[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[Thormodr]

Hoping for an economic victory to be a thing. Perhaps in the second expansion.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And what about diplomatic victory? Willl it be given with another expansion?

Hoping for an economic victory to be a thing. Perhaps in the second expansion.

I don't quite understand this. All Civ6 victories are solid and have their place in the game. Adding some other victories for sake of adding would lead to monstrousities like Civ5 diplo victory. I wouldn't want a new victory type, unless it has clear gameplay spot.

 

[Thormodr]

I don't quite understand this. All Civ6 victories are solid and have their place in the game. Adding some other victories for sake of adding would lead to monstrousities like Civ5 diplo victory. I wouldn't want a new victory type, unless it has clear gameplay spot.

It can be optional. That way if it really bothers anyone, they don’t have to use it.

 

[darkace77450]

I don't quite understand this. All Civ6 victories are solid and have their place in the game. Adding some other victories for sake of adding would lead to monstrousities like Civ5 diplo victory. I wouldn't want a new victory type, unless it has clear gameplay spot.

Does a diplomatic victory not have a clear gameplay spot? A World Congress would give us a good reason to cultivate good relationships with other Civs. It would gives us something to do late game other than steam rolling cities or clicking Next Turn while waiting for tourism or research buckets to fill. It could open the door for new and interesting unique and leader abilities. And it would give peaceful players a means of dealing with problematic Civs (I'm looking at you, Pedro) without resorting to waging war against an AI that's ill equipped to fight back. A diplomatic victory, in my humble opinion, is exactly what this game needs in the next expansion.

 

[AvianBritish]

Come to think about it; I'm sure the great general they replaced Genghis with is William Wallace, and the only reason why Ed wouldn't tell us this is because he's been put into the game because Scotland is now in the game.
This would mean Scotland would be under a different [actual] leader rather then William Wallace. I can't think of any other explanation.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Does a diplomatic victory not have a clear gameplay spot? A World Congress would give us a good reason to cultivate good relationships with other Civs. It would gives us something to do late game other than steam rolling cities or clicking Next Turn while waiting for tourism or research buckets to fill. It could open the door for new and interesting unique and leader abilities. And it would give peaceful players a means of dealing with problematic Civs (I'm looking at you, Pedro) without resorting to waging war against an AI that's ill equipped to fight back. A diplomatic victory, in my humble opinion, is exactly what this game needs in the next expansion.

I agree, given that domination is a bit overpowered in 6, a diplomatic victory would give players and AI an incentive to maintain peaceful relationships.

However, I also agree that the diplo victory in 5 was donkey doodoo, so I wouldn't want them to include one unless they implemented it with more thought.

 

[Kheznik]

I am beginning to think that Scotland is just a red herring, especially since we've seen that Brussels will be getting a unique palace style (right?). Edinburgh might just be a new city-state replacing one of the unrevealed ones, with Wallace as GG, and they're intentionally teasing us because they know us... The devs were reluctant to reveal Genghis Khan's replacement after all.

Plus, we know they visit this place. Tamar is an example of that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Does a diplomatic victory not have a clear gameplay spot? A World Congress would give us a good reason to cultivate good relationships with other Civs. It would gives us something to do late game other than steam rolling cities or clicking Next Turn while waiting for tourism or research buckets to fill. It could open the door for new and interesting unique and leader abilities. And it would give peaceful players a means of dealing with problematic Civs (I'm looking at you, Pedro) without resorting to waging war against an AI that's ill equipped to fight back. A diplomatic victory, in my humble opinion, is exactly what this game needs in the next expansion.

Vanilla Civ5 diplomatic victory was economic victory available for players only. You needed to grab enough money for one-time buying city-states. AI didn't use the trick for obvious reasons (on high difficulty levels it had more than enough money to do the trick).
Civ5 BNW made it a bit more difficult to control-city states, but overall it still was junk.

The biggest problem with diplomatic victory is this. Other civilizations have 2 roles - they are your opponents AND part of the game. Diplomatic victory suggests you win by having specific relations (alliances) with them, that's the second part of the definition. But by the first part of the definition, the civs shouldn't take part in alliances which would let you win. You could potentially hide this with AI players, but with human players this wouldn't work. Theoretically, it's possible to repeat Civ5 trick with diplomatic victory related to city-states (which are part of the game, but not opponents), but this makes really poor diplomatic victory, IMHO.

