Type of win

[Konquest02]

I'd like to know what kind of victory you want to achieve most often. What is the easiest one to do? The most interresting?

--Kon--

[HazieDaVampire]

militery is total control of earth right?

[DrFell]

Destruction of all other civs, without necessarily controlling their land.

[nbarclay]

For a long time, I usually went for space race victories, but lately, I've tended more toward domination. Since I hate razing, it's next to impossible to conquer the entire world without hitting the domination threshold, although I've pulled it off once.

Nathan

[Sean]

I find that all victory conditions (with the possible exception of a quick military victorary) are available around the same time. The time it takes to get the required number of culture, usually means you are close to building the spaceship, have the UN, or fall over a domination victorary.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by nbarclay
For a long time, I usually went for space race victories, but lately, I've tended more toward domination. Since I hate razing, it's next to impossible to conquer the entire world without hitting the domination threshold, although I've pulled it off once.

Nathan

I used to try Space Race but quit on it. Why?

I was finishing my spaceship when all of a sudden I was told the game was over - the Chinese had launched. Surprise, surprise. I had no idea.

I had tried repeatedly to plant spies everywhere, and most of the time they failed, ruined my rep, once started a war, and cost me a ton of money. I tried five times to get a spy in Beijing. Because Espionage is such a farce I gave up on Space Race.

[MOHonor]

Originally posted by Coracle


I used to try Space Race but quit on it. Why?

I was finishing my spaceship when all of a sudden I was told the game was over - the Chinese had launched. Surprise, surprise. I had no idea.

I had tried repeatedly to plant spies everywhere, and most of the time they failed, ruined my rep, once started a war, and cost me a ton of money. I tried five times to get a spy in Beijing. Because Espionage is such a farce I gave up on Space Race.

Wow it finally becomes clear to me. You spew because you suck at the game. Someone call the pope.

[Solver]

Yeah, right . Now we all know Coracle sucks .

[candybo]

Main difference here for me is the difference between the victory I want, and the victory I get. I usually end up getting either Space Race or Diplo victory, by default. By that time, I'm usually anxious to start a new game. I know I can turn them off, but I like to keep them as an "out", in case another civ might have a couple more points than me.
I wish there was a compelling reason to reach for the end of the tech tree. Maybe one last SS component, or a useless but cool wonder, or a serious "Know-it-all" bonus. I, for one, have never seen a radar artillery unit. Never had a reason to go for it...

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Coracle
I was finishing my spaceship when all of a sudden I was told the game was over - the Chinese had launched. Surprise, surprise. I had no idea.

I had tried repeatedly to plant spies everywhere, and most of the time they failed, ruined my rep, once started a war, and cost me a ton of money. I tried five times to get a spy in Beijing. Because Espionage is such a farce I gave up on Space Race.

As I have written in another thread, I am really missing Coracle when he is banned. Sometimes, his posts are simply amusing...

I know I am wasting my time, but...

First: I always do my best to plant spies while at war anyway (even if "just for sure") - that way, my rep does not suffer in case the attempt fails.

Second: As long as you are the only one having The Laser, you are safe (in my games, The Laser tends to be the last necessary technology to be invented in the SS race). As soon as one of the AIs gets it, you should quickly finish the ship and launch.

Third: I would try planting a spy with a civ I am not at war with only if my cultury is much higher than theirs or if starting a war would be beneficial for me. Otherwise, it is too much of a risk, that's right.

In my recent game, Russia (me) was the world superpower, with only Persia and Japan left... I was so safe I was aiming for the SS victory, as the game was no longer a viable challenge. But, hell, how could I leave my people with no Longevity and no Cure for Cancel? Constructing these two wonders, I kept my most productive city idle as a backup (it was able to finish the last SS part in two turns). And it was the right thing to do. Periodically checking my spies, I have found out that the Japanese were all of a sudden 6(4)/10! Yep, that was two turns before I launched. They had absolutely no chance to surprise me. But you have to plan ahead... planting spies not when you need them, but when it is easy/safe...

