Victory Condition Speculation

[benjamin28]

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?

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.

I agree. Diplomatic victory will probably be the one taken off. That doesn't mean we won't get a robust diplomatic system, a World Congress/UN forum and so on. Diplomacy could be a mean, not and end in itself.

 

[lrdscorpio]

I agree. Diplomatic victory will probably be the one taken off. That doesn't mean we won't get a robust diplomatic system, a World Congress/UN forum and so on. Diplomacy could be a mean, not and end in itself.

Yea diplomacy to me should be like religion. Its an important tool but not the end all be all.

I would love to see more tools given to diplomacy that are more than just cash. I would love to see better support for things like military blocs and a better ability to coordinate ally goals and actions. Some of that seems overkill for a standard game though so I dunno. My games are always massive so managing large alliances can be an annoyance with the current UI.

It would be interesting to allow for a UN type council for established military alliances though like a NATO council.

 

[Matthew.]

Sure, I could see domination replaced with what is essentially the same thing by controlling x% of the map. Other 4x's have had such victories for a long time.

Though even then I don't see that change happening. I get the impression the change is either a.) a core mechanic is changing which breaks the previous victory type (e.g., say something happens to city-states or WC) or b.) they are updating a previous victory type to have a bit more depth, such as the culture victory change in BNW.

Remember, this was important enough for them to mention as a teaser in an interview. So it is quite likely that whatever the change, it has to do with new or changed core game mechanics and probably not just a tweak to previous victories.

 

[Sporally]

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

I totally agree on this one.

Though an economic victory makes a lot of sense I would hope for a religious victory.

I'm almost sure domination won't be eliminated all together, but maybe they've changed it into something more along the lines of Civ4 (conquest).

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.

Do you get the votes of liberated civilizations? Does this also count if you liberate a civilization that you conquered yourself? As I remember it you can liberate a city you conquered yourself though I'm not 100 % sure.

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.

In central the game tries to not make a difference between a human player and an AI with the exception of difficulty related bonuses for balance.

If AIs would vote for you it should be beneficial for them aswell. This could be achieved with partly victory for those who voted for you, and would only be possible with X turns as allied. This way a human player in a multiplayerspil session wouldn't be able to snap a victory easily if you couldn't beat the game leader. But I really doubt this and expect the AIs will never vote for you.

It would be interesting to allow for a UN type council for established military alliances though like a NATO council.

Been thinking a lot about this myself. I've been thinking about a system where you can easily create an organisation. What are their stated goals - economic, warfare, science cooperation, ideological unity? What demands are there to enter - free, vote amongst the member states, invites only, forced? How are civs expelled / able to leave - by dictating founder, vote amongst member states, declearing independence and Winnington war?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The one that is taken out will probably make a return in a vastly different form in a DLC or expansion.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

Religious victory mustn't be allowed. There's nothing in controlling the original site of a predominant religion that should mean you have supremacy in the total contest, it's just happenstance. For that matter, wouldn't everyone's conversion to one global religion just be the everybody-wins victory? World peace and concord forever?

I would have liked to see the spaceship rejiggered to just trigger a million points and create overwhelming cultural influence, but I can see no reading of the press hints to figure it has been in any way changed.

Diplomacy victory is totally obvious.

 

[mitsho]

There will always be the conquest/domination option. Science has also been a staple of civ since the first game and the time victory isn't "really" a victory path by itself, it's the absence of one. That leaves the two victories that have been radically changed in every civ game so far: culture and diplomacy. These are the second peaceful ones and so we probably don't need them both. They both represent some sort of peaceful (economic) hegemony over other civs and the new one will represent that as well, I am sure.

With the descriptions of the developer's goals, I assume that any path to victory now must go over exploring and expanding and will use the map. We'll probably need to defend the launch pads in our science victory, for example. A peaceful victory where you have to gain many exotic ressources for your supermarkets, attract tourists to your diverse ressorts (a district?) and dig up archaeological artefacts seems likely to me, as that would use the map the most. Somehow you can tie into this good relations to other civs (open trade) and city states which would cover the "old" diplomatic victory. But I can't really imagine how a "diplomatic victory" would play out on the map short of being a micromanagment hell?

 

[Krajzen]

Religious victory mustn't be allowed. There's nothing in controlling the original site of a predominant religion that should mean you have supremacy in the total contest, it's just happenstance. For that matter, wouldn't everyone's conversion to one global religion just be the everybody-wins victory? World peace and concord forever?

