Endgame Tedium–My Experience

Lyoncet

Emperor
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
1,676
Location
Minnesota
One thing I've seen over and over from p/reviews and forum posters is how great it is tha the end-game tedium that has long plagued the Civ franchise is gone. And I admit that the new World Congress is fun and promising, and that trade routes, ideology, and tourism/new culture give you more things to do. But, I'm finding (in my sample size of one game) that the late game still seems tedious. Game was Archipelago (random, actually) on Emperor, epic speed and standard rules. I kicked it down from my usual Immortal for the expansion and since I had 't played in months.

At least in my game, very few World Congress resolutions really felt momentous. Once the few early ones were done, like group projects and arts vs. science funding, it felt like selecting from a list of things I knew would never pass (World Religion) or things that I didn't care about at all. Maybe my game was unusual that way since it was relatively peaceful, which in turn may have been because I was on random and got archipelago. But WC just left me feeling a little empty. Especially when, for all the talk of improved diplo wins, I won by buying every CS on the map and winning while everyone else voted for him/herself. I tried brining Babylon to vote for me but to no avail, despite having over. 40,000 gold and 630 income to bribe with.

Tourism, once I got the hang of it, also didn't feel like it was adding much meat to the game–more like empty calories. I got Archaeology and Exploration early, and quickly found myself with more useless beads than I knew what to do with. Pretty soon I was settling useless landmarks everywhere just to avoid running out of slots for works of art. The works trading system is really lackluster, and once I filled the Louvre and my Hermitage for their theming bonuses, I felt like new culture wins were a lot like the old ones. Just waiting for circles to fill up. Except the old way, as non-interactive as it was, at least gave me rewards. I'm talking from a strictly behaviorist perspective here. Getting a new policy and hearing the pen-scratch sound is a good reinforcement. The new way, AFAIK, doesn't really give me an incremental reward in the same way as I get closer to victory. It's just a binary "I've won or I haven't yet" system. Also the fact that another civ pursuing culture makes it so tedious hurts it a lot, although having interactivity in culture wins (past nuking then) is really good.

The one thing I really did like, though, was the ideological blocs. While just basing ideologies off culture, effectively making them slightly more customizable trees, is a big disappointment, I loved how they influenced politics. I was first, getting Freedom, and then when my two closest allies Ethiopia and Carthage took Order and Autocracy respectively, we started drifting apart, becoming rivals. Ethiopia even sent a fleet after me I think, but rush-buying a fleet of WWI bombers and upgrading my Frigates to Battleships made him think better of it.

Then later when my old rival Babylon took Freedom, we started patching up old rifts and ended the game with a DoF. That dynamic diplo experience was really rewarding.

Trade routes, while a great addition, also didn't feel like they were adding anything to the late game slide. Just another button to click again every 30 turns.

Anyways, I'vs seen nothing but praise for the endgame in BNW, so I wanted to put this out there for people to way in on. Is my experience unusual? Was there possibly something I missed, or maybe the map script tamped down on the game's ability to provide at the very end? What's your own experience been? Overall it was a great experience and I love the expansion, but I just didn't see where the late game love was coming from.
 
Nope, you're pretty much right. I haven't tried the culture game yet (besides digging up a few artifacts to fill my hermitage, and making monuments in my workable territory), so I can't comment on that, but the diplo victory is actually WORSE than it was in G&K. I'm talking about the UN victory here, not the actual World Congress (which share some of the complaints below).

It suffers from the following reasons in my book:

- You CANNOT get AIs to vote for you, beyond their base votes. In G&K, countries were specifically BARRED from voting for themselves because of this very problem. It kills the victory condition and makes it 100% about buying up CSs, instead of behaving like a real diplomatic nation and making sure you're in favor with all of the major civs (their #1 choice that's not themselves). It's really pointless that ALL of the AI's city states ALWAYS vote for the AI. In a true diplomacy game, you don't NEED to be allied with all of the city states, you just need to convince the guy whom all the city states are allied with that you are the best option. This kills immersions and turns back the clock so the Diplo Victory is now, again, a pure 100% gold victory.

- On the flip side, you can weirdly just pay the AI off to vote on totally ridiculous things, like a world-religion that's NOT their religion. It's not even all that expensive. Money is everything. That's fine, but it would be nice if DIPLO was everything in a DIPLO victory, and money was left to bribe the city states. The AI should NEVER vote World Religion or World Ideology that is not their own. Never. Kills immersion. There's frankly no reward for good diplo in a diplo victory. Once again, we're back to pre-fall patch stupidity of the Diplo Victory being a 100% gold victory, instead of an actual Diplo victory. Why go backwards???? You had a system, decided it didn't work, changed it, and are now changing it BACK?

I used to love the Diplo victory, but in BNW, it's awfully designed.

Changes that NEED to be made:
- Being able to bribe/convince AI for ALL of their delegates, you can scale the difficulty or gold cost by how many delegates there are, but this needs to be an option. As it stands, you now NEED to buy up tons of city states.
- Being UNABLE to bribe/convince the AI when they either hate you, or you are trying to bribe them to do something they are REALLY against. This would make DIPLO actually useful, instead of just helping you save gold.

::mutters::

very disappointed in the late game Diplo Victory. trying out culture next, hopefully it's less tedious than you describe it.

edit: I realize this came off as very negative. I love a lot of the changes in BNW, including the overall better integration of diplomacy into OTHER victory conditions. But, it's very disappointing that with all they've done with the World Congress, the diplomacy victory actually got worse and LESS strategic than in G&K. A totally inexcusable step backwards.
 
