Honestly, who think we will send people to Alpha Centauri in 45 years? I'd like to see a game who streches a bit further into the future with more future techs and buildings etc. Maybe borrow some ideas from the game Alpha Centauri (not too many though...).

I disagree. I think that Civ would do well not to extrapolate into the future, but rather concentrate on the past.

I'd say keep it 4000BC-2050AD, but make more turns in between these (the Eras get progressivley longer and I don't like it - I can be out of the Ancient Era very quickly and so it loses its importance), and change Alpha Centauri to Moon Landing.

I'd say keep it 4000BC-2050AD, but make more turns in between these (the Eras get progressivley longer and I don't like it - I can be out of the Ancient Era very quickly and so it loses its importance), and change Alpha Centauri to Moon Landing.

I think this would be the best soultion to this problem, for me the Ancient Era is like a brief bit of the game. The Industrial Age is like the most important in Civ3 so I think that should be changed.

I also reckon it should be left at 2050. Future eras suck :thumbsdown

My feeling is that the game should end on a random year between around 2050 and 2500, with the actual end date changing from game to game. This way, people would be kept on their toes, as they wouldn't know EXACTLY when the game was going to end!!! They couldn't, for example, throw their reputation to the wind so as to win the domination victory in the next 8 turns!
Also, rather than 'extraplolate' I think it would be easier to retain future techs but, as I have said previously, give them in-game benefits to such things as unit strengths, production, commerce, population growth and the like!
Lastly, rather than a 'mission to AC', I would rather see the Space Race mission be about a more gradual accumulation of points-garnered from a variety of successful missions-be they sattelite launches, exploration missions, space stations or off-world colonies.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I disagree. I think that Civ would do well not to extrapolate into the future, but rather concentrate on the past.
Agreed.

The traditional spaceship to Alpha Centauri could, in the interest of realism, be replaced by a Mars colony.

I like that a bit more, the landing in the moon is too early IMHO.

My feeling is that the game should end on a random year between around 2050 and 2500, with the actual end date changing from game to game. This way, people would be kept on their toes, as they wouldn't know EXACTLY when the game was going to end!!!

While I wouldn't want the game to extend much longer than it currently does, I love the idea of the random unknown ending date. Like you point out it might make some cheesey late game exploits backfire a bit.

Yeah, a random end date in in the 2020-2050 period or so might be nice.

Yeah, I admit that I WAS just picking a date at random. Possibly 2100 or-at the VERY latest-2200 would be acceptable, just so long as its RANDOM!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Is it not already possible to change the number of turns in a game at the setup screen? :confused:

Otherwise, I do like Aussie_Lurker's idea of having a random ending date within a limited range near the end. Keeping Civ more focused on the past rather than the future is also important, for maintaining a "historically authentic" feel would be more consistent with the rest of the game, but difficult to achieve with predictions on the future.

I agree T-P, overly focussing on the future is what ultimately wrecked the CtP series for me-if they had simply stuck to the very near future, and not wasted so much energy on undersea cities and space cities, I would have REALLY loved it (I like CtP I and II in many ways, just not as much as I do civ3 ;)!)
That kind of thing would be FANTASTIC for a scenario, though, just not the main game!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think that years per turn should be based on current mean technology. That means the ancient era is always slow, the middle ages faster, industrial even faster, and modern very fast. Also, the end year would be X number of turns after a certain percentage of Modern Era techs are researched. THis means the game always ends around the end of our current era.

I do like that idea better than the 'random end' idea. What if you want a Histographic win, but someone overtakes you in 2060 by invading and destroying cities, only for the game to then end before you can recover?

But the overall problem I can see is this: how is it going to work out the bonus multiplier for finishing the game befor 2050?

it should be left at 2050, but we need many more turns, as some games i start getting into some good modern age wars but then the game just ends

what if tech rate is really ihg and you have finished modern age at 1800? I just like the idea the game always ends near the end of the modern era.

Eliminate the finish early modifier, or make it based on number of turns. YOu get a bonus for number of turns before Turn 600(arbitrary number, should be adjusted).

Or simply the less turns you take the bigger the multiplier?

