Bloodlust

[The Andy-Man]

I started a new game of civ3, and took away some of the silly win options, 1st, culture (i just won unexpectadly with that when i was in the middle of a game i was actually getting into)

2nd, Diploi victory - i think its silly

3rd: Space Ship - never liked it in any of the games, to random


that leaves: Domination and military victory.


so, why idnt they just have these options: Bloodlust, or other stuff that seems nice but you still have to play bloodlust to win with 'em...


and i dont always feel like waiting till the end to get a points victory

[Spec]

I think we should have 4 more kinds of win.

-Commercial win (Monopole of productivity, a certain amount of shields per turn or an amount compared to your closest rival, like a cultural win but not)
-Happiest civ (minimum number of happy civs but it has to be, ummm, let's say 70% of your empire)
-Military win (3 or 4 times the army of your closest rival)
-Wealth win (Certain amount of money, let's say 70000 gold. Cuz sometimes I get 1200 gold a turn so less would be to easy)

So we would now have 12 kinds of wins, it would give more depth to the game and change the strategy that you use evrytime.

And for each win, we should have a special ending. And when you got all the endings you get a Special Civ like the Atlantiniens from Atlantis or something.


Spec.

[The Andy-Man]

i like the idea about unlocking civs for every win. its more incentive for a builder to fight,and for fighters to build.

and i like your new ideas, perhaps cornering trade, ie becomeing the center of world trade, hard to implement with the current resource/trade system.


and there should be more economic victories aswell. money and strong economy does make the world go round.

[nationalist]

Victory Conditions

I think to be victorious in a game like Civ 3, the victory has to be something overwhelming. In my opinion the diplomatic victory is a very cheap way to win. I've won being the weakest civ in the game using this method. You can be a small isolated island nation, build the U.N., suck up to other countries, and claim victory even if you are the smallest and weakest. This is unrealistic. Why would a 50 city power with a huge modern army respect the diplomatic domination of a small 7 city island nation? In reality the huge country would do what it wanted and would ignore the small country. Cultural victories are a little better, because you need a fairly large empire to produce 100,000 culture points. It is still unsatisfying if you aren't the dominant power in the world when you win your cultural victory, but less so than in diplomatic. Domination victory is better than cultural, but is less decisive than conquest. This is how I would set the winning conditions.

Conquest: This is the most obvious. Controlling the entire world is a worthy goal for a civilization and shows that you really dominated your opponents.

Space Race: Not as satisfying as Conquest, but to win your civ has to have been very scientifically and industrially advanced. I think that this is a legitimate win because your are expanding your civilization throughout the galaxy, ensuring its survival.

Diplomatic: This is where I would make the most changes. I think that Diplomatic, Cultural, and Domination should be combined in this. To win a diplomatic victory you should have to have a large amount of culture (maybe around 80,000 points or so) This is because no one would take a rude, uncultivated state seriously in a diplomatic situation and prevents the diplomatic winner from being a total warmonger. You should be in a dominant position militarily and population wise ( something like the 66% of the world that is already required in a Domination victory) because no one would take a weak power seriously as a diplomatic force. Would the world bow to the diplomatic wishes of Belize if it built a building and said that it was the U.N.? No. The diplomatically dominant country has to be very militarily powerful to give it diplomatic legitamacy. Finally, you have to fulfill the current requirements of the diplomatic victory. I think that these new requirements would make for a satisfying diplomatic victory, and would kinda resemble the U.S.'s worls role today.
This would be a good victory for someone who likes to play with a balance between war and city improvement, and would cause someone to try and conquer a few rivals while being diplomatically honorable. This would be much more satisfying than the three victories that it combines.

Scoring: It is an unsatisfying way to win, but it was designed to be that way and should remain so. I wouldn't change it.

What does everyone else think about my idea for a diplomatic victory?

[Optimizer]

I also agree that Cultural and Diplomatic victories are a bit meek, but so would also industrial and economic ones be.

I have got a plan about changing the Cultural vitory into the Precursor Legacy victory.

I have posted it long before, and it is simply about researching techs in the very end of the end of the Tech tree. You will then be able to find a strategic resource, the Artifact. This will allow a Wonder that produces enough culture to gain victory within a few turns.

Culture points from original buildings will then have to be decreased so that a regular Cultural victory becomes impossible.

[The Andy-Man]

the problem is, civ3's victory conditions require an aggressive war strategy, and even those these are good ideas, there is still nothing for the guy who likes a 10city, hyper productive well built nation.

