New and Improved Victory Types (ideas)

[sir_schwick]

i know i jsut posted, but on (1) you have to have built the UN before the counter starts

 

[dh_epic]

I worry about stuff like "make peace for 100 years" -- because it's hard to know who's responsible for that (it takes everyone make peace). But, more importantly, if you're playing multiplayer, you just need one person to start a war.

You would have to do something like instigate peace between two rival nations. Like a Palestine VS Israel thing. Or impose sanctions on a country that's at war, causing them to go peaceful. These kinds of things multiple times. And, most of all, stay out of conflict yourself -- by having allies who love you, and enemies who would have too much to lose by attacking you.

I think you'd need a few more options, diplomatically. As well as temporary locked alliances -- especially in the modern age, especially for democracies. "Sorry Sire, but we will not let you attack France. We just negotiated peace and will not let you smear Germany's good name!"

 

[roidesfoux]

Continuing with my theme of "more victory conditions=good"...

I also disliked the diplomatic victory from Civ 3, but I think it could easily be improved. Make it so that you have to get 2/3 or 3/4 of the total votes to win, and make it so that computer players will abstain unless they really like one of the canidates. That way, the Secretary General won't be just the person the world hates less.

In addition, have a second diplomatic victory condition where you win if you have alliances with all other nations.

-RdF

 

[sir_schwick]

I think you'd need a few more options, diplomatically. As well as temporary locked alliances -- especially in the modern age, especially for democracies. "Sorry Sire, but we will not let you attack France. We just negotiated peace and will not let you smear Germany's good name!"

The only reason I am leary about representative governments restricting actiosn is what always happened in Civ 2. Every time you were starting to get head-way in a major war, your senators would sign a treaty behind your back. When you broke that treaty, they would just sign it again.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I agree that the senate thing in Civ 2 didn't make a lot of sense some of the time.

Done with more logic, it could be better. e.g.: they don't force you into peace when you're at war, but prevent you from going to war if you just made a peace treaty with the dudes you've been at war at for a while.

 

[sir_schwick]

Or maybe you should have the 90-day window the pres of the US does to conduct war w/o congresses permission. Except here it is 5 turns, after that your troops return outside the border and you can't fight w/o permission from congress, much more liekly to be granted if you are attacked.

 

[Luthor_Saxburg]

Regarding victory, I would like a gap of time between the announcement and the actual victory.

For instance, if there was a winner due to the UN election, it should give you 10 turns. So, after elected, the Civ would only win after 10 turns... if it lost its capital within 10 turns, this would be cancelled. Same with Domination, Space ships and all non-conquest victories!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually I'd include conquest victories in that (because stopping all other civs control of their cities should be a reversible state...unless by conquest victory you bena the total elimination of all culture other than your own...whcih means it might never happen)