Victory Conditions

[polypheus]

Apologize if this should be on a (List} but it didn't really seem to fit anywhere. Please move to a list if appropriate.

In Civ1 and Civ2, there were basically only two victory conditions, which is Spaceship Victory or Conquest Victory. In Civ3, many more were added such as Cultural Victory, Diplomatic Victory, Dominance, etc.

Personally I'd much prefer if "Victory" was de-emphasized, at least in the epic game.

I guess it depends on how and why you play Civ, as a game to be "beaten" and "won" or more like SimCity where you build up and experience "history". For me, its the latter. I don't primarily play for score but for the enjoyment of the particular game. If the game had more depth, I'd even play out a game as a 3rd world power.

I don't mind having "victory" conditions but perhaps these should be renamed as "mighty achievements" which don't end the game but provide some kind of bonus to the final score. If this were done and victory conditions didn't end the game it would be better.

[Fosse]

I couldn't agree more. For a long time (and in a few posts) I have wanted the next Civ game to be more "sandboxy."

But, to make a Sandbox Civ viable there would have to be a great deal added to make perfecting your empire impossible. Internal problems for your Civ and dynamic systems for creating them (ie, instead of "you have two population, now one of them will be Unhappy until you build a Temple").

I don't know how popular this is with the general community, but even if they hate it I'll be arguing for the kind of think you're talking about, polypheus.

[Brent]

Maybe Firaxis would split the franchise? Continue the current civ line of games in logical progression, with the goal of achieving victory, and create a new, much different game best described as SimCiv, but obviously that wouldn't be its name.