Aussie_Lurker,

part of the problem i found with the future eras in CtP is that all the units and technology were goofy and designed to be 'super-cool'. but this is part of a larger problem i had with CtP which I found goofy for having lawyers and televangelists as units; allowed you to control national wages (i also had problems with the public works system); only had non-western ethnic music. i just found CtP a joke.

but if you look at Alpha Centauri, i thought the future technology was very nicely and smartly done.

i agree though that its probably better to have Civlization focus on the past and not include future eras

The problem, Spatula, is that WAY too many players exploit the known end date of the game to get a rush victory-and the random end date will help to prevent that from happening!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

@Spatula

That is exactly what I mean.

Actually, Sir_Schwick, your idea could potentially solve two problems at once--ensure that Civ does not delve too far into the future, but also have the game end at a non-fixed time. However, this dependence on tech to determine the passage of time must not be exploitable by the human player to an extent that allows the player to predict when the game will end, and thus still be able to carry out the last minute scoring exploits.

Ok, instead of landing on the moon, it could be making first self-support base on the moon. Making parts of the base, instead of SS parts.

@trade-peror

that occurred to me, but I think you already have the predicted ending problem. With random end time you eliminate that problem, but for gameplay purposes i would prefer tech rated then random.

Well, true enough Sir_Schwick. I think I would prefer it if it was a 'semi-random' end of sorts. Perhaps, as you suggested, once a certain number of modern-age techs are researched-by a certain % of remaining civs-then the 'end game' clock comes into effect (with a starting number determined by the RNG) At this point you KNOW the end of the game is coming up-you simply don't know exactly WHEN this will happen!!
Alternatively, player(s) can choose to retire at any point in the game, at which time victory conditions are calculated.

This then also brings us to the issue of HOW the game is won. I have a REAL problem with 'single victories' bringing a game to a head. I would rather see the game end at a 'semi-predetermined' time, as stipulated above, and then having ALL selected victory conditions calculated at this time. Whoever wins the MAJORITY of victory conditions is the ULTIMATE victor of the game.

Possible victories are the culture victory (mostly as it stands now), and the economic and scientific victories (which would work along similar lines to the culture victory). Additional victories might include:

Diplomatic Victory: would be determined on a points basis, calculated on the terms of the number and type of diplomatic agreements you have made throughout the game, as well as the extent to which you have honoured them. Points would also be won according to your current international standing and according to your current 'morality level'. Points would be deducted according to your current 'atrocity rating'.

Space Race Victory: After your first 'space-based' small wonder is built, you can launch a variety of different mission types into space. Success chances will vary according to financing, mission type, specific improvements/wonders and tech levels-and different missions will gain you varying numbers of points. The player with the MOST amount of points wins the space-race victory.

Domination victory: will be determined, first and foremost, by the amount of population you currently control. Lesser points will then be awarded according to the number of cities you control and, lastly, the least amounts of points will be awarded according to the % of land mass you control. In addition, points would be awarded according to the number, and size, of protectorates/vassal states you have associated to you.

Religious victory: Points are awarded according to the number of people who belong to your religion, and bonus points awarded for every city which belongs ENTIRELY to your religion. If your state religion is that of another civ, then you can win an 'allied victory' in this category.

So, in all, you might have a total of 7-8 different victory types, and the nation who has the most will be the ultimate winner. If a tie eventuates, then final victory will come down to demographics and/or histiographic factors between the tied civs!

Anyway, thats at least how I would like to see it happen!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The idea of an "ultimate victory" is a very interesting one, and certainly one worth exploring. And, again, the random or semi-random (just not certain) ending of the game would be good, and easy to implement.

Allowing players to choose to retire, however, somewhat defeats the purpose of the unpredictable ending, would it not? Or would such retirements be treated as losses rather than wins? :crazyeye:

I liked the combined factor, it ends near the end of the modern era, but you cannot count the turns. Also, the ultimate victory idea would be even better if it was scored by eras(or the non-era equivalent if they do remove eras, please), and the total number of wins determined victory. It means if you were strong in one era but not others you could lose.

