Speculation : Entirely new VC and deeply reworked existing VC

[Zaarin]

Science victory should be to get rid of all religions.

Yes, I'm sure that offending the majority of the world's population is high up on Firaxis's priorities.

 

[PenguinPower]

I would assume the easiest two would be religious or ideological. I always felt like it should count for something when I managed to unite the entire world under a single religion.

An ideological victory though would just be a reworked diplomacy victory, actually, so I can't see another but religious. Perhaps something economic.

 

[OnceAKing]

I don't think a religious victory is viable. What if you never founded a religion? but you've aggressively spread someone else's religion? Should they get the victory or you? What incentive do you even have for spreading someone else's religion? I mean in CiV if you spread someone else's religion you at least got positive diplomatic relations but that'd be squashed if there was a religious victory. What if the founding civ is extinct but the religion lived on?

Also even if you founded a religion, what if the majority in each civ has the religion but not EVERY SINGLE CITY. Should you win? Would it really even be fun or compelling to just spam missionaries and great prophets? Where's the strategy? I mean you could start war to spread religion but given the hit you'll get to diplomacy, you might as well win a domination victory. Lastly, what does a religious victory even look like. I don't think a single dominant religion is desirable to play with. I'd like to see a couple dominant religions constantly pushing and pulling against each other....



My argument for a completely new victory would be economic. To be sure, you cant just save a whole bunch of money. An economic victory should coincide with some type of global currency that you have control over. It should be coupled with corporations and later international corporations that almost act like city states. Imagine Germany, USA, and China all vying to control the global economy through manipulation of the markets. I think its timely and realistic and would buff a part of the game that was rather stale in the currency in Civ....

oh and by the way, there was a heavy interest on Teddy Roosevelt's square deal and trust busting bonafides, maybe that's foreshadowing to a new component of the game.....

 

[Chinese American]

Religion could be interesting if players fight over the holy cities. Suppose Religious victory needs certain pecentage of world pop and control of its holy city. As the religion spreads, civs vie for control of the holy city, and owner has to put in all efforts to protect it.

 

[lindsay40k]

Fully automated luxury communism

 

[kamex]

Religions and Ideologies have a lot of similarities, (disclaimer - not saying they are the same) there's no way they would be two separate conditions.

I think economic would be the best bet. Controlling the majority of resources in our age of consumption would give one pretty much unlimited power and influence.

 

[x2Madda]

(Extracted from here: http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ6_overview.html#religion thanks again Arioch for summing up all the info we have in one page!)


According to GadgetHelpLine, there is now a Religious Victory, and religion allows you to breed Inquisitors, apostles, and the ability to conquer foreign cities through religious fervor alone.

“Aside from custom cathedrals, meeting houses, etc. that you can put into your holy site now based on a belief, you can also have powers, For example, being able to purchase theater districts or commercial hubs with faith alone. You're going to have religious combat now, you're going to have inquisitions, you can have inquisitors, apostles, there's a whole different level if you want to play that aggressive religion-versus-religion game.” - Dennis Shirk

You know, I welcome th--
NO, SHUT UP, I'M NOT A HYPOCRITE

In all seriousness, I think my main gripe with tourism in Civ5 was I felt great musicians should have worked like phrophets, able to walk in enemy territory but losing health/strength as they did so. Getting open borders wasn't hard at first but sometimes you would piss someone off too much or the other nations would get mad because of "blue jeans" or whatever.

Given that culture victory (I believe) is the same as in civ5, I fail to see how religious victory will be different enough to seperate the two although the ability to flip cities is very much welcomed.

Also assuming we follow tradition, how will this affect Diety difficulty (if its in the game) when AI typically start with a handful of techs and production bonuses?
Its not uncommon in civ5, on higher settings to just let the AI found a religion and then take over whichever civ has the religion you like the most.

 

[x2Madda]

I don't see why they would get rid of "time". It prevents endless games. My daughter once won on time, on settler (her first game; I helped her settle her second city, and then left her alone). She'd still be playing if there was no time victory.

Isn't that cute though? She must have had fun to have played all the way till the end of time, just watching the various mechanics unfold and seeing all the numbers go up.

We, as adults, have expectations of games and what a Civ game should be, but the main rule (in my opinion) of what qualifies as a 'good game' is: "is it fun?".
She might not have played the way we would consider "its meant to be played" but their is no denying that 500 turns is a serious commitment for anyone new to the series.

