I've recently read a few threads on "why late-games are so boring" and found many good ideas. Why is the late game is boring? Mostly because by the industrial or modern age you virtually won the game already(or AI's going way too ahead of me in higher difficulty). There is no chance to runner up or the rest after the leading civ had certain amount of 'momentum'. Once power outlook settled, something unpredictable enough to turn the game hardly happens.

I really appreciate the Firaxis' efforts in making late-game richer and more interesting with new techs/buildings/units etc. New features in later era certainly add variety/reality and get some boring tank-only wars away and etc.. which I love so much. They are surely on the right track I guess.

However these kinds of addition hardly add excitement due to unpredictability. I think the only(if not, the best) way to make game unpredictable is to make many small AI civs often coalesce against the sole superpower civ. This idea doesn't necessarily need a new diplomatic option. You just get "-1 You are too powerful" when you are distinctly ahead of others, for example.(I've seen something like this already in before but not so effective I think) or like "+1 We coalesce to hinder Romans" More explicitly, AI's could agree on multi-party defense pacts or even more radically form commonwealth(either temporary or permanent). Instead of introducing new feature, more frequent forming of 2- or multi-party permanent alliances between several middle/small nations would also work. There are many other ways of implementation.

Not only will this make late games more interesting where you are leading, it will do so with games where you are behind. AI will contact not only other AI's but you, to form anti-superpower coalition. You will less likely to give up and quit the screwed game.

Actually this idea seems a bit far from the real world. Yes it is. Not every country IRL antagonize the US. But think of this: there is a huge difference in mindset of human and AI civ players. Human player has the only objective - to be #1 civ, while AI tends to be more content with the status quo even if they are #2. Current AI player does tries to be better but not the best. Human player in #2 position tries to cooperate with smaller countries to eagerly take down #1, while AI is getting along with #1 if they share religions and civics.

In fact, a lot of country leaders IRL are obliged to welfare of citizens than international hegemony of their own country.(somewhat more like AI than human civ player! :lol:) This is why my idea doesn't seem to match real life situation. But this is a *game*. AI is supposed to be like human, but then more specifically AI *civ* player should be like human *civ* player, who wants only to be #1 and 'win'.

Of course this anti-superpower coalition shouldn't be always triggered. Depends on many factors - how good relationships [between #1 vs the rest] or [among the 'rest'] are, how far the #1 is ahead, how much the coalition would be effective geopolitics-wise, and etc.

maybe they should have an option like in the board game "Life" (Gamble everything on one final spin)where you can set off nuclear anhilation or plague or something with a 1 in , what, 60 percent chance of success.
At some point the outcome will be inevitable. Unless- you had that final doomsday option -
be ez too- one button.:borg:

Yeah I think this is a good idea too - in fact I think the game would benefit form having ore varied-in-size empires in it - my PC crashes on Huge map, so Large is my usual one - but I'd really prefer there to be a variety in size of my rivals than to have them all more-or-less as big as eachother, it would make vassalage more interesting for one thing, so say you could have a small civ sitting on oil reserves on a different continent - they could name their price to be a vassal, etc, unlike the current situation where a Civ will only become a vassal if you have them over a barrel. I think it would really add flavour to the game to have on a continent instead of 5 civs the same size to have say two big one, 1 medium and 2 small ones...

Yeah I think this is a good idea too - in fact I think the game would benefit form having ore varied-in-size empires in it - my PC crashes on Huge map, so Large is my usual one - but I'd really prefer there to be a variety in size of my rivals than to have them all more-or-less as big as eachother, it would make vassalage more interesting for one thing, so say you could have a small civ sitting on oil reserves on a different continent - they could name their price to be a vassal, etc, unlike the current situation where a Civ will only become a vassal if you have them over a barrel. I think it would really add flavour to the game to have on a continent instead of 5 civs the same size to have say two big one, 1 medium and 2 small ones...

Nice idea. That would add another dimension of variety without too much complication. One thing I'm expecting of BTS is achieving what you mentioned as a by-product. In BTS civs will now try different victories, which means that some civs will really try expansion for domination and other civs will concentrate on wonders and mega cities for culture victory and etc. Tendency to chase certain victory condition might depend on leader traits or personalities maybe? for one Monty trying to sweep and dominate the world, Isabella pursuing religious and cultural excellence. That'd be cool. :)

Historically, no empire has lasted for ever.

So it makes a lot of sense to create new challenges for the leading civ once every 100 turns or so. Only if you can reinvent your empire over and over again should you deserve to "win" (narrowly defined as being on top of this arbitrary date when the game ends).

