Should the Score victory trigger if a player massively exceeds all other players?

[isau]

So, the Score victory makes you wait until the final turn of the game. That's cool.

Here's my current situation, as Hojo of Japan:

It's going to take forever to fill up that tourism meter. Meanwhile I control like 50% of the world's tiles, have wonders everywhere, everyone else is beat to a pulp except maaaybe my ally Persia. None of the other players has any realistic chance of winning this. I could, technically, declare war on the remaining players and spend eternity walking through molasses to take their capitals, but the idea feels oppressive. It wouldn't be hard, just take so much time and attention. So I'm just hitting next turn/next turn/next turn and buying theater district buildings with my ridiculous influx of gold from controlling most of the world.

Granted, I could have beelined the Culture victory faster, I suppose. It just seems like, at some point, if one players Score massively exceeds everyone else that the game should be called. The old Domination rule from Civ 4 basically did this.

Sidenote: I hate the Civ 5 and 6 Domination Victory condition that is based on taking all other capital cities. It was designed on the theory that it makes the player stay in conflicts to the end. In reality, it boils down to having to slog dozens of units through specific locations on the map facing off against outdated units. The old Civ 4 rules weren't perfect but they worked better.

I'm just going to pretend I won this one and move on. Maybe I would have needed a slightly higher score, but the idea of continuing to play at this point seems like big waste of time. I didn't feel that way as often with Civ 4 or even 5.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think the key lesson to learn is to set the turn limit much lower! 500 turns to me is a crazy length to wait for a score victory. It’s much more challenging if you limit yourself to 150-250 turns.

 

[Archon_Wing]

*Insert pointless comment about finishing the game 100 turns ago*

But in all seriousness, there's really no need to play a game out if it's already been decided. And also, it could work the other way around with the AI snowballing and really throw a wrench into those 1 city challenges or something if there's a runaway.

 

[Leyrann]

Maybe when you double the second player in score?

The problem with score victory though, is that particularly for domination victories you need to make sure it doesn't trigger before the victory you're aiming for triggers, which is probably why they linked it to turn time.

 

[Abaxial]

You only have to declare war on Cyrus and take him out of the game. Not the others.

 

[isau]

In Civ 4 a player won if they controlled 66% of the maps tiles. At least I think it was 66 percent. It made the game much more enjoyable to me.

I realllly dislike the Domination victory in Civ 6. When they introduced it in Civ 5 they said it was to make the game more exciting. But for me it does the opposite. I don't mind doing some conquering, but dragging units to capitals is so incredibly tedious.

 

[Leyrann]

In Civ 4 a player won if they controlled 66% of the maps tiles. At least I think it was 66 percent. It made the game much more enjoyable to me.

Regarding that, there was also a conquest victory that required you to eliminate all other civilizations, right? How can you achieve that without winning a domination victory first?

 

[isau]

Regarding that, there was also a conquest victory that required you to eliminate all other civilizations, right? How can you achieve that without winning a domination victory first?

Conquest Victory existed more in theory than in fact. It existed purely in the sense that if all other players have zero cities a player must have won. It could become a factor, mainly, in a very big world with only 1 or 2 players. If you killed off the other players the game wouldn't then force you to grab 66% of the world's tiles before declaring you winner, you just won outright.