New ways to win?

[Roman]

What do you think will be the possible ways of winning in Civ3? My bets are:

1) Conquest Victory:- conquer the whole world... (they can't eliminate this one)

2) Scientific Victory:- Probably something similar to the Space Race.

3) Economic Victory:- Similar to SMAC; you buy out all citizens of all nations.

4) Resource Victory:- Gain monopolies on several crucial resources.

5) Cultural Victory:- Use culture points to assimilate everyone.

6) Diplomatic victory:- Stay allied with everybody for X-turns, alias Ctp2.

So Dan, have I got these right?

[Wittlich]

Roman, I can see your point in all of your victory examples - except #4 Resource Victory. IMO, I believe the "Resource Victory" would be tied into the "Economic Victory"

[SerapisIV]

I like the list Roman, but I agree with Wittlich, I think that the resource victory should be the economic victory. There shouldn't be a buy out victory, with a scifi game it could be alright, but Civ being somewhat based on the real world, I don't think that could ever occur. Nationalism, religions, prejudices, and race would never allow such a buy out. Controlling the markets/resources though I believe is a plausible idea though not in a Democratic-controlled US, otherwise Microsoft would've already tried it (well maybe not, but it makes me laugh thinking about Gates trying to topple governments).

[DarkCloud]

Could you explain #5 more fully please about how you get culture points and how it influences other civs?

[Roman]

DarkCloud, you get culture points by building libraries, etc. See the CGW article for more details.

As to how you can win through culture points, bear in mind that these are just my guesses. I think that once you have a certain much higher number of culture points than everybody else put together - you win the game.

[Lancer]

Related to the culture points should be the MGM wonder.

Roman, sometimes I don't win the game, but I feel like I should have because of circumstances. Sometimes your surrounded by hostile Civs, constantly at war and can't expand, have bad lands, get barbs up the wazzoo (ouch) and have nothing going for you at all. Yet somehow, you push back the hostlies, take their good lands, and extract the barbs, when one of the comp players wins the space race just ahead of you.

You should have a share of that victory because you overcame adversity, and advanced your Civ farther than it should have achieved.

Some kind of special mention would be hard to program, difficult for the computer to discern, but in a perfect world, it would be there, yes?

[Zardos]

quote: Originally posted by Lancer on 04-15-2001 05:01 PM Related to the culture points should be the MGM wonder. Roman, sometimes I don't win the game, but I feel like I should have because of circumstances. Sometimes your surrounded by hostile Civs, constantly at war and can't expand, have bad lands, get barbs up the wazzoo (ouch) and have nothing going for you at all. Yet somehow, you push back the hostlies, take their good lands, and extract the barbs, when one of the comp players wins the space race just ahead of you. You should have a share of that victory because you overcame adversity, and advanced your Civ farther than it should have achieved. Some kind of special mention would be hard to program, difficult for the computer to discern, but in a perfect world, it would be there, yes?

I guess that depends if you are judging the game based on effort or on outcome. In the "real world" outcome matters much more than effort. However, effort should be rewarded, perhaps through "feats of wonder" (borrowed from CTP).

As for not including an economic victory where you can "buy out" your opponents, I disagree with those that say that it is not viable since the "real world" (there's that phrase again ) contains no evidence of it. Remember we are playing a game here, with a fixed ending time, where the real world goes on forever. Even though there is no evidence that a real life civilization has economically thrashed its opponents, it could be a viable ending to the game.

To be honest, I'm not sure that an economic thrashing can not take place in the real world. The US was certainly on its way, until recently, but what is interesting is that it was not directly related to the government, rather the corporations. Globalization has become the next tool in strategically dominating ones enemies. Since companies may be able to drastically improve the quality of life through their goods and services, civilizations will want those goods and services to make their people happy. Furthermore, when those companies make money in a foreign civilization, those profits are taxable by that civilization's government. Because its money that makes the world go 'round, those governments are looking at ways of attracting businesses to set up shop in their civilizations. The host government of the businesses that are looking to expand their corporations to other civilizations then can create policies dictating which civilizations to which its companies can expand, thereby influencing other governments through globalization. However, globalization is a double edged sword as was evidenced in the asian market crisis of 1999 (?), since the globalizing companies' economic health took a drastic downturn because of the frailty of those eastern markets.

[King Richard]

I say; dump the space-race to Alpha Centauri! It's the only tech that doesn't fit in (didn't happen yet!) A trip to the moon could be interesting, though?

[ajbera]

I would like to see the inclusion of the landing on the moon as a wonder, separate from other, space-oriented techs (and relatively simple space advances, like those we practice today and are likely to utilize over the next 20+ years, should be included.) However, the race to land on the moon shouldn't be a game-winning achievement. The first nation on the moon should receive greater esteem from other nations (a la Eiffel Tower in Civ2), a happiness and possibly a research bonus, though.

However, perhaps the first colony on another planet/satellite could be possible. Perhaps after someone lands on the moon, a race to be the first to establish an operational Lunar colony could be a good game-ender.

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by ajbera on 04-17-2001 11:01 AM I would like to see the inclusion of the landing on the moon as a wonder, separate from other, space-oriented techs (and relatively simple space advances, like those we practice today and are likely to utilize over the next 20+ years, should be included.) However, the race to land on the moon shouldn't be a game-winning achievement. The first nation on the moon should receive greater esteem from other nations (a la Eiffel Tower in Civ2), a happiness and possibly a research bonus, though. However, perhaps the first colony on another planet/satellite could be possible. Perhaps after someone lands on the moon, a race to be the first to establish an operational Lunar colony could be a good game-ender.

