Victory conditions discussion/critique

[Steve2000]

I think diplomatic would be greatly improved if you could have the option of positively influencing your allies a bit more. Currently you can ask your friends to cancel trade deals they have with other civs, but there is no opposite positive request.

Lets say that you and Mansa Musa are best buddies, you share a religion, you have fought in wars together, you have a defensive pact, you have a long standing peace and positive trade etc...

Late in the game you are trying to become friends with Hatty, but Mansa hates her for some stupid reasons. You can't maintain your friendship with both because they keep giving you those stupid "You traded with my worst enemy" minuses.

Mansa has been your friend forever, you should be able to ask him to start up some trade deals with Hatty - even possibly give him (or her) excess resources so he can turn around and trade them. Or maybe you can request your friend to "forgive our new ally HAtshepsut..." or something similar.

The point is, obviously you could just conquer Hatty thus getting all of "her votes" for diplo win, but I think it would be more fun for the peaceful builder to try to figure out ways of using your influence over the years to get AIs to like each other.

 

[RED DIAMOND]

I never do space race and have enabled the religious vicotry that they left out. Much more fun now.

 

[Oho]

Whom do you see as likely to be more tolerant: An 85 year -old grandmother who has lived her whole life in a small town in Kansas with one Pentacostal church, or a 28 year-old man in Boston who grew up with friends, or at least acquaintances, of many races and religions?

Well dont really know, looking at the bakcgrounds of recent Al Queda bombers especially those that bombed London underground and to lesser degree 911 pilots..

Cultural and religious diversity certainly does not seem even half way patent solution for increasing understandiung and tolerance does it...

 

[emills]

Of the previous suggestions of new VC, I like the idea of the "empire" scoring suggested by SmartMuffin. Successful wars of expansion/military campaigns, tech achievements, religious achievements and diplomatic solutions are all parts of the history of great empires, not individual crowning points.

Would you just point to the British development of the Magna Carta (government), the works of shakespeare (cultural), the science and math of Isaac newton (tech), the formation of the Anglican Church (religion) or the fact that for a while, the sun never set on the British empire (economics and military and cultural). The same could be said for the meso-american empires with the calanders and temples and military expansion and agricultural achievements. The Civ IV victory conditions almost are all pieces of the histories of great empires. The previous suggestion of winning a victory condition in each era comes close this premise, but does not quite get there.

As for the victory conditions themselves, I think they could use a good tweaking. Note I was a dominant Civ III (Diety, biggest map, as many civs allowed) player and now I am barely noble level Civ IV player (playing since Christmas). Even though am not a dominant Civ IV player yet, I feel the changes in Civ IV are for the better and the game is a great challenge.

For the cultural victory , I think a cross between the Civ III and current Civ IV cultural victory conditions would work. Have a total empire culture value that must be reached along with a certain number of legenday cities. Newly captured cities lose their cultural buildings/improvements so it doesn't lead to a late game conquest by default victory. If you keep the Civ IV culture allocated by city, then opponents capturing or razing of cities still can threaten this victory condition. IMO, the Cutlural VC can easily be modified to an empire scoring system with total culture and legendary city bonuses mathed fairly with other "vc" scoring inputs

The space race is what its name says it is. A Race. Should winning the race win you the world? Last I checked, the moon landings did not let me not ever have to work for a living while growing fat off tribute from all other nations. I think this victory condition screams for an empire scoring system. The tech heavy race and focus would command a good chunk of points in a Multiplayer "empire scoring system".

Conquest. What can you say, last man standing has always been the victor (except when one cheats himself/loses his soul in the process ).

Domination could be augmented by requireing that you make any remaining countries your vassel (see the Aztec empire).

IMO, the Dimplomacy VC is broke since dimplomacy itself is broke. As stated earlier, an example is the player does not have any positive request to make with his/her friends (i.e. be nice to another country). I would go further and state that there is no diplomacy between the AI and the player at all. When an AI asks for a gift or tribute (depending on the AI character and game situation), if I say no, then I get a negative penalty. If I ask for a tribute or gift from them, and get refused, I get a penalty. How come the AI can ask for outrageous demands from the player and NOT get a penalty. Are you not upset at an AI that asks for outrageous demands? Do you not want to go kick the living bejonkers out of that pesky annoyed AI? In Civ IV, diplomacy is all about the player the only one giving. In real diplomacy, it is about both parties giving. Then again, the Diplomatic Victory is also based on a UN that does not intervene in wars (or try to broker peace), enact trade embargoes, send relief or any of the things the UN does (or is supposed to do, I am a cynic).

Anyways, this is my premier post on a kick-butt forum for a super-sweet game.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I think Space Race can be challenging if you're trying to get it as early in the game as possible with as few steps as possible. Try getting a SS victory score that is on par with an early domination or conquest victory score.

Cultural seems like it would be lot of planning and nail bitting tension until the the very end. I doubt if it would yield a very high score unless it was used in conjunction with a domination victory.

 

[warroom]

I guess I'm pretty sad, but I love the war path. I know, it's barbaric and all, but Civ 2 and Civ 4 both make awesome War Simulations. How uncultured... but it is the most fun in my opinion. I research early a few needed techs, then set the computer on auto research toward tanks. I work hard to get oil early and as soon as tanks are available, I really start taking care of business.