Economic victory is easy to implement, but it's hard to invoke any distinctive gamplay in it. Things like "have X money, build wonder Y" are totally similar to science victory with a minor twist. Remember CivBE victory conditions? I wouldn't call them interesting.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Come to think about it; I'm sure the great general they replaced Genghis with is William Wallace, and the only reason why Ed wouldn't tell us this is because he's been put into the game because Scotland is now in the game.
This would mean Scotland would be under a different [actual] leader rather then William Wallace. I can't think of any other explanation.

Hoping you're right about this.

 

[sonicmyst]

As long as diplo victory does not involve buying off the CS, I agree it should be included in 2nd expansion.

 

[BenZL43]

Do you think they all will remember to change Bandar Brunei's logo?
They now still use Jakarta's Monumen Nasional (National Monument),
I hope it can change to something Bruneian?

 

[Lord Lakely]

Firaxis should just shamelessly copy MoO's Space Congress system for the diplomatic victory. Or Alpha Centauri's, whichever works.

 

[DeepKing]

Come to think about it; I'm sure the great general they replaced Genghis with is William Wallace, and the only reason why Ed wouldn't tell us this is because he's been put into the game because Scotland is now in the game.
This would mean Scotland would be under a different [actual] leader rather then William Wallace. I can't think of any other explanation.

I figured either that or the GG was Shaka, suddenly nixing a series staple would be reason to stay mum on the replacement.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The GG would have to be from the same era as Genghis. It can't be Shaka. It could be a Scottish leader like William Wallace, but I think the new GG is Inca. Having Pachacuti as a GG would be a pretty big giveaway towards their exclusion.

Or maybe it's just Ed being Ed, who knows.

 

[DeepKing]

Gracious, I dare say I'd be outraged if it was Pachacuti.

 

[Amrunril]

Vanilla Civ5 diplomatic victory was economic victory available for players only. You needed to grab enough money for one-time buying city-states. AI didn't use the trick for obvious reasons (on high difficulty levels it had more than enough money to do the trick).
Civ5 BNW made it a bit more difficult to control-city states, but overall it still was junk.

The biggest problem with diplomatic victory is this. Other civilizations have 2 roles - they are your opponents AND part of the game. Diplomatic victory suggests you win by having specific relations (alliances) with them, that's the second part of the definition. But by the first part of the definition, the civs shouldn't take part in alliances which would let you win. You could potentially hide this with AI players, but with human players this wouldn't work. Theoretically, it's possible to repeat Civ5 trick with diplomatic victory related to city-states (which are part of the game, but not opponents), but this makes really poor diplomatic victory, IMHO.

Economic victory is easy to implement, but it's hard to invoke any distinctive gamplay in it. Things like "have X money, build wonder Y" are totally similar to science victory with a minor twist. Remember CivBE victory conditions? I wouldn't call them interesting.

I'd argue that Civ V's diplomatic victory (as of BNW) was deeply flawed balance wise, but that it was actually well designed in concept. It had a lot of components that provided interesting gameplay, from completing city state quests, to making good use of policies beliefs and wonders, to defending your CS allies from military attack, to getting other civs to vote for intermediate steps that brought you closer to victory but also provided them with some benefit (world religion/ideology, WC elections at the start of each era). The problem, of course, was that throwing piles of cash at city states could trump all of these other elements.

 

[Disgustipated]

Throwing piles of cash is always a good way to win things. Cash has many uses.

I'm growing a bit concerned about the lack of "big" civilizations this expansion. I'm worried people will see civilizations they've never heard of and decline to buy the expansion because of it. And I don't want sales to be hurt enough that it affects the future of the game. I'm mainly talking about the absence of the Ottomans. I'm not sure what kind of player base they have in the Turkey region, but I'd imagine there has to be some. Perhaps this will be future DLC, but what good is DLC if the expansion doesn't sell well? Yeah we got the Mongols, but most of the civilizations in this expansion are small. We apparently aren't even getting the Incas (not that they were particularly large, but they've been in several civ games). Size does count for something you know.

 

[DWilson]

Do we expect some indication of a stream over the course of the next couple days?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Do we expect some indication of a stream over the course of the next couple days?

I've asked on Twitter. No response yet.

 

[Phoenix1595]

It would be great to have the uShaka song returning.

Shaka may return to the game ONLY if he brings his theme song with him.