Now on topic: most of my victorious games end up either with my SS heading for AC or with me having the best score. I achieved a diplomatic victory only once... and that was the most weird game I have ever played. As Germans, I started on a relatively small continent (well, it was just an island, in fact) and was unable to expand to the nearby continent (because of being constantly behind in tech, thus having no effective assault forces). However, being sort of isolated, I managed to avoid every single war... that was the only game in my whole Civ life that I weighted no war at all, winning through the UN Vote in 1900). Dunno if the others play such games often, but for me, this was really a unique experience. And... for the record... I do not think I deserved to win that game... The diplo victory should be redone, if not completely cancelled. But right after winning the vote, I felt very fine, yes, I really did...

I would support adjusting the tech-tree so that it delays the SS completion. I have seen radar artillery around only once or twice so far... I agree that the SS victory comes little bit too early.

And as for the diplomatic victory... well, I spent one whole night trying to think up a scheme that would be logical (i.e. one that might justifiably lead to winning the game without breaking the laws of logic). I must have given up eventually... it seems that there is no way at all to implement it in such a way, that winning through it would be both logical and possible. I think being the UN Secretary General should just make achieving one of the other victory conditions easier (big science boost, big commercial boost or whatever... no idea, really). For now, I will probably put up with the fact that it is the victory condition you are going for if there is no other way to win the game. Thinking of it in this way... it may not be such a bad thing after all... as I've said, I felt fine after winning that hopeless game...

[Solver]

Re: not fighting wars. I remember having an amusing game where I didn't lose a single unit all the way up to very end of Industrial Age (Tanks and Bombers). Then I got in war and lost a tank, then more came .

[Franses]

I generally switch off diplomatic as well as SS. I agree with Vondrack that a diplomatic victory is usefull only when you have more or less lost the game (I prefer loosing in such a case) or if you are way ahead of the others and want to end the game (I do not need a diplo victory for that. I just quit the game). SS is similar in my opinion. So I generally end up winning by domination. I would like to win a cultural victory but generally domination is achieved long before a cultural victory. Of course, the fact that the game gets boring in the end does not help me either in achieving a cultural victory. I just do not want to continue that long.

[Theseus]

Other.

Although I have finished a number of games (split between domination and space), in the vast majority I have reached UP and started a new game.

[dojoboy]

Originally posted by Coracle


I used to try Space Race but quit on it. Why?

I was finishing my spaceship when all of a sudden I was told the game was over - the Chinese had launched. Surprise, surprise. I had no idea.

I had tried repeatedly to plant spies everywhere, and most of the time they failed, ruined my rep, once started a war, and cost me a ton of money. I tried five times to get a spy in Beijing. Because Espionage is such a farce I gave up on Space Race.

What form of government were you in? Under communism, spy operations have better odds. Try switching into communism to plant spies and to initiate acts of espionage. Religious civs make this much easier.

I voted for s/s because, to me, it signifies the ultimate victory for a civilization. It encompasses the importance of technology and military might (to protect interests, to secure resources, and to dictate diplomacy).

[nbarclay]

I've had one game where a diplomatic victory made absolutely perfect sense. I had conquered my half of the world, but got along fine with the remaining civs. I had no real use for their land since I already had as much as I could rule efficiently. So why not leverage my position to lead the world into a new era where cooperation replaces competition and warfare?

Further, in that situation, it made sense for the other nations to want to join up. My Germany was already the world leader in science and production, and by a pretty good margin. Joining in a new cooperative relationship would give the other nations immediate access to the latest German technology, and would avoid wasting resources on maintaining large military forces.

The thing that makes diplomatic victory so cheap most of the time is that you don't HAVE to do anything that would give the rest of the world a reason to want you for its leader. Essentially, all you have to do is build the U.N. and be less offensive than the other candidate(s). Why, after thousands of years of independence, would nations place themselves under a leader whose only real virtue is that he's less offensive than one or two other would-be world leaders?

Nathan

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nbarclay
I've had one game where a diplomatic victory made absolutely perfect sense. I had conquered my half of the world, but got along fine with the remaining civs. I had no real use for their land since I already had as much as I could rule efficiently. So why not leverage my position to lead the world into a new era where cooperation replaces competition and warfare?

Further, in that situation, it made sense for the other nations to want to join up. My Germany was already the world leader in science and production, and by a pretty good margin. Joining in a new cooperative relationship would give the other nations immediate access to the latest German technology, and would avoid wasting resources on maintaining large military forces.

