Victory Condition Speculation

[isau]

I can't guess which one will be removed, but I have always felt this game should have an explicit Espionage victory of some kind.

I wish the victory from Civ 4 that was based on % of tiles would come back. Civ 5 really could have used an explicit "going wide" victory.

 

[dexters]

Diplomatic seems like the one most likely to go.

In Civ4 Warlords & BTS, Diplomatic victory was essentially domination-lite, given how the vassals system allowed warmongers to accidentally qualify for this victory condition. One of the weirdest side-effects of game design in Civ.

In Civ5 BNW Diplomatic victory can be economic. Though it is not always clear. I'm just wrapping up a game on Venice where I large part of my votes for my diplomatic victory *if I get there* will be coming from liberated city states and 2 liberated Civs.

Granted, I'm using my double trade routes + Treaty Organization & rigging elections to keep permanent influence on other City states. I would argue Diplomatic victory in Civ5 is closest to hegemonic victory (it's not because of diplomacy that I am winning, it's because I've become a hegemon) and that could be a mix of economic, military and espionage/trade.

So I tend to agree, diplomatic victory is likely to get the axe, as it is anachronistic to what players have to do to win under that condition.

Ironically, the original diplomatic victory in Civ3, with a straight up-down vote for the UN was the closest to a true diplomatic victory, though fraught with its own problems, I do kind of admire its simplicity.

 

[cakes]

i don't even understand how a science victory is a 'victory' anyway, unless they changed it from building a spaceship. all the other victories relied on science so they're all essentially 'science victories' but actually have ramifications on the civ world i.e. dictating the terms of engagement in the world, rather than winning by leaving the world... and then going on to start again on some other distant planet.

 

[bite]

i don't even understand how a science victory is a 'victory' anyway, unless they changed it from building a spaceship. all the other victories relied on science so they're all essentially 'science victories' but actually have ramifications on the civ world i.e. dictating the terms of engagement in the world, rather than winning by leaving the world... and then going on to start again on some other distant planet.

With BE yes, but not so much Civ 5

 

[Matthew.]

No way domination or conquest victory would be removed. There will still be war and military units and the ability to capture enemy cities. The game needs to do something if you capture all the cities.

 

[darko82]

The new victory type will be a modification/replacement of the removed one. So that might be diplomatic or scientific, esp. there are changes in (dynamic) diplomacy and science.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Knowing Ed I'd be shocked if the diplomacy victory was removed. Maybe taken out and replaced with something much more elaborate.

- Jon

 

[unpossible251]

Knowing Ed I'd be shocked if the diplomacy victory was removed. Maybe taken out and replaced with something much more elaborate.

- Jon

Hmmmm m

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Knowing Ed I'd be shocked if the diplomacy victory was removed. Maybe taken out and replaced with something much more elaborate. ;

I hope you are right. I am the type of civ player that likes to play a diplomatic style. And, while the diplo victory in civ5 often boiled down to just bribing enough city states, I think it has great potential if the diplo system is good enough. My vision for the diplo victory would be a "world government" wonder that comes after the UN and that would hold elections for "Earth President". Votes would be based on population and you would need 75% to win. In most cases, you might not have 75% of the world's population so you would need other civs to vote you. Only civs that have been your ally for more than X turns would vote for you. This would require the player to nurture excellent relationships with other major leaders rather than just bribing them with gold. That way it rewards the player that put effort into making allies throughout the game instead of conquering them.

 

[spfun]

I thought diplomatic would be the one they to take out completely. It needs to overhauled at least. In that case which one is removed? I thought a religious victory might be added to try out something different.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Something like Domination is probably the low-hanging fruit.

- Jon

 

[UWHabs]

Maybe time victory is gone (ie. No longer an end date to the game), diplo is heavily modified (maybe you have to be allied with city-states for X turns first). As for the new one, I kind of hope it's new. Maybe it would actually be some sort of economic/cooperative win - if you keep the world at peace with a certain union, you win.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Something like Domination is probably the low-hanging fruit.

- Jon

This would really surprise me! Might be a pretty controversial decision if so, though I will freely admit that it's my least-favourite of the victory conditions (apart from Time/Score Victory).

Actually, come to think of it, could they axe Time Victory? It feels so ingrained into the Civ franchise. But it's not outside the realms of possibility that they could just remove the feature where you auto-win after a certain time and you can just keep playing indefinitely...

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Something like Domination is probably the low-hanging fruit.

