Why isn't there an economic victory?

[greyTiger]

I too missed having an Economic victory. I have always thought that Civ just did not have enough ways to achieve a victory. I resorted to adding my own mod which includes an Economic victory along with several others.
It relies upon the player gaining access to every resource that spawned on the map, having a trade route with every AI civilization, along with having the highest GPT. Link can be found in my signature for anyone interested.

As for corporations I am currently working on such a system which may have it's own victory type. I expect to have this released in the new year after the first expansion has been released.

 

[ezysquire]

Economic Victory could be an interesting way to execute a Diplomatic Victory where the goal of late game diplomacy becomes trade deals kind of like a globalisation by way of free trade. I'd also be keen on an Environment Victory but that'd need some pollution mechanics so maybe a bit dreamy only.

 

[comatosedragon]

Corporations in some form could potentially be involved as well, as long as they're not too much like religions.

I so want to steal this and use it as my signature.

 

[Morningcalm]

The Fantasy Flight Civ board game features an economic victory where you have to gather an amount of "coin" tokens to win--the coin tickets are found in technologies, buildings (banks) and even in the terrain, so it was a "jack-of-all-trades" victory type. Civ Rev also had economic victory (you had to accumulate a certain amount of gold and build the World Bank I think).

 

[WillowBrook]

I so want to steal this and use it as my signature.

Feel free to do so!

 

[Karpius]

Corporations in some form could potentially be involved as well, as long as they're not too much like religions.

Money is its own religion!

 

[WillowBrook]

Money is its own religion!

In real life. But not (yet) in Civ VI...

 

[Sostratus]

Your enemies shall Bow to the Almighty Dollar!

While I really like the idea of some economic means of winning, I also agree with others that it would need to be trade, resource or corporation based.

The issue with gold is that commercial hubs literally out produce every other gold source combined 2-3x over with limited exception (late game stacking of zimbabwe+ecommerce+merchant buffs); if there are mercantile CS's in the game, then it's not even close. A large map can easily have 3 mercantile CS- that's 24 gold per CH, before buildings.
Rather, Gold seems to be literally intended as a medium of exchange; gold can become production, great people points, used to purchase things in trade deals to acquire great works, more amenities, and so on. I wouldn't make it the end unto itself- that's a bit hollow. (Like if culture victory was just output more Culture instead of having this tourism and theming subsystem.)

I'd keep it that way and create new avenues for a victory- resource monopolies are a popular choice, corporations could require lots of capital (ie gold) to spread, etc.
If one civ manages to acquire a resource monopoly on enough luxuries, or is able to fund a global corporate takeover, it's probably so strong it could have won other victories instead. This usually makes for good victory conditions: a strong civ wins as opposed to a condition that relies on strict beeline/cheese that denies effective means of fighting back (a la Byzantine religious building spam in Civ5 for a t120 cultural win.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In real life. But not (yet) in Civ VI...

Tell that to the people who choose Tithe or Church Property.

 

[Hanaboshi]

Pardon my English but isn't culture victory is essentially economic victory ? What's the difference ?
You buy things to improve your life, hence culture is the sign of how economically successful you are.

 

[Jarms48]

I'd rather see a return of a diplomatic victory and the world congress. Envoys could double as the old delegates, which offers a choice between gaining city-state allies and gaining power in the congress. Adding in a diplomatic victory again could also allow some more diversity in diplomatic policy cards, maybe even some additional options for spies. Gold can stay as it is as a less efficient means of production.

 

[fcpureza]

I do believe that economic victory would be a great add-on to the game. But my idea is a little different, because it's not based on GPT or money, but with a new scheme: monopoly.

In each era (Ancient, Classic, Medieval, Modern, Atomic, etc.) there will be a chance to achieve economic victory based on the number of resources you control. For instance, if you have a monopoly of a bonus resource, a strategic resource and a luxury resource in Ancient Era, you'd win the game. Of course, to do so in such a few time is almost impossible. But it goes on in late game (for instance, in Moderna Era, you should control two bonus, two strategic and two luxury resources).

Monopolies will not be the full control of a resource, but yet when you control 75% of it. If in the whole map, there's 20 resources of Iron and you manage to control 15 of them, you have a monopoly.

Economic victory, in this way, would require players to be cautious on trade resourcing. And also, could stimulate expansion of settlers or militaristic ones. Small civs, on the other hand, would require a lot of trade routes to guarantee their economic victory. I wouldn't discard also a "feitoria" system in resources that haven't been claimed yet.

