Victory Conditions

[isau]

I miss the old "percent of land tiles" Domination victory in Civ IV. In part because if you left AIs unchecked, there was a good chance they could win it. You HAD to engage with them at some level to prevent that.

In Civ V, you can just turtle in your capital and as long as they can't take it, the AI can never win Dom victories. Was way better when a person just sitting in their castles couldn't win just by being obstinate. Ethiopia didn't stop the USA or USSR from becoming world powers.

 

[Atlas627]

I miss the old "percent of land tiles" Domination victory in Civ IV. In part because if you left AIs unchecked, there was a good chance they could win it. You HAD to engage with them at some level to prevent that.

In Civ V, you can just turtle in your capital and as long as they can't take it, the AI can never win Dom victories. Was way better when a person just sitting in their castles couldn't win just by being obstinate. Ethiopia didn't stop the USA or USSR from becoming world powers.

The USA and USSR didn't win Domination victories, either.

One Civ sitting in a corner doesn't prevent you from becoming a world power. You can even win the game off of it, just not a "Domination" victory. Because you didn't dominate everyone.

 

[LDiCesare]

I 100% agree with this. Even if the designers insist on basing the Domination victory around capitals, at least make it control all the capitals that exist, so you can keep or raze them. Why not? It feels incredibly ahistorical and gamey to have indestructible cities on the map. Now admittedly it's not too often you actually want to raze a capital (and the biggest incentive for doing so, global happiness, is gone), but if I want to do as the Romans did and burn Carthage to the ground out of spite, I should be able to.

EDIT: Atlas67 says that capital razing is back in Civ VI--that's great!

Another consequence of the Civ V's system was that you couldn't change the location of your capital. Again, this is something that historically was very common, and it should be an option for a player.

I've yet to see the capital razing. One video showed that you cannot raze city states, so I'm dubious.
Why do they allow to raze cities if not all?
It seems legit to me to be able to raze anything, if you think it will harm your opponents more than by conquering/vassalising it.

 

[Ryika]

That's not an either-or-situation though, you could also just make it so that a certain amount of expansion is required to even win ANY victory, and make turtling on few cities completely obsolete (on high difficulties).

 

[Atlas627]

I've yet to see the capital razing. One video showed that you cannot raze city states, so I'm dubious.
Why do they allow to raze cities if not all?
It seems legit to me to be able to raze anything, if you think it will harm your opponents more than by conquering/vassalising it.

Where was there a video that showed you can't raze City-states? I'm pretty sure I've even seen the opposite of that.

The video I was talking about was one of the ones done in World Builder, so it might not have been the original capital (though it was the only city that Civ had ever built...). There is a video by BAStartgaming where he plays as America and conquers London, but I don't remember if he can raze it. Check there?

 

[LDiCesare]

One of the videos where a guy who never played civ attacks Brussels. When he conquers it, there is no option for it.

 

[rastak]

The USA and USSR didn't win Domination victories, either.

One Civ sitting in a corner doesn't prevent you from becoming a world power. You can even win the game off of it, just not a "Domination" victory. Because you didn't dominate everyone.

I will say this, when you are the de facto ruler of the world, you need not occupy every centimeter of land. The result is self evident to all.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I will say this, when you are the de facto ruler of the world, you need not occupy every centimeter of land. The result is self evident to all.

And you dont in civ5,6 either.....you only need to take take the capitals of major civs (if the US invaded England, France, Germany, Russia, India, China, Japan...and held them...ethiopia/mexico/israel/hungary wouldn't matter because they are citystate equivalents.

 

[isau]

The USA and USSR didn't win Domination victories, either.

One Civ sitting in a corner doesn't prevent you from becoming a world power. You can even win the game off of it, just not a "Domination" victory. Because you didn't dominate everyone.

You don't understand what "Domination" victory meant. It meant "dominate" the world's land area. You don't have to own every square inch of it. Just enough that you are the world's dominant power.

What makes the current version of Domination victories silly is the AI has a very difficult time achieving them because the player can simply prevent it by ensuring the AI never takes their capital. The old version was much more difficult to thwart and forced you to defend your borders to prevent a loss, as well as intervene in world conflicts if it looked like someone was getting too close to winning.

 

[SebNeg]

Concerning razing capitals, Ed Beach himself said in an interview that in the current build you can indeed raze them but that he cannot promise that it will stay that way.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You don't understand what "Domination" victory meant. It meant "dominate" the world's land area. You don't have to own every square inch of it. Just enough that you are the world's dominant power.

What makes the current version of Domination victories silly is the AI has a very difficult time achieving them because the player can simply prevent it by ensuring the AI never takes their capital. The old version was much more difficult to thwart and forced you to defend your borders to prevent a loss, as well as intervene in world conflicts if it looked like someone was getting too close to winning.

The current version is Better because you only have to defend. It is the same with the current religion/cultural victories....dominate all major civs in x way.

