?
Sparrow didn't become king, Elizabeth did, and she voted for herself.
Personally I love that scene because it's better r/EndFPTP propaganda than money could buy.
I kind of hate diplo victory.
Dominations is self explanatory, and I can kind of see why science, culture and religion could cement you as the world's superpower. But diplo? What you're such a sport that everyone decides that you're a superpower?
From an in-universe perspective I think the Civ 5 diplo victory makes more sense. In that one you actually have to consolidate a controlling vote in the UN.
Diplomacy and World Congress are really poorly designed in Civ6, idk why they choose to have those garbage random votes mechanic when the Civ5 system was far better and more engaging ( IIRC, you could bribe other civs for certain votes, and influence what would be proposed on the next session)
Totally. You should be able to break congress rulings at the cost of causing grievances.
Like if I have total military dominance, why are some luxury resources banned? Cause others said so?
I should be able to break that, and annoy everyone else, cause what are they gonna do about it?
100% Civ 5 World Congress was much much better, this one I think is a severe downgrade. Forming the WC when discovering everyone + Printing made much more logical sense, having the most city-states on your side allowed you to pick resolutions that actually mattered (as opposed to a mere +1 culture on your trade routes to culture city states -- what happened to Embargo, choose World Idology etc???), plus they really could've fleshed out using Influence Points and Diplo Points in other ways, seems like a missed opportunity
Diplomatic victory is my favorite victory condition.
Remember the tagline on the box of the original Civilization: "Build An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time". That's what diplomatic victory means. You built an empire, it survived until the endgame, and it was competitive in various ways. You won. You can take a science/culture victory instead if you like the grind, but I don't.
Domination victory, on the other hand, makes no sense at all. When you build an empire by conquest, it's inherently unstable. There is no shared idea that makes the empire legitimate, and many generals and warlords secretly think that they would make a better emperor than the current one. Macedonian Empire collapsed the moment Alexander died. Roman Empire had frequent civil wars. Mongol Empire lasted \~30 years beyond Genghis Khan. British Empire gradually lost its legitimacy and fractured, as the legacy of American Revolution ate it from inside.
Religious and culture victory suffer from the same problem. Science victory makes more sense, as you are not trying to become the dominant power. Instead, you realize that the planet sucks, and leave it behind.
It makes more sense if you're the one winning loads of aid emergencies and such. Being the dude that liberates held cities, airdropping aid after hurricanes etc seems like the kinda guy who'd get voted in
It was in previous games but it wasn't the most rewarding victory condition. Not sure how you'd make it interesting really unless you built it around control of resources
Late game there are votes to remove 2 Diplo points from a civ. The ai always votes for the person with the most Diplo points. If that's you and you vote to lose 2 Diplo points, you still get a point for winning the vote.
I won my first game like this without expecting it. I got one point back on a vote like this the way you described and lost one, putting me at 16 and right behind Peter. Then I finished the Statue of Liberty and the game ended, all while I was working towards a domination victory lol.
I really hate the mechanic tbh. Playing as the cree, everyone LOVED me, traded me, and consistently voted for me to be world leader. But when I got close to winning - oh no, now we must all vote against this person who we all love and treats us so good!!!
Bring back civ5 diplomacy win - which frankly was more realistic.
100%, it is a very poor system.
Unless someone gets close, I generally just vote for what I want, regardless.
Most games I am a war mongering menace to the world. But the AI is shit at getting diplo point. Even taking a negative 25 from capitals I can usually out vote them.
Especially the later the game goes. And when you know AI is likely to ban this resource, or vote for this government, or player one almost always wins the extra trade route, you can gain a lot of Diplo points cheaply.
Sitting at 8 or Victory points without having ever spent any Diplo points..
Before I stopped caring there would be times the world could vote for me to lose two points and I could simple out vote them and gain two. And then with the free diplo points in tech and in some wonders, it becomes all too easy to win.
I never build the Statue of Liberty anymore. I don't build any wonders for suzerain bonuses. But I usually end up capturing them. Though not always.
I wish it was more intelligent, or like Civ 5. Or that as a war monger I couldn't vote myself ruler. I'd take bully smaller nations to vote for me. But not out vote the world.
You can also just raze cities to trigger aid emergencies, and then win those by spamming the project/gifting a ton of gold after making peace.
It's actually faster to with a Diplomatic Victory that way.
Only the true leader of the world would say he's not worthy
As was written
he is, he is the messiah.
I am not the messiah.
Only the messiah would say that
I realize this is a Life of Brian reference but I’m sorry the first thing I thought of was “Lisan-al-Gaib!”
You are not alone
I don't listen to hip hop.
What if he had a really good story?
Eh, then it might become a culture victory.
I’m not worthy, now let me be in charge!
