Victory Condition Speculation

[AriochIV]

The GadgetHelpLine preview claims that you can flip cities with religion and that there's a religious victory.

"In the same vein the Religion system has also been built upon from Civilization V: Gods and Kings Expansion, the methods of going about the rarely seen Religious victory are changed, now religion allows you to breed Inquisitors, apostles, the ability to conquer foreign cities through religious fervour alone is now entirely doable, and in this way Civilization VI has really come alive in all the ways that Civilization V didn’t."

 

[KrikkitTwo]

OK so we have
Time (probably still in if they even count it)
Military Domination (probably still in)
Science super achievement (probably still in)
Religious Domination

Cultural Domination still in? (or combined with diplo/religious)
Diplo Domination still in? (or combined with cultural/religious)

So probably no Cultural "super achievement" victory

 

[Nixalo]

I think Diplomatic will be replaced with a Economic. The Economic victory might be boosted by Diplomacy. Like a wonder that is build with gold and the cost reduced by allies and allied CS.

As for Cultural, I think Religion will boost a cultural victory. Like sharing religion increases cultureflip/tourism gain.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

OK so we have

So probably no Cultural "super achievement" victory

Too bad--I kind of like the idea even if the implementations haven't always worked out in previous versions

 

[SupremacyKing2]

"In the same vein the Religion system has also been built upon from Civilization V: Gods and Kings Expansion, the methods of going about the rarely seen Religious victory are changed, now religion allows you to breed Inquisitors, apostles, the ability to conquer foreign cities through religious fervour alone is now entirely doable, and in this way Civilization VI has really come alive in all the ways that Civilization V didn’t."

This sounds great. In civ5, religion was good but it was really just another way to get extra buffs for your empire. But it seems that in civ6, religion will be an actual tool for dominating your opponents.

 

[Tatran]

I'm not surprised about the Religious victory. I had something with culture flipping in mind.
But I have my doubts. What if a non-stop war simply prevents a religious victory? (Killing/capturing religious units and burning cities.)
And what about cities with a different relligion at other continents?

What if the cultural victory is gone, what will be the purpose of tourism?

 

[darko82]

If the religious victory is in, cultural will be out.

Science and domination victory are confirmed. Since they also improved diplomacy, I do not think they would get rid of dipomatic victory.

 

[killmeplease]

they may rename it and pretend its a new victory type

 

[stealth_nsk]

If the religious victory is in, cultural will be out.

I see no single reason for it.

Developers confirmed culture victory to be tourism-based. In speculation most people here think religious victory could be based on converting everyone to your religion (whether all civs or all cities). These are totally different victory types.

 

[StrideColossus]

If the religious victory is in, cultural will be out.

I know we only have scant details but what makes you think that? I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

Science and domination victory are confirmed. Since they also improved diplomacy, I do not think they would get rid of dipomatic victory.

However we know that the World Congress (and presumably the Civ5 UN) is NOT in Civ6 so I would suspect that diplomacy is one the that gets dropped or possibly the one that gets re-worked.

 

[darko82]

I see no single reason for it.

I know we only have scant details but what makes you think that? I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.

However we know that the World Congress (and presumably the Civ5 UN) is NOT in Civ6 so I would suspect that diplomacy is one the that gets dropped or possibly the one that gets re-worked.

There is one reason. Diplomacy is too crucial/too important, especially in the late game (the so called "formal diplomacy") to be left out. It is one of the major part of the game. And religious buildings are part of the culture, even religion itself is part of a culture, so some aspects overlap with each other.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There is one reason. Diplomacy is too crucial/too important, especially in the late game (the so called "formal diplomacy") to be left out. It is one of the major part of the game. And religious buildings are part of the culture, even religion itself is part of a culture, so some aspects overlap with each other.

Most victory types are overlapping, if you put them that way. The overlap between science and military victories is huge. It's really not a problem.

I can't remember any single Civ game where diplomatic victory work well. They all are based on voting, and this means there should be some mechanic to force civs vote for another civs, which is lame. Civ5 have a good idea of city-states based diplomatic victory, but for it to work the game needs much better city-state relations mechanics covering many areas of the game. It wasn't in Civ5 and I don't see it in Civ6 yet.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If the religious victory is in, cultural will be out.

