Diplomatic victory?

[Adagio]

Wasn't the diplomatic victory supposed to be a victory that makes you put in some more effort to be friends with as many civs as possible? If that's the case, then shouldn't there be some changes in it? I mean, in my last game I won a diplomatic victory, but all the other civs hated me (nobody voted for me)... The only reason I won was because I have been at war whenever possible, but as time was running out I could see it was impossible to take over the rest of the world, and with enough votes to win, I decided to win this game through "diplomacy"

Wouldn't it make more sense that to win this way, you have to have at least 25% of all civs to vote for you, with a minimum of one other civ than your own... and at the same time have the minimum number of votes needed (what is it? 60% ?)

[gdgrimm]

I think this falls into the category of "If you don't like it, don't do it".

I agree that it might be more realistic to include a second criteria to the diplomatic victory (like needing at least 1 other civ to vote for you, or needing 25% of all civs).

But when a human wins a diplomatic victory by population alone, then he/she is using it as a short cut. With that much of a lead, the human was going to win the game via some method (SS or score), and just choose 'diplomatic' to get a quicker victory so they can move on to the next game.

If you don't think that's fair, then you can just choose not to go for the diplomatic victory. The game can't force you to win that way.

I personally like being able to use 'diplomatic victory' as a shortcut sometimes, in addition to using it as a legitimate victory at other times.

[Strategist83]

If you had enough citizens to win a diplomatic victory you must have been rather close to a domination victory, too. I don't see the problem.

[Adagio]

I don't play with domination victory

The problem is that it felt weird to get a diplomatic victory, even though all my diplomacy has failed, leaving everybody to hate me. This is like the opposite of what a diplomatic victory should be
Because of this, a diplomatic victory feels like a shortcut (if everything else fails, you can always get this one), instead of a victory you have to work hard to get. If it was harder to win a diplomatic victory, then it's more pride in winning it, while right now it feels like a "everything else failed, so I went to this one instead" while being ashamed

[MasterDave]

The one time I won a diplo victory was by razing everyone else's city until there was only one other race left in one remote city, but I did not have enough land for the domination victory. I was about as un-diplomatic as they come, yet I took the diplo victory to see what the movie looked like.

It was very disappointing.

[Theseus]

While I understand and agree with your point, Adagio, an example of "diplomatic power" comes to mind:

I am still and always in awe of so many aspects of the Roman Republic and Empire. An example that I draw upon often was the extent of their diplomatic power *well* before establishing military hegemony. The phrase "line in the sand" comes from this (I believe), when a Roman Senator and his small ambassadorial party turned back a Persian army from invading Egypt... solely by by expressing Rome's displeasure!!

Michael Curtis Ford's "The Last King" opens with this... it's a great first chapter:

http://www.michaelcurtisford.com/excerpts/tlk.pdf

So, yeah, don't feel so bad... "Pax Adagio" works too.

[fed1943]

That's what I call "the fake diplomatic victory".Indeed,is a domination victory,with the population(more population actualy)the UN wonder,but without the territory.
I think it's not an exploit.
Best regards,

[Tsar_of_Cows]

The great laugh is that it's very difficult to score a diplo victory any other way.

I have a game as Mansa Musa going, I'm the most powerful civ, and I have the most votes on the UN.

Throughout the whole game I've been buddies with pretty much everyone, but when they split into their little buddy groups it's really difficult to make headway with more htan one or two Civs, as before long they are complaining that you have "traded with our worst enemies" and are demanding I declare war on people left right and centre.

So far, I've only had one war against Julius in order to appease Tokugawa. The poor bugger was stuck in the middle ages, with 3 cities under seige by barbarians.

It's hard to imagine what his longbowmen must have thought seeing Modern Armour and helicopter gunships coming at them...

In any case, I still can't get more than 3 civs to vote for me to win andiplo victory. I think I'm going to need about 6 or 7 of them in order to actually win that way.

I really really don't want to have another slugfest though. I just finished one of those in the 24th century when Lous the XIV finally submitted to my 486 Modern Armour divisions... >< The joys of Pangea Huge Conquest...

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Adagio

Because of this, a diplomatic victory feels like a shortcut (if everything else fails, you can always get this one), instead of a victory you have to work hard to get.

I agree - except that you do have to work hard to get it (and I'm glad it's there). If you have enough votes to single-handedly vote yourself as permanent leader of the world it means you must have the military clout to be able to do so. Otherwise why would anyone pay heed to you?

It is a shortcut and I'm glad it's there - it can be, for example, a means of winning when you have a large, strong Empire but are in danger of losing to the spacerace.

Civ4 is all about choices - not always choices that are satisfactory to everyone's tastes, but choices nonetheless.

[potoroo]

Originally posted by Adagio
The problem is that it felt weird to get a diplomatic victory, even though all my diplomacy has failed, leaving everybody to hate me.

I didn't know you could play as George W. Bush.