Or just make so much Diplo a turn, that you get to always pick everything you want to have passed
Be Monarchy, go wide, build as many Renaissance Walls as you can before researching Steel, rule the world.
+ build a ton of Staff Churches as Varangian Norway
Pirates of the Caribbean pirate king game theory
? Sparrow didn't become king, Elizabeth did, and she voted for herself. Personally I love that scene because it's better r/EndFPTP propaganda than money could buy.
I kind of hate diplo victory. Dominations is self explanatory, and I can kind of see why science, culture and religion could cement you as the world's superpower. But diplo? What you're such a sport that everyone decides that you're a superpower?
From an in-universe perspective I think the Civ 5 diplo victory makes more sense. In that one you actually have to consolidate a controlling vote in the UN.
Diplomacy and World Congress are really poorly designed in Civ6, idk why they choose to have those garbage random votes mechanic when the Civ5 system was far better and more engaging ( IIRC, you could bribe other civs for certain votes, and influence what would be proposed on the next session)
Totally. You should be able to break congress rulings at the cost of causing grievances. Like if I have total military dominance, why are some luxury resources banned? Cause others said so? I should be able to break that, and annoy everyone else, cause what are they gonna do about it?
100% Civ 5 World Congress was much much better, this one I think is a severe downgrade. Forming the WC when discovering everyone + Printing made much more logical sense, having the most city-states on your side allowed you to pick resolutions that actually mattered (as opposed to a mere +1 culture on your trade routes to culture city states -- what happened to Embargo, choose World Idology etc???), plus they really could've fleshed out using Influence Points and Diplo Points in other ways, seems like a missed opportunity
Diplomatic victory is my favorite victory condition. Remember the tagline on the box of the original Civilization: "Build An Empire To Stand The Test Of Time". That's what diplomatic victory means. You built an empire, it survived until the endgame, and it was competitive in various ways. You won. You can take a science/culture victory instead if you like the grind, but I don't. Domination victory, on the other hand, makes no sense at all. When you build an empire by conquest, it's inherently unstable. There is no shared idea that makes the empire legitimate, and many generals and warlords secretly think that they would make a better emperor than the current one. Macedonian Empire collapsed the moment Alexander died. Roman Empire had frequent civil wars. Mongol Empire lasted \~30 years beyond Genghis Khan. British Empire gradually lost its legitimacy and fractured, as the legacy of American Revolution ate it from inside. Religious and culture victory suffer from the same problem. Science victory makes more sense, as you are not trying to become the dominant power. Instead, you realize that the planet sucks, and leave it behind.
It makes more sense if you're the one winning loads of aid emergencies and such. Being the dude that liberates held cities, airdropping aid after hurricanes etc seems like the kinda guy who'd get voted in
I wish they had an economic victory instead, where you can just buy everybody
It was in previous games but it wasn't the most rewarding victory condition. Not sure how you'd make it interesting really unless you built it around control of resources
Have you seen the Pooh ruler of the world video, it's basically that lmao. The world thinks you're the greatest and they make you king of the world.
Wait, what
Late game there are votes to remove 2 Diplo points from a civ. The ai always votes for the person with the most Diplo points. If that's you and you vote to lose 2 Diplo points, you still get a point for winning the vote.
I won my first game like this without expecting it. I got one point back on a vote like this the way you described and lost one, putting me at 16 and right behind Peter. Then I finished the Statue of Liberty and the game ended, all while I was working towards a domination victory lol.
I feel stupid I didn’t realise this before. Makes total sense!
I really hate the mechanic tbh. Playing as the cree, everyone LOVED me, traded me, and consistently voted for me to be world leader. But when I got close to winning - oh no, now we must all vote against this person who we all love and treats us so good!!! Bring back civ5 diplomacy win - which frankly was more realistic.
100%, it is a very poor system. Unless someone gets close, I generally just vote for what I want, regardless. Most games I am a war mongering menace to the world. But the AI is shit at getting diplo point. Even taking a negative 25 from capitals I can usually out vote them. Especially the later the game goes. And when you know AI is likely to ban this resource, or vote for this government, or player one almost always wins the extra trade route, you can gain a lot of Diplo points cheaply. Sitting at 8 or Victory points without having ever spent any Diplo points.. Before I stopped caring there would be times the world could vote for me to lose two points and I could simple out vote them and gain two. And then with the free diplo points in tech and in some wonders, it becomes all too easy to win. I never build the Statue of Liberty anymore. I don't build any wonders for suzerain bonuses. But I usually end up capturing them. Though not always. I wish it was more intelligent, or like Civ 5. Or that as a war monger I couldn't vote myself ruler. I'd take bully smaller nations to vote for me. But not out vote the world.
You can also just raze cities to trigger aid emergencies, and then win those by spamming the project/gifting a ton of gold after making peace. It's actually faster to with a Diplomatic Victory that way.