Alpha Centauri certainly should be changed. I think moon landing obviously not as that happened over 30 years ago. Perhaps it should be establishment of the first Mars colony as the end game instead of Alpha Centauri. That at least is something technically possible by 2050.

@sir_schwick: It isn't the same at all. In your model you get a bonus for finishing so many turns before a certain date, whereas in mine your bonus decreases in accordance with how far into the game you are. I know it has the same effect, but it's not the same thing.

The problem, Spatula, is that WAY too many players exploit the known end date of the game to get a rush victory-and the random end date will help to prevent that from happening!

The fact that the end of the game has a known date has nothing to do with it. Whatever the end date, it will still be earlier finish = bigger add-on. A random end date won't change that at all. And what is wrong with people rushing to a victory? It's just as challenging as milking, because you have to find ways to finish earlier and earlier. You can either win really early or win really late with a massive empire full of millions of happy people. The only difference is one takes longer than the other, and the base difficulty - sure its is more difficult to gte a big score from milking than rushing, but it is no less difficult to improve an early rush score than to improve a milking score; the same effort needs to be put in.

And whilst everyone's agreeing over the percentage-of-modern-tech idea, no-one's been able to solve the problem of what happens when you finish the game before modern era; today I got a 20k victory bearly into the industrial age. How would the bonus be worked out then? Which is why I prefer the 'lose bonus for every turn you play' idea - it doesn't have that problem, and is actually compatible with 'random end'. For my part I would be happpy if the bonus score ends in 2050 but the game doesn't - I rarely ever reach 2050 anyway.

And the moon landing thing - sometimes you see space races in the 1800s, so the whole 'it happened 30 years ago' thing is meaningless. And in a game about changing history it doesn't bother me to have a historical event (moon landing) happen at a different time then it did in the real world but it does bother me to have an event that will only be possible many many years ahead of our time, no matter what year it happens.

Take a look at my earlier post, Spatula, and you will see that I am opposed to the whole 'I won cultural victory, so the game ends and I WIN' approach. I feel that the game should end at a semi-random date, as determined by partial or full completion of the modern age, and that once that date has been reached, everyones performance is then calculated in each area is determined, to see who the ultimate victor is. This, alone, will end the rush to Domination victory or the rush to build UN rubbish that currently plagues the end game!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Why should I have to wait till people reaserch modern-era techs to win? Many a game I have played has not ended in the moden era.

As for having to win in many different ways - if you really want to win that way then fine. I sometimes want to be the moat adored civ, or the biggest, or want to make the ground red with blood, but sometimes I change my mind halfway if I see a different oppurtunity to win arise - which is why I keep everything checked; I may not be able to have everyone love me, but if I can sure crush them with my armies, then I'll switch to that approach. Under the multi-win idea I won't be able to do that. I'll either have to try to win most ways or check only one box and doom myself to risk of failure (something I am not ready to do, especially if I have spent 4 hours already on the game).

And just supposing this new system were put in (and I hope not, not without some option to distinguish 'I want to be able to win any way' with 'I want to win by winning in lots of different ways) - it still does not solve the 'how will we determine the bonus score when finishing the game before modern era in a game where you cna only win one way' problem that is introduced with the random end. The method I mention does- what are your thoughts on it?

If you end the game earlier(on your own volition, no forced endings now) then its calculatted the same way as if you win after the full time. Its not the entire time from begginning to end that these categories are compared, they are split up into three to five sub-eras where there are winners for a couple or only one era, so you could then define vicotyr as yo like based on that assessment.

To which I have to say, with all due respect:

MUH? Confused.

I'm not liking the ambiguous ending idea. If civ were a sandbox game then I would be for it, but civ is a stratagy game that provides means to an end. Becuase of the kind of game Civ is i want to know what the goals are. The idea that there is a bonus point reduction per turn played is a fantastic idea imho (didn't civ 2 have that?)

What I mean is this:

Suppose you play the full game. Now lets split up the time spent into eight neat periods. You calculate the Diplomatic winner for the 1st, 2nd, etc. and the Conquest winner and the Domination winner, etc. This way if you did really well in some spots but not all, then you could still win.