Honestly, I kinda feel like the conquest/domination victory could be removed. Of course, war should be a big part of the game but I feel like it should be a means to an end, not the end itself. In my view, the winner should be the player with the "best" empire (biggest, richest, most tech, most culture etc). War would be just one of many ways to achieve that. And I would love it if the reasons for war felt more organic. You don't go to war to win directly, you go to war because you need a certain strategic resource and the owner of that resource won't trade it, or you go to war because your neighbor hates your culture or religion. The bottom line is that every civ is in a competition to be the biggest, best empire and that should naturally cause friction which sometimes lead to war.

 

[Seek]

Knowing Ed I'd be shocked if the diplomacy victory was removed. Maybe taken out and replaced with something much more elaborate.

- Jon

Something like Domination is probably the low-hanging fruit.

- Jon

Vindication!

But yeah, my thoughts exactly.

Time vc is basically irrelevant to probably 99% of players, so that could be it. But it's *so* irrelevant that it seems odd that they would talk about it as such, rather than just saying that they've added a new vc and then just shipped the game without time vc, if that makes sense.

 

[dexters]

Time VC I feel is relevant sometimes. I don't think they should remove it.

Yes, it happens very rarely, but that should be the tie breaker if no one else can win by the alloted # of turns.

I agree w/ Jon domination/conquest are good candidates to get nipped, or at least one of them as (depending on mechanics) capturing capital cities and controlling % of land/pop sometimes overlap way too much, or one or the other is far easier.

But I stand by my comments on diplomatic, though when I say it, I never envisaged the UN/World Congress would go away in a world with city-states and with open warfare being less likely in Civ6 in the late game.
I just think it diplomatic will either get reworked to its basics in Civ3 (1 civ ,1 vote) or the VC itself will be renamed to something else. World Congress is too good an idea to delete and from the sounds of it, it isn't going anywhere but will likely play a larger role than ever in Civ6.

 

[Cerilis]

I think they shouldnt remove time victory, it's kind of a "last resort"

 

[Matthew.]

I just don't see it happening. Arbitrary restrictions in how many cities you can capture? Kill off wide play even more? What happens if you clear the map, the game just continues while you play alone to a science win?

Whichever victory replaced domination would need to be mind-blowing without getting massive lashback from such a decision.

Diplo is the more obvious choice. They read the forums, they know the comments. So often comments like "diplo is boring, too easy, doesn't count" etc. It is saying something pretty big when a lot of players nearing the end of a game looks like they can't pull out a win they were originally going for, then sneak in a diplo win.

The most important point: We have no idea how or what city-states will be in Civ 6. If those change in any significant way, then chances are diplo would have needed to change either way.

 

[Barathor]

The news that they're removing a victory condition doesn't exactly tell the whole story. It could also mean they're removing the current version of a victory condition... and replacing it with a new version of it.

For example, Civ 5 removed the Domination victory: "Lead in world population by 30% and have 65% of the world under your control."

but replaced it with: Domination victory: "Control all opposing players' original capitals and be in possession of your own original capital." (Actually, at first it was "Be the last player in possession of your original capital.")

- - - -

I really can't see Time being removed; thematically, the "main" game has to end around a certain time period and tech level (sure, you can mess around, if you wish, and keep playing afterwards for many more turns).

I also easily see the Domination victory getting the boot. Perhaps Conquest will return, since there has to be a victory condition when there's only one player left, or like I said above, Domination will simply be changed to "eliminate all other players".

Maybe it'll return to the % of world population and % of land under your control, with more emphasis on population (tall) than on land (wide). Maybe they may even add an extra twist that requires you to also have a much higher percent than all other players, to avoid situation where you may achieve the percentages but you still have a strong rival that's not too behind in population %. The Domination victory should only trigger to avoid a drawn out, boring game where you've nearly wiped-out all players and they're no longer a threat that can achieve a victory.

Also, if you control a huge part of the world and have been conquering other civs, it already synergizes well with the Time victory and the scoring system. You'll eventually win anyway if you keep everybody under your boot and don't let any other victory conditions slip out and be achieved. It gives all the other players a chance to rally against you. You can't just make a big rush to conquer things recklessly and achieve victory right away, you need to conquer and hold on to things to the very end -- or until you achieve one of the other victory conditions with your increased power against the decreased power of your rivals.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Maybe it'll return to the % of world population and % of land under your control, with more emphasis on population (tall) than on land (wide). Maybe they may even add an extra twist that requires you to also have a much higher percent than all other players, to avoid situation where you may achieve the percentages but you still have a strong rival that's not too behind in population %.

I like it since if you have a large percentage of the total land and population and you are greatly ahead of the #2 civ in both land and population, you are clearly the "winner".