Or, create more "checkpoints". Who's in the lead in 1000 BC? 0 AD? 1400 BC? 1750 BC? Each time great upheavals cause the leader to sink back into averageness (=a new race is on), and only the civ who was closest to the top the most times will be declared winner at the end (for a domination victory, at least).

Another way of putting this would be: the civ with the largest area on the power graph wins.

Another way of putting this would be: the civ with the largest area on the power graph wins.

Isn't the game score the accumulation of per-turn generated scores, i.e. integrated value of per-turn generated score vs. time graph? - although the F9-screen score graph shows accretion, not per-turn score on y-axis. (However, every other graph depicts per-turn value on y-axis. Correct me if I'm wrong)

But do you ever get to know the game scores of your AI rivals?

I was thinking of was the graph where you get to know how much power you have at any given time.

The idea was that even if you're not #1 for each checkpoint you could still win.

Obviously after each checkpoint the playing field needs to be leveled somehow, to not make it easy for the leader just to maintain his lead (as it is today) which I guess was the OP's main point.

In most cases I think the more variables the better, I'd like if your economic system was more influential than religion after you discover nationhood, to reflect the real world, I mean lets face it, Japan and the US are allies because they are both capitalist, the religion of both countries dosent affect their relationship... I know, I know, there are plenty of examples of countries that are unfriendly cause of religion, but I think economic system should be weighted to be as influential as religion in the late game. For example, two civs with state property:

+3 We stand in solidarity with all the workers states of the world

-3 We cannot accept how your oppress the proleteriat of your nation. We will bury you!

Capitalist nations:

+ 3 We admire how you give your people the freedom to think and to say and to charge whatever you like!

-3 I have in my hand here a list, and you are on it!

Oh wow, an actual, well thought out and well written suggestion which, although I'm sure would be difficult to implement, would surely add to the richness of many games.

Nice suggestion.

One thought, what about the opposite? Recently we have seen the 'Balkanisation' of many countries and regions, Yugoslavia and the former USSR the best examples, but also Eritrea and some African states as well as what seems to be happening in the United Kingdom at the moment. Perhaps formally conquered civilisations, could 'cede'. Although that might be too complex.

Historically, no empire has lasted for ever.

So it makes a lot of sense to create new challenges for the leading civ once every 100 turns or so. Only if you can reinvent your empire over and over again should you deserve to "win" (narrowly defined as being on top of this arbitrary date when the game ends).

Or, create more "checkpoints". Who's in the lead in 1000 BC? 0 AD? 1400 BC? 1750 BC? Each time great upheavals cause the leader to sink back into averageness (=a new race is on), and only the civ who was closest to the top the most times will be declared winner at the end (for a domination victory, at least).

Another way of putting this would be: the civ with the largest area on the power graph wins.

Some great points here and in the posts following it
I really like the idea of the largest area under some graph winning (not sure power is the right one though!). Unfortunately, I'm not sure how that idea would fly with the average Civ player as it may seem a little esoteric and might be tough to explain clearly.

Over a year ago I made some extensive posts on this very subject in response to the question "what percentage of games do you finish". I believe they are just as relevant today as they were then especially given the stated focus of BTS.

I have taken the liberty of highlighting the ideas that I believe support and suggest possible solutions to the OP's momentum concerns.


I answered 20% but I suspect it is much lower, in 6 months I have finished a grand total of 5 games, and I know I have played more than 25!

Since I tend not to play with Space Race enabled it is normally pretty obvious by around 1900, if not before, who is going to win. At that point I would rather start a new game with all the excitement and uncertainty (key word) of the initial exploration and the race to early city sites, techs and wonders.

I generally find that Terra maps hold my interest the longest, with the promise of fresh territory to explore. (Plus pillaging those barbarian cities is so satisfying in so many ways!)

The sad fact is that the late game just doesn't capture my imagination the way the early game does. There is too little uncertainty, it feels like by the time I get to the late industrial age all the important strategic decisions have been made and I am just going through the motions to finish the game.

Now that I am thinking about this I am realising that, for me, in some perverse way the very features and choices that make the early game interesting are what bogs the game down in the later stages. If anything there should be even more important and yet different decisions to be made as we enter the modern eras, not just the continuation of an approach that was old when...well... was old when Rome fell (in 350BC to the Japanese :D ).

Don't get me wrong, I am a big fan of Civ4, I believe Firaxis did an excellent job providing some interesting early game choices of strategy, and of removing the late game monotony caused by pollution, corruption, etc, so finishing a game is no longer painful -- it just isn't yet fun, at least for me.

