I understand now about how the domination condition can be gamed; I hadn't thought of that before. But that's long been true of the alternate victory conditions in Civ games. Civ 3 and 4 both let you conquer the United Nations to make yourself a candidate and win a diplomatic victory while trailing by dozens of techs and cities. Culture victory is similarly achievable while otherwise far behind. Apostolic Palace, enough said. We sensible players know how to distinguish these cheesy grabs from real victories. And how often does the gaminess occur anyway - in what situation would you ever have the muscle to conquer N-1 capitals but fail to hold the Nth or your own original?
In normal usage where the human player is straightforwardly conquering the world, I like the mechanic. Sure, I can see improvements: perhaps require holding all the capitals to avoid the loophole of an AI doing the work for you. But I think even the current condition plays better than domination in any previous Civ iteration, mostly in capitulating a won game and trimming the mop-up. I'd prefer to have games err on the side of ending sooner rather than later. If I can take someone's capital, I in all likelihood have the power to wipe out the civ, and it's not necessary to walk through the motions to demonstrate it.
In normal usage where the human player is straightforwardly conquering the world, I like the mechanic. Sure, I can see improvements: perhaps require holding all the capitals to avoid the loophole of an AI doing the work for you. But I think even the current condition plays better than domination in any previous Civ iteration, mostly in capitulating a won game and trimming the mop-up. I'd prefer to have games err on the side of ending sooner rather than later. If I can take someone's capital, I in all likelihood have the power to wipe out the civ, and it's not necessary to walk through the motions to demonstrate it.