Victory Condition Speculation

[dexters]

Yes, that's the problem of diplo victory - I never seen any good suggestion for it. Forcing other civs to vote for you is lame and any city-state based mechanic is not connected to diplomacy itself.

I believe the key problem here is - the other players (especially human ones) are opponents, not just another game mechanics. Being able to win through diplomacy conflicts with this, it's like "oh, you speak so well, you won".

Diplo victory never found a home in any of the Civ games

But there's nothing wrong with city-states casting votes as they are in the game. Actually, as they are now going to play larger roles in the game, and the mechanics around gaining influence over them much more refined, it actually makes even more sense to count their votes now.

That said, I still think Diplo is the one cut and city-state based mechanics will be put in its place in a VC that's sort of like diplo, but different. (I call it hegemonic victory) basically VC by having the most worldwide influence. This would include Cs votes, influence or power over other Civs, etc. This is a VC more well suited for modern hyper power superstates that was never really measured or acknowledged in prior Civ games.

On that note, since they have confirmed they are only adding 1 new VC,
I also feel religious victory is anachronistic as the new VC to add. Modern society has largely moved past religion. It seems more like a VC more well suited for a Civ game made 200-300 years ago. It would also go against Ed's mantra of introducing new things in each age. Assuming we follow G&K logic, religion will fade around the renaissance.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Bite's feature list says the Culture Victory involves National Parks and Tile Appeal. I didn't know we learned that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That said, I still think Diplo is the one cut and city-state based mechanics will be put in its place.

Yep, I hope so.

I also feel religious victory is anachronistic. As modern society has largely moved past religion. It seems more like a VC more well suited for a Civ game made 200-300 years ago.

I'm not so sure anymore. Here in Russia religion grows much stronger in the recent years with huge support from the government. Many authoritarian leaders do the same. In many Eastern European countries church played its role in anti-communist movement and got larger role after the fall of communism. I'm not familiar with situation in US a lot, but it looks like fight against terrorism is often portrayed as Christianity vs. Islam and Creationism is annoyingly reappear in the news.

So, well, I really hope you're right, but it's not the only point of view, so religious victory may be still actual.

 

[Fred_Bear]

Yes, that's the problem of diplo victory - I never seen any good suggestion for it. Forcing other civs to vote for you is lame and any city-state based mechanic is not connected to diplomacy itself.

I believe the key problem here is - the other players (especially human ones) are opponents, not just another game mechanics. Being able to win through diplomacy conflicts with this, it's like "oh, you speak so well, you won".

Yep! that's it. Its like being able to win a domination victory without even going into battle. Opponent civ's shouldn't just agree with you and surrender. Diplomacy victory doesn't make sense. Its more a political manipulation victory, which could be a possible new victory type.

 

[bite]

Bite's feature list says the Culture Victory involves National Parks and Tile Appeal. I didn't know we learned that.

Ed Beach mentioned Cultural victory in the Roster Teeth interview

https://youtu.be/Y-cVoyjmGSw?t=1h44m59s

 

[dexters]

Yep, I hope so.



I'm not so sure anymore. Here in Russia religion grows much stronger in the recent years with huge support from the government. Many authoritarian leaders do the same. In many Eastern European countries church played its role in anti-communist movement and got larger role after the fall of communism. I'm not familiar with situation in US a lot, but it looks like fight against terrorism is often portrayed as Christianity vs. Islam and Creationism is annoyingly reappear in the news.

So, well, I really hope you're right, but it's not the only point of view, so religious victory may be still actual.

There is certainly a core of religious people and religiousity left in modern society. Cynical governments may even harness it, as you describe it. At least here in the West, the Russian Orthodox Chruch is often described as an ally of the state to stir up nationalistic fervor, and stamp out the other (such as homosexuals etc.)

That said, even if let's say this is happening generally world wide, I cannot see it being viable as a victory condition.

It would for one, be one of the most cynical and regressive Victory conditions in Civ. Furthermore, I feel like it would elevate undesirable elements of society as virtuous

That said, I could see religion playing a role in my hypothetical great power 'hegemonic victory'.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There is certainly a core of religious people and religiousity left in modern society. Cynical governments may even harness it, as you describe it. At least here in the West, the Russian Orthodox Chruch is often described as an ally of the state to stir up nationalistic fervor, and stamp out the other (such as homosexuals etc.)