Of the four Xs (eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate) I find the early game is quite nicely balanced but the late game is too biased towards Exterminate as you either mop up the remaining opposition or repel the warmongers attempting to prevent your cultural dominance. Obviously by the late game there is no territory left unclaimed, so give me new approaches to exploration (e.g. the search for dwindling natural resources, scientific, historical and cultural missions for bonuses), new things to expand, (e.g. trade and politics), and new avenues to exploit (e.g. espionage, multi-lateral diplomacy, insurgencies). I am not suggesting that all of these be incorporated in great detail into one hugely complex modern era game but pick a couple and implement them with a simple, elegant system as was done with religion.

How about new late game concepts such as...

True Multi-Lateral Diplomacy and interdependent nations with more and broader treaties (vassal states may be a big step in the right direction)
Technology that levels out but with the potential for short bursts of domination that need to be exploited rapidly or squandered.
Espionage that matures from tactical to strategic importance.
Multi-civ Trading blocks with better geographical isolation of, and limited control of, key resources
More meaningful effects of political and socio-economic ideological choices.
Nation states with fixed borders only changeable through war or *intense* diplomatic pressure
and yes, even the introduction of some concept of insurgents that threaten the very fabric of civilization (To steal a well-worn phrase.) as ancient yet now minor civilizations tumble towards anarchy.In a very real sense the 'rules of the game' have changed since we entered the modern era (In RL), I personally would like to see Civ reflect this so, perhaps we could even have a more dynamic approach to each era...

A dynamic interface that introduces more game mechanics and control choices as time passes, for example, the very idea of civics AND the game mechanics used to select them should evolve as the game progresses, not just introduce more choices in a matrix.
The very definition of victory should be dynamic with objectives for the next era based on your performance in the current era. Think about it...if you enter the modern era as a minor player your definition of a successful outcome will be way more humble than if you steam into the modern era as a behemoth of an empire. Having objectives that challenge you without appearing too easy or too hard might keep you playing.Now, some combination of those ideas might revitalise the game, and keep my interest all the way to the (maybe) bitter end.



my intent was to introduce a layer in the game that mimiced a lot of what went on during the cold war where super powers would fight each other in other countries often by funding insurgents and they only commited small numbers of troops to the battlefield in a small number of regional power struggles, never fighting directly with other nuclear powers. Minor nations in effect became pawns and often proxies of the superpowers. Perhaps you would enter the 20th century in a position of dominance but if you were not careful your conquered territories would be susceptible to foreign interference encouraging them to rise up and demand independence. Religion could be a powerful factor in this also. The fact is that dominance in the 20th and 21st century is not guaranteed by military might, invading and subduing one small country is a tough nut for even a superpower, being able to seamlessly absorb that country into a monolithic empire after a short period of instability simply defies belief. A strong military is essential for deterrence and defense primarily, but diplomacy, economic dominance, subversion and other tools are also important. This really leads into point 9...the definition of victory in Civilization has always bothered me, in a sense I have always felt that for me the journey was more important than the destination. I can enjoy the early stages of a game I am losing just as much as one I am winning the same cannot be said for the latter stages. An alternate victory system that accounts for how well you cope with the challenges of each era given your position when entering that era rather than an overall objective of world dominance would be my ideal.


It is clear that in ancient classical and to a lesser extent medieval times that power and success were defined in terms of the size and military strength of your civilization. My issue is that power and strength come from different sources today, we are more likely to measure power based on economic strength and diplomatic influence, backed by a military deterrent, and success based on similar intangibles such as the economy and standard of living. On the subject of intermediate victory conditions per era...the point would be to introduce more interesting choices...should I go for the classical era victory or invest in my overall position to prepare for victories in later eras. Many civs through history lost their empires because they overstretched as they dominated one era and were not prepared for the new realities as times changed. So you are right, your beeline to literature might lose you the ancient era lead but it would be your choice to sacrifice that battle in order to win the war. Personally I love tough decisions.:aargh:

Isn't the game score the accumulation of per-turn generated scores, i.e. integrated value of per-turn generated score vs. time graph? - although the F9-screen score graph shows accretion, not per-turn score on y-axis. (However, every other graph depicts per-turn value on y-axis. Correct me if I'm wrong)

No, actually the game score is simply a calculation based on land area, population, tech and wonders built.
In fact, (unless it has been changed in a recent update) each Civ's score is calculated each turn as the sum of:

population score = 5000 *civ pop/all world pop
land score = 2000 *civ land/all world land
technology score = 2000 *civ tech/all tech
wonders score = 1000 *civ wonders/all wonders

Maybe one of the random events is that a vassal will appeal to you to free it form its vassalage. Like secretly, behind its masters back? So lets say Holland gets conquered by Germany, it could appeal to Churchill and FDR to free it...

Actually surely that will be one of the please for help or random events???

