None of those really appeal to me.  Already someone with a powerful economy has victory in the bag with superweapons and a larger and more powerful fleet, so anything that's simply about pouring money down a sink to inevitably gain victory doesn't really add much to the game, IMO, and that's basically what all your suggestions come down to (either having a lot of money or spending a lot of money).

What's the difference between building a massive trade network and accumulating lots of cash?  The former results in the latter.

The culture system we have now is fairly simplistic and would need to be overhauled if this were to be anything more than "build X culture centers to obtain victory".  Again, accumulate enough cash to build the things.

Alright, you have me here; this one isn't economic.  That said, it's just a variant of military victories.

Amounts to paying for the wonder and sitting on it until the timer expires.  Effectively an economic win, no different than building a trade route and waiting for it to pay off.

Just a repeat of "trade enterprise"

We don't yet know how the diplomatic system will work yet, so frankly I don't think any of us can comment on this.

The kinds of victory objectives I want to see (as discussed in the other thread) are things like "there can only be X", where you can set the number of winners that will be allowed and the game ends when that many players are left standing.

the forcing other empires to be vassle states is a nice idea. that one definately needs to be shown to ironclad...

I mean... the reason that FFA games arent really popular (or 3v3v3 or 2v2v2v2 or whatever) is because... (expecially for lan games) you lose... your done, your gone... your bored while the rest of your friends play for the next 2-3 hours...

If someone offers you vasselage... and you accept... you have to pay them a large tax, and cant fight them... but your not dead... untill you think your strong enough to take them on again, of course, if your attacker was wise, he just mgiht have put starbases on each of your planets to make an uprising unlikely... but hey, whatever... if you chose to fight for your master, your master just might be nice and slightly reduce the tax placed on you. if the game ends and your still a vassel, you lose.

if someone offers you vasselage... and you dont accept... then his capital ships pull into orbit around your planets and nukes em, and you lose.

so... its a way to lose, without dieing. I like it.

MVP=Most Vassal Player? lol

I think a good economic strategy that should be put in place is buying out empires.  Every empire has a certain price on it calculated by ship/research/culture/structures/planets/ect.  Everything that the empire owns.  Now if one empire is way stronger economically, they can buy out the economically weaker empire for a large sum of money.

And I know what you're saying, if you're that much stronger economically, you'd be that much stronger militarily.  Well I'm assuming that the overhaul of the diplomacy system means that there are ways to diplomatically ward off military threat.  If you can't fight them, buy them.

Also this would have to be worked out to keep players that are in the pocket from just buying out all the opponents while their allies fight.  Not sure how that could be done.  Maybe you have to be close to them in fleet upkeep costs or something too?  Maybe have some kind of new "diplomatic upkeep" type system where you choose to either "fleet up" or "diplo up"...  Dunno.  Haven't worked that all out.

Quoting Kitkun,

reply 8

"You have been bought out! You Lose!"

 

You make it sound so anti-climactic.

I don't think it's snooty at all.  Not like you're saying "You're all FOOLS if you don't up this in!".  Saying what you'd like to see in a game as opposed to demanding.

Just like saying what you want for your birthday or [insert winter gift-giving holiday].

And I think a lot of people are on the same page as you.  Pounding your opponent's face into the ground is fun and all, but it'd be nice to have options.

While you may be right that a lot of these thigns boil down to 'acumulate wealth -> win' thats not the point.

I don;t care if a diplomatic victory is still just, at the end of the day, anotehr money sink, the point is i want a non-militaristic way of winnign for thematic/roleplay reasons. I want to be able to win without military might simply because it's a different way of doing things, even if it is basicly just 'acumulating wealth'

Why would you be bothered anyway? If its basicly the same then it makes no difference to you, you just keep playing the same way as before.

Although an even better thing i think would be to expand on the envoys ability and culture, by makign it possible for them to 'convert' planets on their own (the planet doesnt just go neutral, it becomes yours automatically), it's an extra thing a player must defend against, and an extra way to 'attack'.

Perhaps have some sort of system whereby the game determines how much the population of a given race like you, and how likely they are to convert over to your side. You could use culture spread, embassies, monetary donations, and other tech to win over the population.

Why? Simply because it's different, options = win (even if they are basicly the same option, with different flavor text, flavor text is important!!)

Wonderful Post Tkins! Glad you posted it!!  I agree on having different ways to play the game,  different ways to win the game, and as Koiju said more options is more fun and more ways to enjoy the game!!! 

I hope the Devs listen, right now Diplomacy is not as far along as that, or rather, it appears that the tech, credits, resources trade and the sliding gauges of relations makes it much more complicated than it was before, and offers new things we didnt have before. But i love your idea of the vassalhood of a faction to another, the culture and economic wins, which rely on more than producing a "structure" that pumps it out, but is as 52500 says, is tied to the trade routes. 

I think these ideas make the game more interesting, and different than how it has been played until now. Which i think makes it worth getting and enjoying.

Ultimate difference in the form of a game editor would assure many years and many players could find and enjoy this, instead of just getting it and playing it through and then on to something else. Just my opinion though,

-Teal

Well, it's a bit of both.  You will be able to win via peaceful means (though probably not 100% peaceful), but the real impetus is to let loose your Machiavellian instincts against your enemies.

What if we had risk like missions. Each mission gives points, the person at the end with the most points wins.

So missions could be like:

kill opponent 5/red/vasari

Create a trade route 10 planets long (including other player's/excluding other players)

have the greatest culture rating in the game

Hold Planet x for x amount of time

Have control of planet Y at the end of the game

Control 1 ice planet, 1 volcano and one dessert planet at the end of the game

The list could go on and on. Some missions will coincide with other players' missions, some will conflict with their missions.  

To make it more interesting, missions could be given all at the start, or distributed throughout the game changing the political makeup.

The points system would be beneficial because it would allow players to decide what missions they wish to accomplish. Example, if your mission is to kill player x, but player x can help you achieve all your other missions, you could win the game by not completing that mission.

This could then lead into interesting espionage abilities, where you are trying to find out what missions the other players have.