Two thirds cities victory condition too low

[Sammas]

I honestly think that the 2/3 cities victory condition is achievable without actually meriting victory. Controlling 33% of the board is still ok as long as your military is effective. Make it 75% or something, and that's much more decisive, without prolonging the game for too much longer.

[Combat Wombat]

I wish there was a way to set the victory conditions when you start a game.

[PhilD]

I like the 2/3 condition, just as much as the capitol condition. It makes for things to watch for even if you're basically building the unstoppable army of Legendmakers that some of us like to field (though, most of the time, it's the Legendmakers themselves making a dash for the enemy capitol)

Now, adjustable victory conditions, and even handicap games, could be a nice thing.

[Sammas]

Say you have 4 cities and a gold mine, and your opponent has 5 cities. Pretty even. But if you lose one city, even for a single turn, you lose the game. Cities already provide economic and hiring advantages - why should they also be used as victory conditions? The only plausible reason is that it saves time in killing the enemy off completely. But then 75% or 80% would suffice.

Capitals provide for a non-linear victory condition. You don't have to be winning the economic war to win by capital capture. But city count victory is just another linear constraint on strategy. It makes impossible any strategy where your city count might dip to 1/3 for even a single turn. That is not a good thing, imo.

(Yes I do rush capital with Legendmakers sometimes. But that's about the only time that capital-taking becomes even feasible. You don't see many games won by capital taking.)

[Quitch]

The question is, is the city setup intended to denote an early military victory or to give you something besides military matters to worry about?