Maybe take turn timer off and let her build to her hearts content...Or until bedtime

 

[lindsay40k]

I can see separate Relgious and Ideological VCs. Spreading your faith to the majority of the people would work, and the World Congress/UN could easily exist next to a Comintern, an Axis, and a Federation (NATO is too geographically named), each of which being diplo amongst ideological civs. Being Chairman/Leader/President at the time when everyone adopts your ideology would be a different pathway to spreading your faith. You could even have high level tenets/policies that enhance your diplo. BUT it could lead to shenanigans far more extreme than Civ IV's Religious Victory, so much balancing would be needed.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You know, I welcome th--
NO, SHUT UP, I'M NOT A HYPOCRITE

In all seriousness, I think my main gripe with tourism in Civ5 was I felt great musicians should have worked like phrophets, able to walk in enemy territory but losing health/strength as they did so. Getting open borders wasn't hard at first but sometimes you would piss someone off too much or the other nations would get mad because of "blue jeans" or whatever.

Given that culture victory (I believe) is the same as in civ5, I fail to see how religious victory will be different enough to seperate the two although the ability to flip cities is very much welcomed.

Also assuming we follow tradition, how will this affect Diety difficulty (if its in the game) when AI typically start with a handful of techs and production bonuses?
Its not uncommon in civ5, on higher settings to just let the AI found a religion and then take over whichever civ has the religion you like the most.

I could see it like a Diplomatic victory with a religion component
ie you must
Build a "Holy See", 'religious Wonder'=1 per religion
AND
Get one religion to dominate all civs and most CS
AND
Get sufficient "delegates" (similar to BNW, but only CS that follow the religion count)

[before religious domination of the world allows the Victory votes, the "Holy See" can give bonuses/penalties to cities of that religion... like "Embargo:Zulu..trade with the Zulus and your Buddhist cities are unhappy/Buddhist cities will not trade with Zulus" or "Condemned Ideology: Democracy..If you are a Democracy your Buddhist cities are unhappy".]

 

[Sherlock]

I hate the culture victory. You have to have every single turn from the very beginning of the game focused on it in order to even have a chance at it.

'Play the map', hah.

 

[Aristos]

The reworked VC will be Diplo, they will borrow heavily from the Community Patch Project, which in many aspects is what Civ 5 should have been (and devs there showed that it can). Their diplo solution adds the important layer of proximity (think true spheres of influence) to City States relations via diplo units (and a diplo resource to build them). The AI can use them (too efficiently, mind you), and it works perfectly.

The new VC will most likely be a Religious VC.

Spot on in #2, and I'm sure spot on in #1 also.

 

[lindsay40k]

If there is a Holy See, I'd like to see it named specifically to the religious icon. The Hindu Apostolic Palace was an odd occurrence...

I hate the culture victory. You have to have every single turn from the very beginning of the game focused on it in order to even have a chance at it.

'Play the map', hah.

Well, probably true, if you intend for it to be your culture displayed in your museums, and if your approach to an Alhambra + Hermitage rival's mountain of culture is to get into a peaceful and honourable race with them...

 

[Tatran]

The new religious victory and the old cultural victory are too much of the same.
So, it's very likely the cultural victory is gone and tourism will be used to flip tiles/cities.
The cultural victory was always a very passive, mainly waiting, process in the civ series.
Civ5 world congress/U.N. had some potential (it had more interesting resolutions then the civ4 U.N.), but it was very lopsided (buying city-states).
The diplomatic victory is probably the one being re-worked, because the scientific and conquest victory are as good as they are.
The tedious parts (waiting x turns to arrive at Alpha Centeuri and capturing every city on the map) of those victory types have already been removed.

 

[stealth_nsk]

With culture having it's separate tree, I really doubt cultural victory will be removed.

 

[Tatran]

With culture having it's separate tree, I really doubt cultural victory will be removed.

Well, the old cultural victory is similar to the new religious victory and having 2 equal victory types is very unlikely.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well, the old cultural victory is similar to the new religious victory and having 2 equal victory types is very unlikely.

This could mean the cultural victory is entirely different now.

 

[Spartan_X]

I believe that to achieve a religious victory should require more than just making your religion the dominant one in every city. This is easy to accomplish. Rather, the victory condition should be to make your religion the only one in every city, make every other religion extinct.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I believe that to achieve a religious victory should require more than just making your religion the dominant one in every city. This is easy to accomplish. Rather, the victory condition should be to make your religion the only one in every city, make every other religion extinct.

Without knowing the rest of the game you can't tell what's easy to accomplish and what's not. I'm not sure total destruction of religion in holy city is possible.

 

[Plus Ultra]

I believe that to achieve a religious victory should require more than just making your religion the dominant one in every city. This is easy to accomplish.

We don't know how religion will spread in Civ VI, or how hard it will be to spread it.

The important part is that all victory conditions are somewhat equally achievable with the optimal strategy, and that busywork, once victory is already unavoidable, is kept to a minimum.