Yeah but at least it takes less time them civ 4 dom.
I do get what you mean though.
I do get what you mean though.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
|
Civilization V Solo Reports
|
|
Well now that I poked sullla I'm state my thoughts.
 It's bad. If there was a "you must control 50% of the capatails" rule maybe it would be okay. But there is not. So you can win by conquest without killing a single unit which is extremely silly.
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. 
...
I really don't understand you. edit aimed at mjw, xpost.
Erebus in the Balance - a FFH Modmod based around balancing and polishing FFH for streamlined competitive play.
The difference is that Civilization's cultural and diplomatic victory conditions are specifically designed to be the asymmetrical victory paths, the ones where a non-dominant empire has the chance to compete on an equal footing. The domination victory is designed to be the military win, one that recognizes tactical superiority over everyone else. Civ5's version of this condition is an example of poor design because it turns into another asymmetrical victory - there's no need to have any kind of military control to win by domination. Just be in the right place at the right time. (Or even do nothing at all.) You can have 20% of the map against the AI's 80% control in a 1 vs 1 duel, and win the game by nuking their capital and walking a unit in for one turn. It's profoundly cheezy and unrealistic. That's not to say that there haven't been equally cheezy wins in past Civ games (Civ3 diplo being a great example), but bad design is still bad design. Poor victory condition design in the past is no reason to forgive continued design mistakes.
The other glaring flaw with this victory condition is that the AI has no understanding of the mechanic whatsoever. They make no extra effort to defend their capital at all, and treat it just like any other city, when the game mechanics do not value the capitals as such. The human player knows that this is not the case, and gets a giant advantage in the process. It's like setting up a scavenger hunt and then having a giant, glowing neon sign pointing to the objective... when one of the two competitors is blind. The human knows to value the capitals and can work to pick them off. The AI will never, ever do the same. That's why it's a poorly designed mechanic.
One thing less than clear here T-Hawk, why did you roll all those restarts for the Pantheon and GLH? Is the Tiny Islands game built that heavily around those wonders (okay, God of the Sea is kinda wondery). I'm having a hard time picturing how this is supposed to be balanced, I guess.
If only you and me and dead people know hex, then only deaf people know hex.
I write RPG adventures, and blog about it, check it out.
Because I wanted to.
 I wanted to play an islands game with all the appropriate goodies. Sure it was totally winnable without any of that, but more fun with. I didn't say it was supposed to be balanced or fair for the AIs that don't get to reroll the map.  (February 5th, 2013, 15:58)Sullla Wrote: You can have 20% of the map against the AI's 80% control in a 1 vs 1 duel, and win the game by nuking their capital and walking a unit in for one turn.Good points, I didn't think of those either. Well, the latter is a flaw with the AI, not with the victory condition itself. Okay, there are some cases where the domination rule breaks down and can be cheesed. But for standard global conquering when you truly do have military superiority, it does work better than Civ 3/4 domination IMO. (February 6th, 2013, 01:40)Jowy Wrote: So how many Civ5 games have you played in which you won a domination victory without ever killing an unit? Never but I've come close. For example a runnaway AI with a costal captail. The AI kills everyone else (not targeting you because you buddy up to him). And you win by snipping the captail. It's probably possible to win without killing a unit but you would have to go out of your way. So much out of your way that you could hae won 2 times over so it really would not count. |