The thing that makes diplomatic victory so cheap most of the time is that you don't HAVE to do anything that would give the rest of the world a reason to want you for its leader. Essentially, all you have to do is build the U.N. and be less offensive than the other candidate(s). Why, after thousands of years of independence, would nations place themselves under a leader whose only real virtue is that he's less offensive than one or two other would-be world leaders?

Nathan

Nathan,

you say that in that game it made absolutely perfect sense... I think it is a bit complicated... It would have made absolutely perfect sense in the real world. It makes absolutely no sense in the Civ3 game world. As you state later in your post, there is no good reason for others to vote for you. OTOH, if a civ votes for anyone else but itself, it risks losing the game - as it may help someone else to win. Therefore, in the game, the only thing that makes sense is voting for oneself. The fact that the AI civs do not understand this simple truth makes the Diplo victory an option for... well, yes... suckers like me...

This is probably a very rare situation where I would be complaining about the AIs behaving in a "realistic" way instead of efficiently following and using the game rules.

I thought I would come up with some sort of a brilliant idea (like winning more than vote in a row or something like that) that would solve the problem inherent to the UN vote, but in the end, I have to given up. I was not able to think up any implementation that would make sense.

I am not whining about anything... I know I can switch the Diplo victory off. I just like the whole UN idea and would love to see it work in a way that would not be breaking laws of logic... but either I am not smart enough to think up a good solution, or there is none.

[monkspider]

I used to hate the UN victory, but these days I have come to appreciate it a bit more. Aside from it's whole egalitarian principles, it is the last chance a smaller civ may have to win the game. If a small civ is quite a bit behind in the tech-race, but still manages to build the UN, either by simply concentrating on making Fission your first Modern tech and perhaps rushing it with a great leader, or perhaps having a high-production city buiild faster than the AI civs. Obviously if you are far enough behind you wont' have a chance anyway. But it is a bit of an equalizer for the small, peaceful kingdoms that never really expanded very much.

[monkspider]

Double post

[The_Hawk]

I usually like to go for a cultural victory or space victory when I play the Egyptians. When I play as France, I go for domination/military victory unless I've somehow done well on the culture front.

I find it interesting that so many people have mentioned that they have rarely seen Radar Artillery units. There are 2 things I usually rush for in the Modern Era (past the basics). Thats Stealth Bombers and the other is the Tech for Radar Artillery. The Tech that gives you Radar Artillery also gives you Mfg Plants! Along the way, I also get Miniature Tech, which allows me to build Offshore plants. This gives me a production boost to my border cities who are spilling out into the ocean, which means that it bolsters my Navy, since I almost always focus these cities on building Subs and Battleships. But the boost from the Mfg Plants is so key. I'm a production freak and once everyone begins to catch up scientifically, your edge is your infrastructure and production. Those Mfg Plants usually help you in the SS race, because you can spit out the big SS components in half the turn!

I would love to see how the Diplo victory looks, although i've almost given up because of my style. The close i've gotten to it was a hung vote. That game I tried to be most diplomatic, but I think you pretty much have to be a suck @ss to get it. I generally am very shrewd w/ other Civs economically during negotiations and try to keep everyone else as close to penniless as possible as they try to buy what I have. It makes it more difficult for them to wage war against me if their broke! Anyway, by the time the game's half over, they're calling me the most world renown negotiator and almost hate to see me because they know they're gonna be out some serious cash for the next 20 turns! Anyway, I don't try to do Diplo. I've actually lost some games where I had pretty good position because of trying for Diplo. I had to reload an earlier save file just to keep it going.

Anyway, Culture and Domination rules! Space Victory is distant 2nd/3rd.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vondrack


Nathan,

you say that in that game it made absolutely perfect sense... I think it is a bit complicated... It would have made absolutely perfect sense in the real world. It makes absolutely no sense in the Civ3 game world. As you state later in your post, there is no good reason for others to vote for you. OTOH, if a civ votes for anyone else but itself, it risks losing the game - as it may help someone else to win. Therefore, in the game, the only thing that makes sense is voting for oneself. The fact that the AI civs do not understand this simple truth makes the Diplo victory an option for... well, yes... suckers like me...

This is probably a very rare situation where I would be complaining about the AIs behaving in a "realistic" way instead of efficiently following and using the game rules.

I thought I would come up with some sort of a brilliant idea (like winning more than vote in a row or something like that) that would solve the problem inherent to the UN vote, but in the end, I have to given up. I was not able to think up any implementation that would make sense.