That said, even if let's say this is happening generally world wide, I cannot see it being viable as a victory condition.

It would for one, be one of the most cynical and regressive Victory conditions in Civ. Furthermore, I feel like it would elevate undesirable elements of society as virtuous

That said, I could see religion playing a role in my hypothetical great power 'hegemonic victory'.

Not everyone agree the religion is a bad thing. Religious people think quite the opposite. I believe Civilization game should be neutral and allow hypothetical scenarios even if they are considered terrible by a lot of players (me included). Converting all civilizations to religion controlled by you is one of the forms of world domination and this way it's totally viable as victory condition.

The situation around Russiand and Ukranian Orthodox churches is a great illustration of how religion could be a tool in political control.

 

[m15a]

It would for one, be one of the most cynical and regressive Victory conditions in Civ. Furthermore, I feel like it would elevate undesirable elements of society as virtuous

Uh. One of the Civ victory conditions involves basically declaring war on the entire world and conquering it through military on a scale the real world has never seen. Millions of people are killed just so there can be one supreme ruler with no chance of being overthrown for all of eternity.

I'm hoping having that as a victory condition isn't an assertion that that is virtuous.

 

[bite]

Uh. One of the Civ victory conditions involves basically declaring war on the entire world and conquering it through military on a scale the real world has never seen. Millions of people are killed just so there can be one supreme ruler with no chance of being overthrown for all of eternity.

I'm hoping having that as a victory condition isn't an assertion that that is virtuous.

or indeed, promoting your culture to the point where you dominate the world

 

[dexters]

Uh. One of the Civ victory conditions involves basically declaring war on the entire world and conquering it through military on a scale the real world has never seen. Millions of people are killed just so there can be one supreme ruler with no chance of being overthrown for all of eternity.

I'm hoping having that as a victory condition isn't an assertion that that is virtuous.

Yes but genocide sort of slides under 'it's a computer game' rule and it's been in the game since Civ1. For the longest time the debate was always framed as 'warmonger' vs 'builders' so that's sort of frames what Civ was until we started getting all these new VCs.

I'm not claiming for example that the VCs have to be virtuous since my hegemonic victory would likely give your run of the mill far-left activist an aneurysm. My point is that in this political environment, a game like Civ, which claims to be forward looking, optimistic, building something to stand 'the test of time' would be hard pressed to promote religious victory.

I'm not even sure they want to wade into that especially if some muck raker decides to cover someone's ISIS mod and decide to 'win' via religious victory., This is why for example, they have yet to really tackle modern terrorism via barbarians.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm not even sure they want to wade into that especially if some muck raker decides to cover someone's ISIS mod and decide to 'win' via religious victory.,

Is it any different from ISIS having military victory? Or Hitler having one?

 

[dexters]

Is it any different from ISIS having military victory? Or Hitler having one?

No but that isn't news because military victory is always in Civ
I can see the addition of Religious victory + some unsavory mod being spun into Civ promoting extremist religious politics as a viable way to move the world forward.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No but that isn't news because military victory is always in Civ
I can see the addition of Religious victory + some unsavory mod being spun into Civ promoting extremist religious politics as a viable way to move the world forward.

I wouldn't care about potential offense in mods. Anything could be there.

And yes, I understand your problems with religious victory being new (although it was in Civ4), but it's not a stopper for most players, as I see it.

 

[m15a]

a game like Civ, which claims to be forward looking, optimistic, building something to stand 'the test of time'

Does it claim those things, though? Forward looking and optimistic? For one thing, 99% of the game doesn't even have anything to do with a future. BNW tried to make the late game interesting by ensuring that it'd lead to a long term world war scenario (unless one Civ can disrupt the balance of power and gain control over all of the other civilizations.) And the original Civ introduced rampant pollution in the late game to reflect the result of our modern accomplishments.

