Victory conditions

[1889]

You have to see that if two teams, unbeknownst to the other teams, have decided to "share" victory from the outset, then it would be very likely that the "team" of teams would win.

Now, if everyone was aware that "shared" victories were allowed then teams would just join with other teams till you had either 1v1 or 1v1v1 depending on the number of Civs in the game.

If everyone plays with the idea that only one team can be the winner it will change every teams philosophy versus allowing "shared" victories.

This compares to a 'we kill each other last' agreement. Which is different in that you do have to prepare for the eventuality, and it may drastically alter who you take to the final two with you. Whether you care for the show or not, "Survivor" is not a bad analogy, other than of course, you don't have the other teams sitting on the sidelines to make the final vote as to who wins; but it is similar in that you want to take someone with you think you can eventually 'beat'. That is the fundamental difference.

So you only want conquest victory now? I don't remember any of this being mentioned when we set up the game.

[Krill]

Conquest, Domination, Diplomatic, Spaceship, Cultural, and Score Victories should be allowed. However, I have yet to see a demogame won by any except "Conquest"


What Some, and most of us detest is when two (or more) teams band together, and make a pact basically stating that they will kill everyone then they will declare themselve joint winners. They say that everyone else is dead, and so they don't matter. This has already got to the level where some members have refused to take part in current demogames, with a possibility it will spread to future games.

[1889]

Well whats the fuss about PTWDG then? That was a UN victory.

[Krill]

Have you read that forum?

[1889]

Not after I saw the UN victory. Would you care to summarize?

[Daddy-O]

Who is quoted and what is this about?

[Krill]

No. I do not want to reopen that wound, as it is pretty deep, even for me, and was not part of that game for long (only about 15 months). Surficed to say, you will rip this community into 2 completely separate pieces, with much hate, for a long time. You can go and read the Whore of babylon threads, the Game discussion thread from about post 390 onwards, and when the private forums are opened, you can read them.

And it it Beta is quoted above.

[Daddy-O]

Thank you. I figured it out when I saw it in the other thread. No need to go down that path.

[Ljube]

Shared victories not allowed. All other in game victories allowed.

[Beta]

Re: Victory conditions

Originally posted by 1889

So you only want conquest victory now? I don't remember any of this being mentioned when we set up the game.

1889 - I have no problem whatsoever with any team winning this game by any of the standard and accepted civilization victory conditions. And yes - technically the PTWDG was eventually settled by a UN victory. But if you take the time to read the threads, you will see the game was decided by two teams forming a 'shared victory' alliance unbeknownst to the other teams - either that they had done it, or that it was even possible to consider it. (Trip's responsible for the latter. )

So, a spaceship win or a UN win is more than possible. I thought I saw a large gantry tower yonder.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Krill
No. I do not want to reopen that wound, as it is pretty deep, even for me, and was not part of that game for long (only about 15 months). Surficed to say, you will rip this community into 2 completely separate pieces, with much hate, for a long time. You can go and read the Whore of babylon threads, the Game discussion thread from about post 390 onwards, and when the private forums are opened, you can read them.

Right on! Well said Krill.

[PLATO]

Shared victory was never a consideration of the Horde. Fear not! We want it all!!

[McMeadows]

A shared victory wasn't in my mind either.

As both nations (BOH-EU) were very much interested in getting to chivalry as fast as possible, a tech alliance was not all that uncommon. A mil alliance vs DR was agreed upon later. Reasons have been explained. As far as I felt personally, we (EU) were to end the alliances peacefully after we would have erased DR from the game (together).

I do not support a shared victory.

[planet]

Originally posted by PLATO
Shared victory was never a consideration of the Horde. Fear not! We want it all!!

That much no one in along the pacific rim doubts.

[ChrisiusMaximus]