I am not whining about anything... I know I can switch the Diplo victory off. I just like the whole UN idea and would love to see it work in a way that would not be breaking laws of logic... but either I am not smart enough to think up a good solution, or there is none.

Keep in mind that in order to qualify for the U.N. vote, a nation has to (1) build the U.N., (2) own at least 25% of the world's land, (3) own at least 25% of the world's population, or (4) be number 2 when only number 1 would otherwise qualify. (I think I remember that correctly.) So voting for yourself isn't always an option, although abstaining and hoping for a deadlock is a viable alternative.

It's not hard at all for me to imagine a human player thinking, "Okay, I know there's no way I'm going to win this game anyhow, so I might as well vote for so-and-so since they've been nice to me." (Or the vote might be just to spite a particularly annoying enemy - if Persia just crushed me, I have good reason to vote for anyone but them.) And if I think you might think that way instead of abstaining, it gives me all the more reason to vote for whoever I like instead of taking a chance that your vote will let someone I like less win. So while the "everyone not in the election abstains" policy might be ideal in an abstract sense, I would not be at all surprised if there actually are diplomatic winners in multiplayer games among humans.

Nathan

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Keep in mind that in order to qualify for the U.N. vote, a nation has to (1) build the U.N., (2) own at least 25% of the world's land, (3) own at least 25% of the world's population, or (4) be number 2 when only number 1 would otherwise qualify. (I think I remember that correctly.) So voting for yourself isn't always an option, although abstaining and hoping for a deadlock is a viable alternative.

I am sorry but this information you have seen must have been completely incorrect. I am attaching a savegame created just a turn before I won one of my previous games. You can see that my Germans were #4, coming 4th both in the land area and population (means they must have had less than 25% of the total landmass/population). You do not even need the U.N. wonder, as you can win elections held in someone else's UN... the UN's importance is that if you own it you can prevent the elections from being held.

OTOH, I have to admit that I am not sure about the mechanics used for choosing candidates, but I think everybody is free to choose from all the leaders that are still around at the time of elections.

Originally posted by nbarclay
It's not hard at all for me to imagine a human player thinking, "Okay, I know there's no way I'm going to win this game anyhow, so I might as well vote for so-and-so since they've been nice to me." (Or the vote might be just to spite a particularly annoying enemy - if Persia just crushed me, I have good reason to vote for anyone but them.) And if I think you might think that way instead of abstaining, it gives me all the more reason to vote for whoever I like instead of taking a chance that your vote will let someone I like less win. So while the "everyone not in the election abstains" policy might be ideal in an abstract sense, I would not be at all surprised if there actually are diplomatic winners in multiplayer games among humans.

Thinking of it in this way... yes, you may be right. The diplo victory may be an interesting feature in the MP. If my theory (everybody votes for himself) is correct, than it will not be a game spoiler (just the UN wonder will become next to useless). But if my theory is wrong, then... well, then to hell with my arguments about the AIs behaving in a non-human way...!

[dunk]

Originally posted by dojoboy


What form of government were you in? Under communism, spy operations have better odds. Try switching into communism to plant spies and to initiate acts of espionage. Religious civs make this much easier.

I voted for s/s because, to me, it signifies the ultimate victory for a civilization. It encompasses the importance of technology and military might (to protect interests, to secure resources, and to dictate diplomacy).

It doesn't matter what form of government he's in. As long as you have a spy in a certian country, you can view the status of their spaceship. You don't get to see where and what is being built, but you can see sometihng like 6(4)/10... which means built(in process)/total needed. So, this civ is within 10 turns (a guess) of completing the ship. Investingating cities isn't all that expensive, so you can search around the larger AI cities to find where the ship is being built and sabotage there.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vondrack

I am sorry but this information you have seen must have been completely incorrect. I am attaching a savegame created just a turn before I won one of my previous games. You can see that my Germans were #4, coming 4th both in the land area and population (means they must have had less than 25% of the total landmass/population). You do not even need the U.N. wonder, as you can win elections held in someone else's UN... the UN's importance is that if you own it you can prevent the elections from being held.

That save file shows you one turn away from completing the U.N. Did someone beat you to it at that late point? If you got it, you met the first of the four possible conditions for being eligible: owning the U.N.