In late game, you'd be able to develop "Corporations" in a city, in which a trade route with other civilization or city-state would share the city resources with the player. This would create the need of trade embargoes to guarantee the enemy won't have it so easy. Trade embargoes, for its time, could generate a casus belli (to "open up a market by raw strenght").

Anyway, I still think this idea needs polishment. But combined with loyalty system, economic victory could bring a lot of fun in the middle and late game.

 

[Hanaboshi]

I still don't think it would be a fun idea to put economic victory in the game, because your idea would only be fun and challenging only if the game allows:
a. larger map
b. allows 20 civs into the game at same time with hundreds of city states
c. resources are depletable
d. faster production rate
e. more in-depth diplomatic and espionage system, like corruption, scheming and conspiracy, vassal states, tributaries, industrial espionage.
That's why I prefer to have deeper economic and trade system, instead, on which I propose here : https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...-corporations-and-an-economic-victory.625322/
Otherwise, I would have won the game on the classical era when I play the only civ that settle on an isolated continent with 2 unique resources.
I mean, weren't there also that story about monks that stole silk worms from China when they monopolized silk in the middle ages? Monopoly is always a temporary state, I would never call it as a condition for a victory in economic sense.

 

[fcpureza]

You're correct, Hanaboshi! Having a monopoly is a temporary condition. But to have three - or more, depending the era - is not an easy task. Your example is interesting for gameplay issues. Chinese monks helped China to monopolyze silk. And in a few centuries after, Mongols invades and silk route became a constant battle field until wars broke down the trade route structure and Song - and later Yuan - dynasty collapsed. To have a monopoly it means that other players would go try to hit you harder, by force or by other means.

Your idea of monopoly, however, it's very interesting. I wonder only how to make it work in Discovery Age or so, like West Indian Companies or so.

 

[halfhalfharp]

You have victory conditions for science, culture and faith yields, so why not for gold, i.e. economy?

It could be something like having gpt higher than all others combined - or over 50% of all others combined if 101% is too much. Or it could be depositing gold throughout the game towards a certain target that could be fixed or fluctuating. You "fill the bank", you win an economic victory.

I think the game's missing a trick by not having an economic victory.

I agree with you. We can direct our money into something more related to victory.

Currently money is not useful in CIV VI, at least in current game mechanics.
We need religious victory? Buy with Faith
We need districts? We build it
We need science? As long as I am not bankrupt, why care the coins.
We need city states? We have envoys.

GPT? Something extra that allows us to buy tiles or some inexpensive units every few turns.
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT TRADES THEN?

Here is the main problem in CIV 6. The importance of coins are of nothing vital while in reality money rules so much more. It is impossible to make civs care economy when they can self-sustain.They just don't have a need of extensive trade.

Cultural based players may need to establish trade routes for the boost in tourism but outside of that, there is nothing convincing for them to trade harder. Besides we can always just trade with city states to get the income.

This is a good idea to use economy to dominate the world, compensating this problem. We had world leader victory in CIV V. But in reality which single nation can really be dominated by diplomatics?
MONEY buys the world or at least let you feel sad in comfort. Economic sounds cleverer and at least more logical than the stupid diplomatic victory.

No offense, but a bank filling project is not quite reasonable. Also civ 6 does not encourage you from evading this world. It tries to bring you into conflict and contact with everyone so a turtling underground bank is not quite the game's idea.

I suppose it will be too funny to see "You have accumulated great wealth and the world is fascinated by your enormous amount of gold in your vault. That conquers them all for eternity." in the victory anime.

Using economic to win and influence other nations is not building up a giant bank underground, that you can fill and win the world, right?

In my opinion, economic victory is about occupying the trading needs of every nations. A true monopoly is what makes you the economic winner.
I suggest if we really add in an economic victory, it can be like "make trading with you, either by direct or by trading routes, becomes 50% of every civs' total GPT".
That sounds more reasonable?

 

[Jarms48]

Cultural based players may need to establish trade routes for the boost in tourism but outside of that, there is nothing convincing for them to trade harder. Besides we can always just trade with city states to get the income.

You can also spread religious influence via trade routes now, so there's extra incentive.

This is a good idea to use economy to dominate the world, compensating this problem. We had world leader victory in CIV V. But in reality which single nation can really be dominated by diplomatics?

MONEY buys the world or at least let you feel sad in comfort. Economic sounds cleverer and at least more logical than the stupid diplomatic victory.

One could argue that the diplomatic victory in Civ V was also an economic victory, as purchasing city-state influence for gold was a major deciding factor. With the announcement of Civ 6 Rise and Fall, with a return of the diplomatic victory we can only hope that the developers also make gold more relevant.

 

[Hanaboshi]

I agree with you. We can direct our money into something more related to victory.

