Firstly I will say I have not yet played the board game (waiting patiently for it to arrive in stock). However after reading many forums and reviews I have a query about victory conditions.

I have read that some people find it annoying how it's very hard to change victory paths once the game is underway. Especially when new players (like myself eventually) don't fully understand the game.

I was thinking to combat this problem would it be a viable option that in order to win a player must complete all four of the victory conditions?

When thinking about it I know it would obviously make the game longer.

Military conditions would cause problems as capitals conquered would result in elimination for that player and therfore would sit out the rest of the game. Unless military conditions had to be achieved last.

Or even for a 4 player game to win either conquer the other 3 capitals OR complete economic, technology and culture (all three to win). So that to win three things had to be done for both victory paths.

These are just my rambles and I would love to hear some feedback, alternative ideas or whatever else anyone has to say on the topic

Thanks

I dont like this. This game can already take quite a long time as it is.

Getting to just one kind of victory is already quite a challenge. I have played many games where I was ready to achieve a military victory only to be trounced my a perfectly timed culture card and watched as he culture won while I was rebuilding and moving. I have also been steps away from a science victory only to be surprise attacked from behind and losing. Economic victories can be signifigantly affected by the map (more so than any other type of victory...you NEED a few of those map coins), in my opinion this is the hardest victory condition to acheive.

Having to go military only or win the other 3 types would just push everyone toward military, which wisdom and warefare already did a fine job of doing (and i dont mean this in a bad way...i love the way military works now, its viable where i dont feel it really was before.) You also couldnt force military to go last as that drastically negatively affects military nations like the Aztecs, Germans, and Russians while strengthening those focused toward other options like the Arabs or Greeks (niether of whom need any help).

I have no problem with it being difficult to suddenly change your path. If you play properly you should always have a plan B. It may take a few turns to attempt to retool and refocus but pulling a victory off that way is far more satisfying. I for one like to persue science with a secondary economic. The 2 types mesh very well and complement each other. Same with Military and a secondary Science.

You earn your victories in this game for the most part and having to retool your entire kingdom to achieve a second victory condition just wouldnt work. You cant sell off those cathedrals to create banks or barracks. I say congratulate the winner pick new nations and start a new game.

One house rule we have used is that a military victory does not eliminate the 'defeated' player from the game. If you take a capital city, put one of your flags over their capital. That player stays in the game and can win other victories, but they cannot win a military victory while another flag is planted on their capital.

Seems like a moot point since the game ends immediatley when a capitol is defeated.

Seems like a moot point since the game ends immediatley when a capitol is defeated.

Yes, if it's a two-player game the game would end immediately. What I was talking about was a house rule for 3 or more players. I thought it seemed harsh to kick a player out of the game as soon as his capitol was captured, then they just sit around or leave while the other players play out the string. This is also gives the possibility for them to achieve a different victory type.

Now of course once the military civ captures all the capitols, then the game does end immediately.