 

[Ryoga]

I think the land control option for domination victory in Civ V wasn't considered because the developers wanted the non aggressive small tall empire (or even one-city challenge) strategy to be entirely viable.

So as long as you still had your capital you could still win a cultural or science victory against a CiV that conquered every single other part of the world.


On the other hand the initial domination victory of Civ V was pretty lame since you could just let a civ conquer the whole world then orchestrate a surprise attack with nuclear bombs and tanks and get their capital in two or even one turn and win. Moreover, while extremely improbable, it was technically possible to win a pacifist domination victory without waging a single war, in case the other civs each somehow managed to lose their capital to another.

Conquering every original capital looks like the least awful compromise.

 

[isau]

The current version is Better because you only have to defend. It is the same with the current religion/cultural victories....dominate all major civs in x way.

I'm sorry I just completely disagree with this.

The version of Domination Victory in Civ V is what contributed hugely to the 4 city strategy being ideal. You could make your little empire and then easily defend it with zero worry about how big other people got. There was no point in settling far flung places or attempting to take them from other people.

You can't get away with this in Civ IV. In that game, every enemy settlement is a potential threat edging them close to a win. Border conflict is a huge concern and you need to watch the leaders carefully because a favorable war for them could cause them to gain control of too much of the world, spiraling into a win. To stop them you needed to use every trick possible.

I love Civ V, but IV beat the pants off of it in this regard. They never should have changed that victory condition. It robbed the game of one of the biggest sources of conflict.

 

[rastak]

And you dont in civ5,6 either.....you only need to take take the capitals of major civs (if the US invaded England, France, Germany, Russia, India, China, Japan...and held them...ethiopia/mexico/israel/hungary wouldn't matter because they are citystate equivalents.

True, you could leave most of the world untouched you'd still win a "domination" victory by taking 8 (or whatever) specific Cities. 75% of the world could be held by your enemies but you'd have "dominated".

I'm ok with the victory condition, I just like not having to hunt down one specific city to win so I prefer the alternative.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'm sorry I just completely disagree with this.

The version of Domination Victory in Civ V is what contributed hugely to the 4 city strategy being ideal. You could make your little empire and then easily defend it with zero worry about how big other people got. There was no point in settling far flung places or attempting to take them from other people.

You can't get away with this in Civ IV. In that game, every enemy settlement is a potential threat edging them close to a win. Border conflict is a huge concern and you need to watch the leaders carefully because a favorable war for them could cause them to gain control of too much of the world, spiraling into a win. To stop them you needed to use every trick possible.

I love Civ V, but IV beat the pants off of it in this regard. They never should have changed that victory condition. It robbed the game of one of the biggest sources of conflict.

The game already has that in the Space Race Victory...only way to stop it is to crush the enemy or beat them to it. (Also the AI is Always moving closer to a Space Race win...unlike taking territory where an AI can be stopped without killing it)

 

[Cyon]

Maybe some hybrid between civ 4 and 5 dom Victory? Like have 75% (IE 6 of 8) original capitals and 75% of world pop and settled area. Other criteria could be to have X% of capitals and larger army Tha all other civs combined, or have non captured civs as submissive allies some how, (a bit lik civ Be have a respect and fear value).

 

[isau]

The game already has that in the Space Race Victory...only way to stop it is to crush the enemy or beat them to it. (Also the AI is Always moving closer to a Space Race win...unlike taking territory where an AI can be stopped without killing it)

Space race has nothing to do with competition for tiles or settling cities across the globe and had no effect on allowing players to just sit safely on their butts all game in a 4 city empire.

 

[Joketa]

Maybe some hybrid between civ 4 and 5 dom Victory? Like have 75% (IE 6 of 8) original capitals and 75% of world pop and settled area. Other criteria could be to have X% of capitals and larger army Tha all other civs combined, or have non captured civs as submissive allies some how, (a bit lik civ Be have a respect and fear value).

I like this. Actually, I'm all for every victory condition to be more complex and have a series of tasks to achieve rather than just one.

 

[qadams]

Maybe some hybrid between civ 4 and 5 dom Victory? Like have 75% (IE 6 of 8) original capitals and 75% of world pop and settled area. Other criteria could be to have X% of capitals and larger army than all other civs combined, or have non captured civs as submissive allies some how, (a bit like civ Be have a respect and fear value).

Yes, something like this seems good to me. Simply conquering each of the capitals and nothing else, as in Civ 5, just feels artificial, way too gamey. And to win by being the last player who keeps their original capital, as in Civ 6? That's just silly. It doesn't sound at all like Domination.

Maybe if you occupied X% of land and/or controlled X% of other civs as vassals... that's another idea that might work.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The problem with domination victory by % is:
- You could loose the game without loosing any of your land. That's the problem with science victory as well, but science is designed to be very late victory, while domination could be won relatively early.
- If allies are big enough, you still have to fight them.
None of the problems is solved by the hybrid approach.

IMHO, the best scheme is the original capitals control + vassals considered controlled and make it possible to make vassals from allies through diplomacy if your military force is dominant.