Currently money is not useful in CIV VI, at least in current game mechanics.
We need religious victory? Buy with Faith
We need districts? We build it
We need science? As long as I am not bankrupt, why care the coins.
We need city states? We have envoys.

GPT? Something extra that allows us to buy tiles or some inexpensive units every few turns.
WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT TRADES THEN?

Here is the main problem in CIV 6. The importance of coins are of nothing vital while in reality money rules so much more. It is impossible to make civs care economy when they can self-sustain.They just don't have a need of extensive trade.

Cultural based players may need to establish trade routes for the boost in tourism but outside of that, there is nothing convincing for them to trade harder. Besides we can always just trade with city states to get the income.

This is a good idea to use economy to dominate the world, compensating this problem. We had world leader victory in CIV V. But in reality which single nation can really be dominated by diplomatics?
MONEY buys the world or at least let you feel sad in comfort. Economic sounds cleverer and at least more logical than the stupid diplomatic victory.

No offense, but a bank filling project is not quite reasonable. Also civ 6 does not encourage you from evading this world. It tries to bring you into conflict and contact with everyone so a turtling underground bank is not quite the game's idea.

I suppose it will be too funny to see "You have accumulated great wealth and the world is fascinated by your enormous amount of gold in your vault. That conquers them all for eternity." in the victory anime.

Using economic to win and influence other nations is not building up a giant bank underground, that you can fill and win the world, right?

In my opinion, economic victory is about occupying the trading needs of every nations. A true monopoly is what makes you the economic winner.
I suggest if we really add in an economic victory, it can be like "make trading with you, either by direct or by trading routes, becomes 50% of every civs' total GPT".
That sounds more reasonable?

There is no such thing as a true monopoly, especially when the world becomes more globalized. I still stand on my opinion that occupying the trading needs of the world isn't a condition for economic victory, especially when businesses is affected by trends, one moment you're in and the next you're out. The perfect example for this is the demand on Lapis Lazuli that was monopolized by the central Asian market in the middle ages which eventually declined after the discovery of Indigo plants in America. Even diamond industry, a "true monopoly" still exist now and owned by De Beers still unable to help the US economy, as well as the oil mines all over the world that owned by the US companies. The true monopoly can only be achieved through world domination by war if that's what you are trying to say because truly, economy is much more complicated than a simple law of supply and demand.

 

[halfhalfharp]

You can also spread religious influence via trade routes now, so there's extra incentive.



One could argue that the diplomatic victory in Civ V was also an economic victory, as purchasing city-state influence for gold was a major deciding factor. With the announcement of Civ 6 Rise and Fall, with a return of the diplomatic victory we can only hope that the developers also make gold more relevant.

The diplomatic victory in Civ V can hold such arguements. But that cannot happen in Civ VI under the envoy system.
Really, they are bringing that diplomatic victory back? How?

By using the envoy system? That sounds unlikely to me, as envoys can hardly give you suzerainship over all the city states.

 

[halfhalfharp]

There is no such thing as a true monopoly, especially when the world becomes more globalized. I still stand on my opinion that occupying the trading needs of the world isn't a condition for economic victory, especially when businesses is affected by trends, one moment you're in and the next you're out. The perfect example for this is the demand on Lapis Lazuli that was monopolized by the central Asian market in the middle ages which eventually declined after the discovery of Indigo plants in America. Even diamond industry, a "true monopoly" still exist now and owned by De Beers still unable to help the US economy, as well as the oil mines all over the world that owned by the US companies. The true monopoly can only be achieved through world domination by war if that's what you are trying to say because truly, economy is much more complicated than a simple law of supply and demand.

I agree with some parts of it. My consent is not important here.
But what I want to say is, if you have to think in that way. Then the cultural victory is not practical too,
as you can always argue that a cultural "monopoly" is never as simple as foreign tourists vs local tourists.

That will be endless.

 

[Hanaboshi]

I agree with some parts of it. My consent is not important here.
But what I want to say is, if you have to think in that way. Then the cultural victory is not practical too,
as you can always argue that a cultural "monopoly" is never as simple as foreign tourists vs local tourists.

That will be endless.

Pardon for my English, I also agree that the measurement on the game is really impractical and I have been wanting to ask this to Firaxis. However as of now, I think that might be the only way the game able to present the quantitative measurement on how a culture embraced by other countries. I mean, how would you measure how people embrace a culture other than being a fan of something and do some touristy visits to the country ? IRL, would it be like the Grand Tour or England in Victorian era where people all over the world came to study and do businesses ? I don't know but is there any other measurements that could measure a culture victory than this? Language ? What do you think ?