Science and domination victory are confirmed. Since they also improved diplomacy, I do not think they would get rid of dipomatic victory.

We know cultural is in, as well as science, (and presumably domination)
Also World Congress is out.
So diplo victory is out....
But, I'm hoping the religious victory is a diploreligious victory
My hope is
1. The new "UN"s are unique to each religion, must be built, and only involve/affect that religions followers (votes only come from civs/cs that have the religion and religious type accomplishments, resolutions only affect civs/cities that follow the religion)

2. The "convert the world" is merely the prerequisite to allow the victory vote to take place

3. The victory vote is not "who should be world leader" but a chance to vote for/against the current 2 vote leaders (civs cannot vote against someone they have a DoF with, and will never vote For someone else, except maybe a liberator)....no buildup of votes

 

[m15a]

There is one reason. Diplomacy is too crucial/too important, especially in the late game (the so called "formal diplomacy") to be left out. It is one of the major part of the game. And religious buildings are part of the culture, even religion itself is part of a culture, so some aspects overlap with each other.

Not everything that is important has to have an associated victory condition. Building cities is really important, but there's no building cities victory.

Diplomatic victory is weird because in the past it hasn't had much to do with being better at diplomacy than other players. Although I do think it is possible that they come up with a new type of diplomatic victory based on some unknown late game diplomacy system.

 

[darko82]

Not everything that is important has to have an associated victory condition. Building cities is really important, but there's no building cities victory.

Diplomatic victory is weird because in the past it hasn't had much to do with being better at diplomacy than other players. Although I do think it is possible that they come up with a new type of diplomatic victory based on some unknown late game diplomacy system.

But there is a domination victory, which is part of building cities or taking them over, for instance.

I think, too, that they might have a new diplomacy system, especialy because they left UN out. It is easier to assume that they merged religion with culture than they got rid of the diplomacy victory. But if they got rid of the diplomacy victory, I would expect it to be back in some expansion in the future.

 

[m15a]

But there is a domination victory, which is part of building cities or taking them over, for instance.

Domination involves taking over cities, but it does not involve building cities (either founding new cities or developing cities) directly.

Of course, building/developing cities is an important part of the game and has an impact on all of the other victory conditions - but that can be true of diplomacy as well. Diplomacy can be really important without a diplomatic victory condition if it's tied into other victory conditions. You have that in BNW even if you disable diplomatic victory, although diplomacy sort of (intentionally) breaks down in the end into choosing a side.

 

[darko82]

Domination involves taking over cities, but it does not involve building cities (either founding new cities or developing cities) directly.

Of course, building/developing cities is an important part of the game and has an impact on all of the other victory conditions - but that can be true of diplomacy as well. Diplomacy can be really important without a diplomatic victory condition if it's tied into other victory conditions. You have that in BNW even if you disable diplomatic victory, although diplomacy sort of (intentionally) breaks down in the end into choosing a side.

It depends how you look at it. Each victory requires a type of domination whether it is a science, culture etc. Imperialism can also take many forms, sometimes it happens peacefully (diplomatically) without taking over cities etc., especially if your civ is a lot more influential or have the same idealogy.

Anyways, Civ 6 diplomacy entails three major things: "formality" in late game, agendas, and gossip. No UN, so indeed, this type of victory might be left out.

 

[King Jason]

I definitely think the Diplo vic is being axed. Though I bet it could make a return in a future expansion now that interacting with city-states is more than just "he who has the most gold, as all the allies". The espionage dynamic added something to that process in civ5, I think.

Really, I thought civ5 came close to the idea of a good diplo victory, but the problem was having the entire system be gold-based. Nothing about winning that victory suggested you were actually any good at diplomacy.

With more time and laser-focus in the system as a whole, I'm sure they could come up with a solid Diplo vic. I just don't expect it in vanilla. Working off of City-states was definitely the right start though.

Or who knows, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. Not having a world congress feels like a pretty big red flag.

 

[bite]

Ed Beach mentioned Cultural victory in the Roster Teeth interview

 

[stealth_nsk]

Really, I thought civ5 came close to the idea of a good diplo victory, but the problem was having the entire system be gold-based. Nothing about winning that victory suggested you were actually any good at diplomacy.

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".