I agree that the landing on the moon shouldn't be a way to win. I think every civ should be able to land, but the first to do so receives a much bigger culture-bonus. When it comes to space-colonies, I think that this should be an option (like the extended original game in civ2ToT). I don't think there should be too many ways to win, though. Winning by conquest and some kind of economic and diplomatic victory should be sufficient!?

[ajbera]

At higher dificulty levels, perhaps a player would need to satisfy two or more of the non-warfare victory conditions in order to win. Conquering the entire world will always be the number one means of victory, but if you decide to be humane and leave your opponents alive, then maybe having economic AND scientific superiority would be an acceptable victory condition. Or maintain alliances with the majority (or all) of the great powers, plus having the most money (or science.)

Imagine a game where you had to satisfy all of the non-martial victory conditions to win. That would be quite a challenge (at least we hope so.)

[SerapisIV]

I like the Space Race victory. Imagine if the Cold War was still raging. Do you really think they're would only be one space station right now? And one that's not even a quarter built? More then likely by this time legitimite endeavors would be being planned for more men on the moon by now. If the end game is a race between rival civs, the space race is an enormous part of that. True Alpha Centauri is a little too far in the future, but it justs sounds better then building a moon colony, though maybe that would be kinda cool.

[Ilkuul]

I must say I'm a little foggy about what an economic victory would involve. In his original post Roman talks about "buying out all citizens of all nations", a la SMAC. Not having played SMAC, this means nothing to me - unless it's a typo for "buying out all cities of all nations", i.e. what we call bribery in Civ2. If so, it strikes me as rather a grubby and unworthy way of winning! I'd prefer some combination of technological and economic achievements that produce an unassailable economic lead - GNP? per capita income? - maybe by a certain date; but I'm not at all clear about what these could be. Any ideas?

[SerapisIV]

An economic victory was the ability to buy all cities. The computer calculates the cost it would take for you to bribe all cities, you pay that amount and wait a certain number of units without getting pounced upon the AI and then you win. As I understood it few people used it because by the time you saved enough or had cut down on the number of cities to buy, you could just as easily conquer or get a diplomatic victory. I only tried in once, but got bored waiting as I the game was over and cheated and bumped the game year up, not a very exciting way to win. I think in CivIII such a victory should be tied to some kind of resource monopoly condition. But I'll have to wait to figure out how specialized resources and trade are going to work before I speculate how.

I did a post on the AC thing a few weeks ago but that is OK. The United State has no nation will to go very far right now. From 1955 to about 1965 we had the will however Vietnam and social changes stop the space thing dead in its tracks. Also in the 70s the liberal in congress wanted to cancel NASA and give that money to social causes. The space budget at that time 1/365 of the Welfare budget. (We where spending more money per day on Welfare then the entire Space Budget for the year) Plus since Pres. Johnson we have had only one Pres. show any interest in space and that was George the first when he asked NASA to make 2015 as the year we go to Mars. George the second has not shows any interest in space at all so far. And with all of the special interest groups wanting their piece of the pie, it may be 50 or more year before they attempt to sent a unmanned craft outside of our solar system for the so intent of going to AC.
Roman I know you don’t like a lot of future tech, however if you wear a digital watch or have a microwave or use plastic bowls, eat dried food that is from space. A lot of item that where devolved for space is now used by us in everyday life. One of our space craft that is in orbit right now is running on an Ion engine. This engine may be our ride to AC when they make it bigger and better.

The Internet is working OT tonight.

------------------

[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited April 17, 2001).]

[Roman]

Joseph1944,

I have absolutely nothing against new technologies, space research and other forms of progress. In fact, I consider myself to be a scientificaly oriented person. I spend much of my spare time reading scientific journals like "Scientific American", "Science", or "Nature" and I am very interested in new developments in all fields of science.

However, I oppose including any futuristic elements in Civ 3, due to the fact that we do not know what direction science will take in the future and which technologies will prove viable and how they will shape the world. Of course, Civilization X is only a game, but for me the inclusion of future technologies will greatly detract from the historical focus and atmosphere of the game, which I cherish.

very OT:

As I already said, I am a great supporter of science, including (and perhaps even favoring) space research. What I am vehemently opposed to, though, is the monstrosity that is currently being built above our heads in the sky - the ISS (I refuse to call it Alpha, because it detracts from the achievements of the Russian Mir, the Salyut series of space stations and not least also from the American Skylab.). The ISS, over its 15 year lifetime is projected to cost $100,000,000,000. This, in my opinion, as well as the opinion of the majority of scientist, including space scientists, is a complete waste of money, which is badly needed in other areas of science, not least space research. Little useful research is actually going to take place at the ISS. Long term effects of weightlessness and other debilitating hazards of the space environment have already been studied extensively over more than 20 years of Russian space station programs as well as in the American Skylab. Other experiments destined for the space station can be done much more cheaply (and indeed more effectively) by sattelites and on the space shuttle. The waste of money on this abomination is phenomenal and will ultimately be responsible for slowing our advance into space, because were it not for the ISS, much of the money could be allocated to faster development of new RLVs, which would ease our access to space very significantly indeed.

The ISS has very little value and very large costs - both absolute and oppportunity. The only justification I can see for that piece of **** is its public relations value. Hopefully, it will do at least something useful ie. generate more public interest in space research and hence more funding for such. More likely, though, it will merely siphon of funds from other, much more sensible research programs.

Roman: on the lighter side maybe the ISS is going to be in the future "Star Fleet Command Center". There is some talk in Washington about starting a separate Space Command. The Air Force is not too happy about it because my guess is they would loose a lot of people to the new branch. I will admit that I love new tech. If ET would stop at my door and ask me to go for a ride, I would be gone in 60 sec.

------------------