In most cases I think the more variables the better, I'd like if your economic system was more influential than religion after you discover nationhood, to reflect the real world, I mean lets face it, Japan and the US are allies because they are both capitalist, the religion of both countries dosent affect their relationship... I know, I know, there are plenty of examples of countries that are unfriendly cause of religion, but I think economic system should be weighted to be as influential as religion in the late game. For example, two civs with state property:

That makes sense. Put it the other and more general way, current modifier "+1 You have wisely chosen your civics" is a bit dull and needs refinement. Some civic categories(as you mentioned, economy for example) are weighted in later era, religion less etc. And I find the *modern* Korea preferring caste system is stupid. Why "Favoured civic" not changed over time(but dependent on leader)? This adds no complication, (I think) nobody remembers which leader prefers which, since they just choose civics to suit their needs, or else look up the F4 screen to find out which civic my friend leader favours.

All good points MJS. As I said, the more variables the better.

Plus, I dont even know how this would be implemented, but I wish regime change of some sort was possible.

I love the game, but one thing I'm not wild about is that the objective of all war is to conquer cities. I wish you could just conquer specific tiles, for resources, etc, and it would be also good if conquered cities, depending on the rea, would keep the building in them to make them worth caputring for reeasons other than land garbbing. Its a shame when you capture a well developed, mature city in say 1900, you have to build a granary in it. They should keep the building already in them and contribute to your economy, as oppsed to dragging it down

Nice suggestion.

One thought, what about the opposite? Recently we have seen the 'Balkanisation' of many countries and regions, Yugoslavia and the former USSR the best examples, but also Eritrea and some African states as well as what seems to be happening in the United Kingdom at the moment. Perhaps formally conquered civilisations, could 'cede'. Although that might be too complex.

Thanks, and good observation. Splitting empire has been implemented in a few Civ4 mods though I didn't try them. So for sure I'm not the best one to make a comment. :) Anyways my impression is what would be the motivation for cities to split? Rather random? Or what could be done to prevent it? It could be frustrating if there's nothing I can do about. Coalition of weak civs has strong motivation and the leading civ still has some straightforward means to deal with. Well I'm not well aware of your idea and so I'd be happy to hear and talk more :)

Verry good suggestion witten.

In world history we have always had wars. Maybe when we have more than 2 players we should force tension between the strongest and two runners up. Others would benefit from it and they would have time to catch up. I know its not the best idea but it can be tweaked a little bit to make a game more enjoyable for those who have bad positions from the start.

The fact is that its very hard or hardly impossible to catch up if someone is 200 points in front of you!

(...)

mjs0, I certainly remember I read this thread(s) sometime before. Interesting reads again ;) You listed a good deal of new ideas and I think not a few bare the similar philosophy to mine.

My motivation was like: "you always hate or tries to undermine the top AI civ, why wouldn't AI's do so too?" And then I just think the implementation is not necessarily complex: the game mechanics somehow make the leading civ 'hated' and help the rest 'sympathize with each other and coalesce'. The simplest form of implementation would be some diplomatic modifiers added, with still more ways possible.

No, actually the game score is simply a calculation based on land area, population, tech and wonders built.
In fact, (unless it has been changed in a recent update) each Civ's score is calculated each turn as the sum of:

population score = 5000 *civ pop/all world pop
land score = 2000 *civ land/all world land
technology score = 2000 *civ tech/all tech
wonders score = 1000 *civ wonders/all wonders

Yes I know it's based on simply those factors.(AFAIK that is true to be Warlords 2.08, which you can check out mousing over your own score) But isn't the time victory determined by *accumulation* of scores from each turn, rather than the score 'snapshot' of the final turn? I'm sure it was so in Civ3 and I assumed so in Civ4 too, as also suggested in the first part of The Inner Workings of the Demographics Screen Explained (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/demographics.php). This value is not the 'area' below the graph because score graph itself shows the accumulation according to that linked article.

In addition ot what I was saying about having a few small nations, I think the game would benefit greatly from every Civ not having a coastline, as is the case presently... in real life this can make all the difference to how powerful a nation is (Kuwait was created almost entirely to deny Iraq access to the sea) and it would be a good motivation for wars to gain access to trade routes, the possiblilty of launching seaborne invasions etc... as it stands everyone has a coastline, the only question is do you have a decent production city on the coast to build a navy?


Just a though.

the only question is do you have a decent production city on the coast to build a navy?


You do now. Just build the Maoi Statues.

I still think we should price war because game is more interesting, the problem is that long wars are hardly seen and defeated people just leave. Game is finished by the end of sword age (sometimes goes into gunpowder age).

I have just had idea that civ4 should be divided into few very balanced age starts and firaxis should promote not only first age when 95% games starts nowdays but also modern age etc.