OTOH, I have to admit that I am not sure about the mechanics used for choosing candidates, but I think everybody is free to choose from all the leaders that are still around at the time of elections.

Definitely not true. I lost my first Civ 3 game because I hadn't read the manual to find out how the U.N. works so I didn't realize a U.N. vote would be between me and just one other civ. (It was a 16-civ game and I was the only one who had done a lot of conquering. Not realizing that only two civs would be eligible, I figured the vote would be split enough ways to deny anyone a majority. And holding a vote was the default, so it must be a reasonable choice, right? ) I haven't held elections more than one or two other times since then, but I don't think I've ever done it with more than two civs eligible, and there were always ineligible civs around.

Nathan

[vondrack]

Originally posted by nbarclay
That save file shows you one turn away from completing the U.N. Did someone beat you to it at that late point? If you got it, you met the first of the four possible conditions for being eligible: owning the U.N.

I built the UN. I misunderstood you about the conditions to qualify for the vote. I thought you meant one would have to comply with 1, 2, and 3 (OK, yes... I was stupid, not thinking of consequences... ).

Originally posted by nbarclay
Definitely not true. I lost my first Civ 3 game because I hadn't read the manual to find out how the U.N. works so I didn't realize a U.N. vote would be between me and just one other civ. (It was a 16-civ game and I was the only one who had done a lot of conquering. Not realizing that only two civs would be eligible, I figured the vote would be split enough ways to deny anyone a majority. And holding a vote was the default, so it must be a reasonable choice, right? ) I haven't held elections more than one or two other times since then, but I don't think I've ever done it with more than two civs eligible, and there were always ineligible civs around.

OK... let's see. It seems that we are both part right, part wrong. After reading a paragraph in the Prima Strategy Guide, I have to admit that you were "more right" than me.

Everybody meeting at least one of the following conditions is eligible as a candidate:

1) owns the UN (well, the guide says "builds"...)
2) controls at least 25% of the world's total territory
3) has at least 25% of the world's total population

Means that there may be more than two candidates. If only one candidate would be eligible by these rules, the other one will be the leader of the civ coming as #2 in the population.

Learning this, the UN victory seems a bit more of an achievement to me than it did before...

Thanks for forcing me to RTFM!

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vondrack

OK... let's see. It seems that we are both part right, part wrong.

I don't see anywhere that I was wrong. My description was an almost perfect match for what you posted from the strategy guide (albeit not as clear on a detail or two). And while I cited a specific game where if I had known the rules, it would have been clear that no more than one civ besides me would be in the vote, I never claimed that there couldn't be more civs eligible in other games. (Think about the math of a 16-civ game where only one has done much conquest. How many civs will own 25% of the world's land or population?)

Nathan

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Konquest02
I'd like to know what kind of victory you want to achieve most often. What is the easiest one to do? The most interresting?

--Kon--

Mainly spaceship, but getting back into diplo victory as way of officially and quickly winning a game that's basically checkmate anyway. It also suits my peace-oriented strat as I have few enemies.

By then I usually I have Sufficient Power (TM), (as well as the most charmimg civ ), so the desire to strike another notch in the score-table and start a new game is stronger than the desire to say, build MA and paint the world yellow.

[Jac de Molay]

Either spaceship or Diplo for me.

Dave

[The_Hawk]

Of all the types of victories, I have NEVER achieved a Diplo victory, even when I tried. I guess I lost a few votes by being a shrewd negotiator (I always try to squeeze every gold coin out of a deal). The closest I got was a tie vote. That's with me having the highest score and building the UN. Has anyone won with the Diplo? What strategies did you use during negotiations, or during the game? Would be nice to know....

[Lord Merciless]

I usually go for domination and conquest. Along the way, I can decide whether I want to win through culture or spaceship. Should I decide for the latter 2, I simply stop my aggressions and consolidate, a very easy thing to do. The only victory condition totally out of my reach will be the diplomatic one since my civs's reputations are usually very very bad.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by The_Hawk
Has anyone won with the Diplo? What strategies did you use during negotiations, or during the game? Would be nice to know....

One way of getting a diplowin: Don't start wars or break treaties, trade with everyone and keep ROPs. Use gifts, especially in the run up to the modern era and when you're building the UN.

I gather it's not too hard to bribe your way to a diplowin even if you haven't always maintained good relations with the other civs, though I wouldn't know too much about that.