Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
What does everyone think should be the victory conditions for CIV? And try to be creative. Saying "The Civ 3 diplo victory sucks, it should be better in CIV" doesn't do anyone much good. 
Victory Conditions
- Thread starter Jon Shafer
- Start date
Verowin
Voodoo Chile
Religious: Your civ produces a Profet that gets a following so big, that the majority of the world follows that religion.
You can send missionaries to bring the new religion to other civ's in the hope you can convert them.
You can send missionaries to bring the new religion to other civ's in the hope you can convert them.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
I thought this topic seemed familiar for some reason. I looked back but didn't find that thread.
In any case, to spur new discussion, I think that the biggest possibility for a new victory condition is diplomatic. The UN was a poor implimentation in Civ 3, and there's many ways that it could have been done better.
In my proposal, each civ should have different categories of relations with each other civ. So, for example, each civ would have "trade relations" (how much they trade techs and resources), "ideological similarity" (in case they have the same religion or government, for example), and "political cooperation" (alliances, ROP agreements, etc.). Each of these categories increases or decreases based upon deals between the two civs. If you have a military alliance, your political cooperation value will be higher.
The value of each category between all civs is summed up - so you would add up the "trade relations" value between Civs A and B and A and C in order to get Civ A's "total trade relations value." In order to achieve victory, each category would have to pass a certain amount as well as a totaling of all values for that civ (the threshold would be determined by how many civs were in the game). So if there were those 3 civs in the game, you would need a value of, say, 20 in each category as well as a total of 80 (20+20+20 + one more 20 in order to give each civ some leeway in what it concentrates in). So once you reached 20 points in each category and a total of 80, you would win the game.
The total amount of points that each civ has in each category should be available to all civs (perhaps it would require an embassy), so you could determine how close each civ was to winning through diplomacy. If they're too close for comfort, you can act (attack them, cut off trading, etc.).
I looked back but didn't find that thread.In any case, to spur new discussion, I think that the biggest possibility for a new victory condition is diplomatic. The UN was a poor implimentation in Civ 3, and there's many ways that it could have been done better.
In my proposal, each civ should have different categories of relations with each other civ. So, for example, each civ would have "trade relations" (how much they trade techs and resources), "ideological similarity" (in case they have the same religion or government, for example), and "political cooperation" (alliances, ROP agreements, etc.). Each of these categories increases or decreases based upon deals between the two civs. If you have a military alliance, your political cooperation value will be higher.
The value of each category between all civs is summed up - so you would add up the "trade relations" value between Civs A and B and A and C in order to get Civ A's "total trade relations value." In order to achieve victory, each category would have to pass a certain amount as well as a totaling of all values for that civ (the threshold would be determined by how many civs were in the game). So if there were those 3 civs in the game, you would need a value of, say, 20 in each category as well as a total of 80 (20+20+20 + one more 20 in order to give each civ some leeway in what it concentrates in). So once you reached 20 points in each category and a total of 80, you would win the game.
The total amount of points that each civ has in each category should be available to all civs (perhaps it would require an embassy), so you could determine how close each civ was to winning through diplomacy. If they're too close for comfort, you can act (attack them, cut off trading, etc.).dh epic;
thanks for the connection .. love the idea of utopian victory. I think this sort of idea has always been missing ... why oh why try to make your place a democracy with lots of lux etc? cos you want those trade bonuses and fight a war ... hmmmm, not very democratic. This way, people will actually want to be nice to their poor little peons.
thanks for the connection .. love the idea of utopian victory. I think this sort of idea has always been missing ... why oh why try to make your place a democracy with lots of lux etc? cos you want those trade bonuses and fight a war ... hmmmm, not very democratic. This way, people will actually want to be nice to their poor little peons.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah, I'm a fan of it too. Doesn't necessarily have to be a Utopia, but there's something to be said for being voted the greatest nation in the world to live for years and years in a row. I think this would be as great a victory as winning any space race, building any empire, accumulating any kind of wealth.
I definitely agree there needs to be a victory based on wealth, economics and/or trade. Controlling 70% of the world's natural resources would be cool, except that it's probably not that different from a domination victory -- if you control 50% of the land, you surely control 70% of the resources.
I want to see the victories "pulled apart" more. Make the pursuit of one victory easier if you forego another kind of victory, make the pursuit of one victory interfere slightly with pursuing another. That way you really get to watch civilizations diverge, instead of all racing along the same path.
I definitely agree there needs to be a victory based on wealth, economics and/or trade. Controlling 70% of the world's natural resources would be cool, except that it's probably not that different from a domination victory -- if you control 50% of the land, you surely control 70% of the resources.
I want to see the victories "pulled apart" more. Make the pursuit of one victory easier if you forego another kind of victory, make the pursuit of one victory interfere slightly with pursuing another. That way you really get to watch civilizations diverge, instead of all racing along the same path.