I have won the space race, but that "one more turn" hype only works for me when I'm at war.

Timed victory is miserable. I usually forget to turn it off, and so I'm out trying to conquer the world, and then learn I only have 100 turns left... time to consider nukes... which is beyond uncultured, but wha'ts a guy to do?

 

[masterinhope]

Sorry how do you switch on/off victory conditions?

 

[Arnesson]

After playing for many hours (Warlord on a standard map at Epic speed) against 6 opponents, four of whom I defeated, I had amassed 52.5% of the land and 57.3% of the population. Time and Space Victory conditions were disabled of course. As I was preparing to invade victim #5, the game ended on a Cultural victory. My score was a mere 9501, but all I received was 615 making this the poorest result so far on my little results table.

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think realism should enter into the victory discussion. Sure the space race shouldn't win you the game. But in real life, has it EVER been possible to eliminate every last rival? How long do empires manage to hold their territory? Not long. Moreover, the UN Secretary General does not rule the world, and having three of the world's biggest tourist attractions does not guarantee world domination for years to come.

The real issue is gameplay.

The problem with victories in Civilization has always been this: you pursue the hell out of a conquest victory, but when you realize you don't have the time or willpower to finish the job, you settle for one of the other victories. In other words, there is one major victory in Civilization, with several lesser secondary victories that you can get should you fall short of the major victory.

The solution, in abstract, is to make the secondary victories into primary victories. They can no longer be victories you settle for should you fail at conquest. This can be done in two ways:

1. Make domination count against certain secondary victories, rather than helping you towards them.

2. Make the mechanisms to pursue secondary victories as intricate as the mechanisms to pursue domination (units, XP, treaties and pacts, cities as critical milestones). Currently, the other non-war mechanisms are too simple.

 

[Franks]

I definitively like Diplomatic win, my last game was really tight, I won in 1932AD (Prince difficulty). If Roosevelt had 5 more seats he would be the #2 candidate (instead of Russia, who by the way hated me) and he would vote for himself so there would be no winner. I was also starting the space race VS Elizabeth. I liked that game very much, I made Elizabeth, Roosevelt and Asoka bang on the rest (except Russia, I didn't wanted them to loose population points because I knew Elizabeth and Roosevelt hated them so they would vote for me instead of abstaining or voting for Roosevelt)

 

[Steve2000]

...The real issue is gameplay....

exactly - as usual always forgotten, but all important.

1. Make domination count against certain secondary victories, rather than helping you towards them.

2. Make the mechanisms to pursue secondary victories as intricate as the mechanisms to pursue domination (units, XP, treaties and pacts, cities as critical milestones). Currently, the other non-war mechanisms are too simple.

I really like these suggestions. I totally get number 2 - that was what I was just starting to suggest in my post earlier.

How would domination count against the other victories though? Would there be a space ship building penalty if you had too many cities? That seems too crude. Any ideas?

 

[dh_epic]

The problem with having a space race penalty for too many cities ... hardcore competitive players would just trade their cities away towards the end of the game, if it gave them a better shot at that victory type.

What would be cooler, more fair, and less exploitable is if your population was more responsive to your foreign policy. Not just war weariness... but production bonuses for excess happiness, anger for backstabbing a well-liked neighbor, happiness bonuses for trading with well-liked neighbors... those could motivate people to stay at peace.

The reality is most empires crumble from within. Not to say this is a game where empires should crumble, but they should experience a different mood and mindset from their peaceful rivals.

That's just one of many suggestions.

 

[fung3]

Well dont really know, looking at the bakcgrounds of recent Al Queda bombers especially those that bombed London underground and to lesser degree 911 pilots..

The above quote really belongs in a different forum, but since it is here....I must point out that..

There was no link between al Qaeda and the London bombing.

The London Bombing were carried out by disaffected British Asian young men.

NO LINK HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH ANY TERRORIST ORGANISATION AND THE LONDON BOMBINGS

al Qaeda + Iraq = Tooth Fairy

 

[fung3]

Regarding victory

Half way thru the game I usually know whether I will win.

At about 70% thru victory is often a foregone conclusion... the final slog to achieve space race, conquest, domination or diplomatic win then becomes quite boring. I wish this was not the case because I really enjoy the early and middle parts of the game. But knowing you will win when only half way thru makes for a tedious end game.

Am I alone in feeling this or do others have the same experience?

 

[azzaman333]

Regarding victory

Half way thru the game I usually know whether I will win.

At about 70% thru victory is often a foregone conclusion... the final slog to achieve space race, conquest, domination or diplomatic win then becomes quite boring. I wish this was not the case because I really enjoy the early and middle parts of the game. But knowing you will win when only half way thru makes for a tedious end game.

Am I alone in feeling this or do others have the same experience?

YOu're not alone. I find that when i look like i will win, i get bored and start a new game. Sometime i start a new game before i look like im going to win, because i find the late ages boring. Nukes are pretty lame, planes suck, ships are pretty useless, and if you dont have tanks, you're dead.

 

[Briquette]

Does anyone know the rules on Abstaining from UN votes? Can you only Abstain once or not twice in a row? Are the Abstain votes just removed, or do you still need to get the same number of votes for a diplo victory?

Very theoretical example: 5 civs each holding 20% of population. If 3 abstain, would it prevent a diplo victory, or would the vote of the other two prevail?