I'm not particularly enthusiastic about a religious victory (although I'll wait to find out what that means before judging it), but the main story of Civ isn't at all optimistic IMO. From Civ I, it's been about either conquering Earth or escaping the Earth ruined by humanity's wars and overdevelopment to try to rebuild society on Alpha Centauri.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Religious victory sounds very forward thinking and optimistic. Humanity finally agrees on Truth (unlike Science victory where your ignorant squabbles spread farther outward as you attempt to puff up yourself over the rest of humanity*, military where your squabbles are violent, or diplomatic where the minority is suppressed by majority vote**)

* why I think Space Race should require things unlocked by high level civics as well as techs, it should require a really unique social situation to invest in a multidecade colony ship
**that's why I think religious victory should be diplo-religious so that it isn't purely enlightened.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Religious victory sounds very forward thinking and optimistic. Humanity finally agrees on Truth (unlike Science victory where your ignorant squabbles spread farther outward as you attempt to puff up yourself over the rest of humanity*, military where your squabbles are violent, or diplomatic where the minority is suppressed by majority vote**)

* why I think Space Race should require things unlocked by high level civics as well as techs, it should require a really unique social situation to invest in a multidecade colony ship
**that's why I think religious victory should be diplo-religious so that it isn't purely enlightened.

The idea of everyone agreeing to "Truth" scares me to death

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The idea of everyone agreeing to "Truth" scares me to death

Which is why you need to support your local Flat Earth Society

I agree in general, but that is why I see it as "forward thinking". Military, Culture, Religion all are ways to unify the world...something that basically ends the game (no competitors)...similar to space race ending the game by going off the map.

The military is really the only "bad" one. (Assuming your culture/religion/science is right, nothing wrong with letting people know)

 

[winddysphere]

Yep, I hope so.



I'm not so sure anymore. Here in Russia religion grows much stronger in the recent years with huge support from the government. Many authoritarian leaders do the same. In many Eastern European countries church played its role in anti-communist movement and got larger role after the fall of communism. I'm not familiar with situation in US a lot, but it looks like fight against terrorism is often portrayed as Christianity vs. Islam and Creationism is annoyingly reappear in the news.

So, well, I really hope you're right, but it's not the only point of view, so religious victory may be still actual.

Not everyone agree the religion is a bad thing. Religious people think quite the opposite. I believe Civilization game should be neutral and allow hypothetical scenarios even if they are considered terrible by a lot of players (me included). Converting all civilizations to religion controlled by you is one of the forms of world domination and this way it's totally viable as victory condition.

The situation around Russiand and Ukranian Orthodox churches is a great illustration of how religion could be a tool in political control.

Civ 5 shows religions' neutral side already so I think it could boring to be neutral again. But I think they might contains both good side and bad side of religions to enhance gameplay by combine the religious events around the world such as the Thirty years war and make the mechanics that any religions can do something similar to what happened before or better/worse than real life.

Not so sure about the Russian church influences in politics at all. Sure, they can do anything in Russia since it's their state-religion but I think they can't do much outside of Russia at all since Catholics and Protestants come first. The Russian church just "revived" around 1991 after the Soviet falls and they just send the missionaries to any countries after that. I think yes, religions are mostly for internal control+internal politics.
Also I think the religion controls in politics are still happens around the world. Clearly the U.S. (gender differences, "love", church taxes, etc.), most of the Eastern European nations, and the rest of the world. It's up to the religious leaders weather they would like to "jam" into politics or not.
Speaking about religions I hope that they will put Norse, Native Americans, and other religions that existed before pre-modern era into the game. Could be fun. XD

 

[Acken]

If one vc is really removed its is diplo. Domination cannot go, we saw the space one in the e3 video and they confirmed culture is still in similar to civ5.

Diplo is gone and im happy since it was pretty crappy. Wonder what it will be instead.

 

[chaosprophet]

I'm more with m15a and stealth_nsk on this matter, while not very fond of the idea, I don't see it being particularly worse than the genocide and warmongering implied by conquest, razing cities and all kind of militaristic actions we can do in civ. And then we don’t even know how exactly the religious victory will work, if it is really in.

Religious victory sounds very forward thinking and optimistic. Humanity finally agrees on Truth.

Funny enought, if there was one religion that was true, than you would expect it to eventually spread as it would be based on something substantial different from all the others which would be fake. Although the religion take on civilization seems to be more aligned with a civilization political agenda, so it's religion victory is probably more on the line of one group/civ forcing others to convert and defeating those who don't rather than a group of people agreeing one is likely true.