Victory Condition Speculation

[Seek]

So the devs have said they are removing a victory condition - what do people suppose it will be?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think that Domination will be the one removed, since Ed has said that the end game will be less war-oriented than previous iterations of Civ. It would certainly change the flavor of the end-game and make wars more about resources or stopping leading civs, say. I don't see science or culture being removed and I think with Ed's interest in diplomacy that won't be removed either. Thoughts?

Also, any thoughts on what the new VC that's being added will be?

 

[Tatran]

Removed : diplomatic or time/score victory
Added : religious or economic victory

 

[bison21]

Sorry but removing domination would kill a massive part of the game. War is essential to the game and I'm sure the devs know that. I think the less-war-talk simply means that they try to put more emphasis on economic and diplomatic victories rather than bulldozing all opponents.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

There is still conquest.

 

[Amrunril]

There is still conquest.

Not if this is in comparison to Civ V. Civ IV had separate Domination (control X% of the world) and Conquest (eliminate all other civs) conditions, but Civ V only has Domination (accomplished by controlling all original capitals).

 

[Heinage]

Considering the diplomatic victory was already pretty much an economic victory in Civ V, I think they'll remove diplomatic and replace with economic.

That also makes sense considering the current state of the real world, where economic power is the dominant form of power.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Cerilis]

I think they will remove science victory (going in line with the reduction of techs) and the new victory will have something to do with whatever new system they will implent to replace the lesser techs.

 

[joncnunn]

My best guess is that Diplomatic is the one that's being removed and it's being replaced with either an Economic or Religious one.

It's a given that Spaceship won't be removed as it's stood the test of time; and also that some military victory needs to remain so Domination also needs to be there. In addition the time one needs to remain to handle reaching 2050 AD without anyone having met a victory condition.

 

[brianshapiro]

Sorry but removing domination would kill a massive part of the game. War is essential to the game and I'm sure the devs know that. I think the less-war-talk simply means that they try to put more emphasis on economic and diplomatic victories rather than bulldozing all opponents.

Despite all the less-war-talk, I've always found the conquest victory to be the most fun and most satisfying from a gameplay pov. Not because I like war and dominating people, just I didn't find the other victory paths that fun.

 

[Amrunril]

I think that replacing Diplomatic Victory with Economic Victory would be a mistake. Diplomatic Victory often acting as Economic Victory is a flaw in execution (that a new game would be in a perfect position to correct), not an indication that Diplomatic Victory is a bad idea conceptually. I also think it makes more sense for gold to be a means to an end that for it to be an end in itself, and I have a hard time seeing how the narrative explanation behind an Economic Victory would work.

I also think that removing Domination/Conquest Victory would be a terrible idea for the simple reason that it would often force a player who does eliminate all other civs to play through another 100 turns to win an official victory, despite no longer having any opponents.

I'm hoping/guessing that the removed victory condition is simply time victory. There's no reason beyond convention that the game needs to end on a set turn number, and in my mind being the strongest civ yet failing to achieve any other victory condition before the deadline is a sign of failure rather than one of success.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Science victory will be in the game because that was what they told in the IGN video. There is certainly a military victory and culture victory is likely still in the game because it seems like tourism will be in Civilization VI. And I have a hard time to see that time victory will be gone.

In such case the only victory condition that is left is diplomatic.

I would also guess on a religious victory as that is something I think could work without to much trouble.

 

[darko82]

Why do they remove a victory in the first place? I don't get it.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Hmm. If they remove the Diplomatic Victory but keep city-states, I wonder if they have some new role for them.

 

[shaglio]

Hmm. If they remove the Diplomatic Victory but keep city-states, I wonder if they have some new role for them.

They can still keep their current role of providing culture, food, happiness, faith, and units. Also, they could still provide delegates for WC resolutions without there being a specific Diplo Vic.

 

[bison21]

I think that replacing Diplomatic Victory with Economic Victory would be a mistake. Diplomatic Victory often acting as Economic Victory is a flaw in execution (that a new game would be in a perfect position to correct), not an indication that Diplomatic Victory is a bad idea conceptually. I also think it makes more sense for gold to be a means to an end that for it to be an end in itself, and I have a hard time seeing how the narrative explanation behind an Economic Victory would work.

I think removing diplomatic victory would ease the pressure on the diplomatic system. If there is no victory for diplomacy, it can act solely as a mechanic to ease(or hinder) the achievement of other victory types. Just like religion in CiV is a vital game mechanic that can be ignored but either way will always have repercussions- even though there is no religious victory type.

I would actually support the removal of diplomacy as an end in itself and focus on it being the means to an end. So that diplomatic actions will always carry some form of consequence. I'm actually not sure to what extent the developers can satisfy the AI expectations of the average player in this forum, who most likely is in the top 1% of difficulty bracket.

 

[nokmirt]

Conquest victory like Civ 3. Get rid of domination it is rather boring. We need a better military VC.

 

[Amrunril]

I think removing diplomatic victory would ease the pressure on the diplomatic system. If there is no victory for diplomacy, it can act solely as a mechanic to ease(or hinder) the achievement of other victory types. Just like religion in CiV is a vital game mechanic that can be ignored but either way will always have repercussions- even though there is no religious victory type.

I would actually support the removal of diplomacy as an end in itself and focus on it being the means to an end. So that diplomatic actions will always carry some form of consequence. I'm actually not sure to what extent the developers can satisfy the AI expectations of the average player in this forum, who most likely is in the top 1% of difficulty bracket.

I do think a Diplomatic Victory system could make for interesting gameplay, but I'm not so much attached to it as unconvinced that any of the alternative suggestions I've seen are better. I would agree that if the Victory Condition that's been eliminated is one of the "real" (i.e. not time) victory conditions, Diplomatic is both the best and the most likely choice.

 

[playshogi]

I think they will remove the time victory condition and add a religious victory condition.

 

[bite]

I agree that it is probably the diplomatic victory, but who knows, it is not the science one because they have used that as an example of what's changed

 

[Zenstrive]

I wish they remove culture victory.
I for one have never understood how to achieve it.