The discussion about victory conditions was rather interesting. I haven't played Stardrive or Stardrive 2, primarily because everything I've read says that it's all about conquering enemy empires, and that doesn't hold my interest for very long. But I have played Endless Space, GalCiv, and Sins, and they all have a similar issue in my view. Usually there are three basic victory conditions for space 4X games. You can conquer your enemies, form some grand alliance or accrue relationship points with your enemies, or beat your enemies to the end of the tech tree. And while certain factions might have attributes that lend themselves to one victory type or another, such as the Amoebas in ES being able to see the entire map or the Advent just pumping out culture like nobody's business, every game eventually falls into the same pattern because you find yourself needing a certain-sized economy to remain competitive for any of these victory conditions. Vanilla Civ V probably had the most interesting change from this with the Utopia victory condition, where a relatively small hermit kingdom could win the game because culture was slowed down by having big, sprawling empires. But by and large, you just want to get super-huge and steamroller everything either through your military might, your technological prowess, or bribing them. What if factions had specific victory scenarios that only they could fulfill? If you have specific rare resources that are randomly generated on maps, perhaps not spawning at all, or specific mixes of technologies that unlock certain victory conditions, wouldn't that offer more variety in games and victories and extend the replayability of the game?
It might not be a good idea, especially not if it's too complex for game AIs to deal with or steps on some principle of faction design, but I think having interesting victory conditions would extend the replayability and excitement of a lot of these 4X games. And I apologize if this has been dealt with in the 4X podcast; I haven't gotten around to listening to that one yet. Calling back to a prior podcast,, it was rather amusing to hear them discussing the moral weight of all these galaxy-spanning wars and the potential genocide players are committing with every other click. Ethics in strategy games indeed.
What is it that makes the idea of having vassal protectorates so much more satisfying than destroying the enemy civilization and just making their people part of you empire? Is it really a moral issue, or is it more for the pride of seeing your former enemies bow down to you? Should games have some reward for players who promote peace or show mercy? Would that make it too easy to game the system if you just declare war for a turn then sue for peace? More generally, does anything drive players to seek peace in these games other than the nuisance factor?
It seems like in the highly advanced future of these space empire builders, there is only war.
