MatThePhat
Fanatic
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 80
Howdy y'all,
So I'm super pumped about the new game, and simultaneously the loooonnggg wait until it becomes a reality. Still, I was wondering what people thought about this development on one of the few things we do know about, the Victory Conditions, particularly the missing ones.
I want to start by saying this isn't a complaining thread from me. As such, I want to preface with why I actually like the current VCs.
To start with, all three Affinity Victories seem to be of a similar type, the VC traditionally known as the Space Race. Research to a point, build something, and then defend while it launches. While the general formula is the same, they all have certain twists on the classic. Harmony seems to be vanilla, Supremacy incorporates the balancing act of diminishing your military as it becomes more critical, and Purity adding a novel colonization aspect at a point in the game when everything is probably starting to get a bit crowded.
Contact, on the other hand, seems to be a new Victory Type Civ has never done before. A quest-oriented goal that seems to rely heavily on discovering and piecing together what you learn from the planet (Probably using the BE equivalent of Archaologists).
Finally, Conquest, because, Civilization and all.
So in reality, we are getting three VCs, not that many. And yet, I like it. It allows a very directed goal of what kind of game they're trying to tell. They want you to decide the future of humanity in a distinctly sci-fi way. As well, I notice that these VC types are the most multiplayer interactive. In multiplayer games, conquest and space race are the most common victories, and these VCs do not allow you to win in a vacuum (if Contact uses archaeology, even that one will be quite multiplayer involved). However, this does mean that every player has to be invested in military to some degree. Still, as a player that loves multiplayer, I approve of this focus and combination of builder, conquest, and research playstyles into a multiplayer endgame.
Now onto the missing ones.
Economic: Used in SMAC, integrated with the "mind control" mechanic where you could infiltrate a city and spend money to take control of it. If you amassed enough wealth to be able to do thatt to every city in the game, you won without having to infiltrate anything. I always thought the image of a guy cackling madly as he mind controlled the entire human race too great to pass up. Still, a very pacifistic VC, where you want to fight and expand as little as possible, but you have to keep the pulse of player politics to be able to make the right investments and keep everyone else at each other's throats. A diplomatic and builder VC.
Cultural: Used in Vanilla 5, you win by completing policy trees and building the utopia project. The most pacifistic VC, and the one with the least multiplayer interaction. You just want to be left alone as much as possible, and expanding very little. The ultimate builder VC.
Influential: Used in Brave New World, you win by exporting your culture to other nations, making them unhappy and slowly bringing them around to your way of life, using an archaelogy system that can make for some tense standoffs. A surprisingly aggressive and even cutthroat VC that doesn't require the use of military (although, I remember people declaring war on me just to cross my borders and steal my unharvested national treasures
). An interesting cross in exploratory, and builder VC.
Diplomatic: Used by multiple games, you win by being voted supreme leader with votes based upon population (and city states). SMAC implemented this well, because even though no one would ever vote you supreme leader, winning votes in the congress gave you tangible mechanical benefits to help you on your way (we're looking at you, backstabbing Lal, with your sweet and innocent face). BNW also used city states effectively to help a person win without needing the support of human munchkin players in a way that still made sense and felt real, while also difficult.
And any other ones I'm missing. Why do people think these ones were cut? Should they have been cut at all? How would we want these implemented in BE, or in some expansion of BE? Are people unhappy with the militaristic nature of the Affinity VCs?
So I'm super pumped about the new game, and simultaneously the loooonnggg wait until it becomes a reality. Still, I was wondering what people thought about this development on one of the few things we do know about, the Victory Conditions, particularly the missing ones.
I want to start by saying this isn't a complaining thread from me. As such, I want to preface with why I actually like the current VCs.
To start with, all three Affinity Victories seem to be of a similar type, the VC traditionally known as the Space Race. Research to a point, build something, and then defend while it launches. While the general formula is the same, they all have certain twists on the classic. Harmony seems to be vanilla, Supremacy incorporates the balancing act of diminishing your military as it becomes more critical, and Purity adding a novel colonization aspect at a point in the game when everything is probably starting to get a bit crowded.
Contact, on the other hand, seems to be a new Victory Type Civ has never done before. A quest-oriented goal that seems to rely heavily on discovering and piecing together what you learn from the planet (Probably using the BE equivalent of Archaologists).
Finally, Conquest, because, Civilization and all.
So in reality, we are getting three VCs, not that many. And yet, I like it. It allows a very directed goal of what kind of game they're trying to tell. They want you to decide the future of humanity in a distinctly sci-fi way. As well, I notice that these VC types are the most multiplayer interactive. In multiplayer games, conquest and space race are the most common victories, and these VCs do not allow you to win in a vacuum (if Contact uses archaeology, even that one will be quite multiplayer involved). However, this does mean that every player has to be invested in military to some degree. Still, as a player that loves multiplayer, I approve of this focus and combination of builder, conquest, and research playstyles into a multiplayer endgame.
Now onto the missing ones.
Economic: Used in SMAC, integrated with the "mind control" mechanic where you could infiltrate a city and spend money to take control of it. If you amassed enough wealth to be able to do thatt to every city in the game, you won without having to infiltrate anything. I always thought the image of a guy cackling madly as he mind controlled the entire human race too great to pass up. Still, a very pacifistic VC, where you want to fight and expand as little as possible, but you have to keep the pulse of player politics to be able to make the right investments and keep everyone else at each other's throats. A diplomatic and builder VC.
Cultural: Used in Vanilla 5, you win by completing policy trees and building the utopia project. The most pacifistic VC, and the one with the least multiplayer interaction. You just want to be left alone as much as possible, and expanding very little. The ultimate builder VC.
Influential: Used in Brave New World, you win by exporting your culture to other nations, making them unhappy and slowly bringing them around to your way of life, using an archaelogy system that can make for some tense standoffs. A surprisingly aggressive and even cutthroat VC that doesn't require the use of military (although, I remember people declaring war on me just to cross my borders and steal my unharvested national treasures
). An interesting cross in exploratory, and builder VC. Diplomatic: Used by multiple games, you win by being voted supreme leader with votes based upon population (and city states). SMAC implemented this well, because even though no one would ever vote you supreme leader, winning votes in the congress gave you tangible mechanical benefits to help you on your way (we're looking at you, backstabbing Lal, with your sweet and innocent face). BNW also used city states effectively to help a person win without needing the support of human munchkin players in a way that still made sense and felt real, while also difficult.
And any other ones I'm missing. Why do people think these ones were cut? Should they have been cut at all? How would we want these implemented in BE, or in some expansion of BE? Are people unhappy with the militaristic nature of the Affinity VCs?
