretty much requires warmongering to stop the cultural leader and tech leader from winning a CV or SV before the last turn, and that would ruin a diplo strategy. A Diplo victory needs to be available before the SV and CV (it's just too early right now, and too likely a winner will emerge), and it needs to be stoppable somehow (eg: conquering the CS is the solution right or cheating by allying enough but abstaining are the solutions right now).

    That's why I'd prefer that a series of conditions to trigger a vote would need to be met (by having a counter for diplomatic influence, for instance). To make a diplo win available you'd need to strategize for it by meeting the conditions, or prevent it by stopping the AI from meeting the conditions before your CV/SV/DV. The final conditions would have to become available just a few techs before the SV is possible.
     
  6. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    3,182
    Location:
    STL
    Victory conditions shouldn't be a novel to explain. That is way too complicated.
     
  7. arand86

    arand86 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2013
    Messages:
    278
    This. It should be just with every CS allied, one vote goes automatically to you. IN addition, all civs vote, but cannot vote for themselves, and all have the same # of votes depending on the era.

    The AI also needs to be patched to negate an easy diplo victory by being more active with allying city states.
     
  8. katfish

    katfish Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2013
    Messages:
    190
    The fun thing is
    For me CV is always becomes a wargame.
    First i piss everyone off by playing wide to get more museums and, if possible, sacred sites. Then i piss everyone some more by dig everything on sight. Then "i find those roman arts too good for cesar to have"
    By the end of it i become something like "source of all evil" autocratic warmonger hated by everyone.
     
  9. Rohili

    Rohili King

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2005
    Messages:
    727
    The simple solution would be to make ideological differences count for less in terms of relationship modifiers. It is simply not realistic that two close allies for centuries will suddenly turn on each other just because they chose different ideologies. In real life, economic and military imperatives count for much more in determining alliances than lofty ideals about freedom and democracy. Years of military alliances and mutually beneficial trade should not be wiped away just because I went Freedom and you picked Order.

    Another possibility would be to allow civs to exert diplomatic pressure on other civs to pick their ideology. You will only be allowed to do this if you are friends with a civ, and that civ has chance of acceding to your request. Even if the civ doesn't, opinion in favour of your ideology will be increased among the population of that civ.
     
  10. Octonde

    Octonde Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    37
    That's why cultural victory doesn't need to play like a 'diplomatic'. The best source of diverse art and artifacts is someone else's museum. The best way to deal with a high-culture civ that is converting slowly is to destroy it. My most recent cultural win was helped greatly by the fact that I destroyed India, gaining a truckload of art and removing the civ that was the least affected by my tourism.
     

Share This Page