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.

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.

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.

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!?

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.