[Scooby_Doo]

And for each win, we should have a special ending. And when you got all the endings you get a Special Civ like the Atlantiniens from Atlantis or something.

I think thats a really good idea and perhaps you could unlock certain real world scenarios as well depending on how you played your game.

For example, winning a war against a certain number of other nations would unlock a World War II scenario. This would ensure plenty of replayability as you couldn't play most scenarios until you had a good grasp of the actual game itself.
Or for those who prefer building to conquering, having a super-productive city or empire could unlock a Space Race scenario or some other real world event that focused on production.

As for the actual victory conditions, I tend to turn off cultural although I would like to see it incorporated into the diplo victory as was described earlier.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
the problem is, civ3's victory conditions require an aggressive war strategy, and even those these are good ideas, there is still nothing for the guy who likes a 10city, hyper productive well built nation.

Nothing keeps you from playing that way, as long as you don't want to win. You are asking for the game designers to provide a victory method for the man who prefers to walk in order to win a foot race.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer


Nothing keeps you from playing that way, as long as you don't want to win. You are asking for the game designers to provide a victory method for the man who prefers to walk in order to win a foot race.

He's got a good point...

[The Andy-Man]

can some times be quite a challange to have a super city empire, but in civ3 to only have 10-12 cities you will just get run over by the AI, unless of course you have a big standing army. which maybe i dontwant because i wouyld rather spend the time making city improvements.


what i am saying is, it is not always fun to HAVE to play the war game to win. and firaxis do say they want fun over anything.

[Arrian]

The various victory conditions were put in to try and satisfy everybody. Conquest/Domination for warmongers. SS win for peaceful builders and/or hybrid players. UN/Culture for peaceful builders.

Now, as we all know, the victory conditions don't always play out like that. Warmongers can win culturally due to large numbers of cities. None of those individual cities will be as nice as a builder player's core cities, but there are a LOT more of them. I have won via the UN despite destroying several AI empires (they did attack me first, though).

The SS win has always been my preference. It requires a industrially and technologically strong civilization. In order to get yourself in that position, you have probably fought some, at the very least to defend yourself. You need access to the requisite resources (aluminum, uranium). If you don't have those within your original, peaceful expansion phase borders, you either must be wealthy enough to purchase/trade for them, or strong enough to capture (or have already captured) some.

I agree that the diplomatic and cultural wins are anti-climactic. Actually, so is domination (and I assume conquest, though I've never done that). That part of the game really lacks polish.

-Arrian

[Salvor]

You don't have to be aggressive or go to war to win at Civ3.

But you do have to be prepared to defend yourself by at least building a solid defensive standing army. Maybe you don't like it, and you'd rather be able to build culture and infrastructure exclusively, but that would kind of remove all the challenge and make it pointless to have rivals, wouldn't it? Rivals are, after all, rivals, and if you leave yourself totally defenseless you're just asking to be trampled upon.

In the real world (which Civ is NOT), nobody WANTS to build a huge standing army for defense, but all countries do it. Ever wonder why that is? Having to set priorities and make tough decisions is part of the game, and without it there's no challenge, and IMO it would be pretty darn boring.

Of course, you could always go into the editor and create a map with only 2 civs, and have one of those stuck on a tiny island with no resources, and set barbarians to sedentary. You might have to restart to get the "good" position (a 50% chance), but then you could build away to your heart's content and never be bothered by anyone until very late in the game, after you've built up a huge commanding lead. But to me that sounds pretty boring, and there's no sense of satisfaction in winning.

[The Andy-Man]

the defensive army thing is fine, i like this addition. civ2 on King level i could get away with 1 unit garrisons.

but in civ3, you have to have a big military, regardless weather its defensive/offensive other wise the AI treats you like **** and will probably declare war (every time i have ahd a tiny army, just defense, the AI just attacks without motive).


and another problem with spac ship victory, and htis is for all civ games, is it seems to cut out the end game. and sometimes having a modern army war is fun (maybe sounds like i am contradicting myself). and though i dont always go for one i also like to just know i reached them units....

[kimmygibler]

2 questions...
Is there any logic to the diplo win?

Does changing victory conditions affect the way the ai plays? In other words, if the only victory condition is spaceship, will the ai actually rush to build it?

[The Andy-Man]

i doubt it. the AI will probably just be a warrior camp still.

maye to disband them all at the end game to hurry the space ship.....