Exactly, I never understood the desire and reasoning of 'religious victory'.

If somehow Islam dominated the entire world under Abbasid Caliphate, it'd be the victory of Islam, not Abbasid Caliphate.

 

[darko82]

Exactly, I never understood the desire and reasoning of 'religious victory'.

If somehow Islam dominated the entire world under Abbasid Caliphate, it'd be the victory of Islam, not Abbasid Caliphate.

Religious victory does not fit, indeed. I bet it might be a political victory.

 

[Haphaz]

I hope Culture stays - it's the first 'build a civilized civilization' victory, with all the great works and wonders elegantly tied together.

Yeah, it's probably going to be a rework of the diplomatic vote.

 

[blackcatatonic]

*nothing to see here - posted in the wrong thread!*

 

[cairnsy44]

I'm going to guess that it's Time Victory that is removed. So that when you reach the time limit, it is a loss and not a win, regardless of points.
I am probably wrong, but I'm sticking with the idea.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Diplomatic has never been a useful victory condition, it's always been a source of griping and hasn't really worked right. It's still my best guess on what goes away.

 

[Dunkah]

I would like to see a victor in each age. Whomever gets the most victories after the final Modern Era wins. Wrap up each age before the next starts. Almost like separate games where each age has a slightly different way to win each race.

I would like to see something in the way of Gazebo's mod where the City States are won over by diplomats instead of buying influence and quests. At the very least make it all quests and no gold. Or a BIG cool down in between gifts.

I could really see the Domination Victory going away as then you could use it to help with other types of victories but not win outright.

 

[StrideColossus]

We now know that in Civ VI one victory condition (VC) has been dropped and a new one added - I'm wondering what the conditions will be.

We also know that Civ VI will contain most or all of the features in Civ V with the exception of the World Congress (WC) - therefore we can assume that without the WC and presumably the UN (at least in the Civ V guise) the diplomatic victory is the one that gets the chop?

This is sort-of backed up by the changes that are coming to city states, it sounds like the new envoys mechanism means it's not going to be as easy as simply throwing cash to gain allies.

So if this assumption is correct what are VC's likely to be?

- I think it's also safe to assume that there will be the usual science victory to reach Alpha Centauri (as there has been in every Civ iteration).

- There has also always been some sort of 'war victory' - geographical domination, wipe everyone out, or something like that.

- We know that Great Works will form part of the game and combined with the new civic 'tree' it seems there will still be some form of cultural/tourism victory.

- I can't see why there wouldn't still be a time victory.

So what will be the new one?

Religious?
Some form of economic victory?
Anyone seen anything in any screenshots / videos / articles that might give any hints?

Speculate away!

- stride

 

[Plus Ultra]

Wild speculation

My 2 cents:

-Several types of domination victories can exist (population, continents, capitals...) but I hope they are not counting them as "different" when discussing the victory conditions, since the gameplay (warmongering) is the same for all of them.

-Economic victory seems complicated to pull of without corporations and/or other systems that don't seem to be present in the game at this point. Of course, the new (and still unexplained) trade system could make it possible.

-Religious seems the most logical to me. We already know that "religious wars" can be a thing now, and its one of the main resources in the game from the start. With trade being more important this time around, spies and "more complex diplomacy", there could be plenty of ways besides "missionary/prophet spam" to expand your religion.

I for one hope that playing full-on religion can compete with full-on culture, science and domination strategies. Not sure how, I'm afraid!

 

[AriochIV]

Since there's been no mention of a diplomacy victory in the previews, that may be the one that got the axe. No great loss there... prior to BNW the diplomacy victory has traditionally been the most random and least fun Civilization victory condition.

I have no clue what the new VC might be.

 

[Thormodr]

Perhaps something to do with controlling a continent?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Just based on the history of the game I'd guess Economic or Religious

 

[dexters]

My guess is also Diplomatic victory.

But given they are increasing depth of interactions with city-states, I'm not decided on if the City-state giving their ally votes, or some sort of meta-game benefits is in or out.

I tend to think that some sort of city-state+ VC might be involved somehow.

I can only think of it hegemonic victory, and it could be anything from controlling super-majority of city states as allies + some extra conditions such as # of Civs who fear you, or you have defeated in some late game war (those non-hot wars Ed talked about)

That would be essentially Domination by other means VC and should satisfy people who liked the old BNW diplo victory conditions, for which Im sure there are many.