I'm international, so I can't comment on my experience of the late game, but I've always found archipelagos to be really dull due to the politics of the AI, which in turn, I imagine, will effect the WC and Ideologies (although you say the latter was interesting at least).

As for the new cultural victory, it does still look at least a little "next turn"-y, since it still involves getting those pieces of art and then just sitting on them until everyone converts.

I hope you are the odd one out though. It'd be nice to see a game of civ with some real late game goodness going on.
 
I had the same disappointing experience as you guys. Maybe it's my fault for going with a large map on epic speed, but I was only in one war in the entire game, as and soon as I wiped the Assyrians off the face of the planet, I was immediately denounced by everyone and their mother for being a warmonger when he started the war. After I took him out the game was just a series of AIs denouncing me for next 5000 years, popups that I had to pay off my city states, and not much else. The tourism and archaeology fell awkward and the trade routes are just buttons you have to press every now and then. For whatever reason, Brave New World feels more empty than Gods and Kings. By the end of the game I seriously wanted to pull my hair out over the tedium, but stayed in because there was a promise of world leader elections in 15 turns hanging over my head. Nothing I did(adopting similar ideologies, sharing intel, proposing resolutions people would like, sharing my religion with the AIs that didn't have one) could offset the diplomatic penalty I incurred just for defending myself against the Assyrians. The fact that I could win a diplomatic victory just by bribing city states, even when literally every civ has denounced me doesn't make any sense. So far I am disappointed in this expansion pack.
 
My WC went well, sense I got some fairs, games, world religion, world ideology, and an embargo on the biggest warmonger, but I was disappointed at how the world leader choices went. It's just a vote for yourself and you have to hope you have the most delegates (unless you vote for an ally to ensure his win since the rest only vote for themselves)
 
I only do culture occasionally , only as a change of pace. I fully expect to have the game won (or lost) before much of this takes place (except for trade and ideologies) or have much of an impact. I do, however, have to pay attention to what's going on and counter offensive plays but science, growth and gold/trade will still be the core of successes.
 
Getting those theming bonuses were not easy for me. I had to hunt down pieces (especially for the two you mentioned and Oxford) that needed pieces from different Civs and Eras . I can see where your coming from (40K gold, 600GPT), in that it would make the game seem too easy with that much gold, but the thrill of hunting down and nailing those themes made the game's cultural victory more rewarding then what we had previously.
 
I have had some fun with the WC, but I admit that it is pretty much a game of who has the most money to buy up all the City-States. But I can't think of a way to fix this without making the game less competitive - I mean, why vote for someone else to give them an advantage? There are no joint wins. Maybe if Vassal states were added in it could help this a bit.

Maybe if there was an option in the 'discuss' tab under diplomacy to request a delegate alliance or something it could work, but then how would you determine which relationship statuses would react in which way? Would allies always want to give their delegates to your proposals? Would neutral civilizations always split their votes?

IMO, diplomacy will never be the same as IRL because unlike real life you can win. The AI's are coded (and humans) to give themselves the biggest advantage they can for their chosen victory condition, and will hinder others on their way to victory. If the AI was more likely to chose things that wouldn't benefit themselves, games would be too easy to win.
 
I don't see a problem with this:
Spaceship Victory = Beakers
Conquest Victory = Hammers
Culture Victory = Purple Scroll Thingies (now Suitcases)
Diplo Victory = Gold

I don't want Diplo to be some weird roleplaying victory.
 
Its probably a glitch, i.e. an oversight in the implementation of the diplomacy; I'm sure they'll patch it soon.
 
I haven't played yet, since I am waiting for the game to unlock in the rest of the world. And I can't wait for it, and know I will love it.

Still, tourism sounds aweful, I must admit that. I want to work for things that aid my empire, that make me powerful. Units make you stronger, science gives you better... well everything, culture gives you policies which improve you.... but tourism? Some rival unhappiness ok. But that's it.

Yes, you can win the game, but for me winning is secondary. I play for having a cool empire, and toursim doesn't seem to add any value to it.

Of course it's just a thought, since I couldn't even play it yet. Hope I'm wrong
 
I don't see a problem with this:
Spaceship Victory = Beakers
Conquest Victory = Hammers
Culture Victory = Purple Scroll Thingies (now Suitcases)
Diplo Victory = Gold

It's not that simple.

For science victory, you still need hammers for spaceship parts and wonders. Religion is also very important if you want to rushbuy scientists

Conquest requires a lot of gold if you don't want to go bankrupt after making your first invasion force.
 
I have had some fun with the WC, but I admit that it is pretty much a game of who has the most money to buy up all the City-States. But I can't think of a way to fix this without making the game less competitive - I mean, why vote for someone else to give them an advantage? There are no joint wins. Maybe if Vassal states were added in it could help this a bit.

IMO, diplomacy will never be the same as IRL because unlike real life you can win. The AI's are coded (and humans) to give themselves the biggest advantage they can for their chosen victory condition, and will hinder others on their way to victory. If the AI was more likely to chose things that wouldn't benefit themselves, games would be too easy to win.

Pretty easy: Go back to G&K's simple rule of "No voting for yourself." Or, so that CS money-war is still in the equation, make it so the base delegates cannot vote for themselves.

There should be some advantage to having people actually like you in a diplomatic victory (in fact, it should be a requirement). Right now, there isn't. You just have to be not at war (so you can station a diplomat there for the globalization bonus). There are no benefits diplomacy gives to a diplo victory for anything beyond "we are not at war". This is incredibly stupid.
 
It's not that simple.

For science victory, you still need hammers for spaceship parts and wonders. Religion is also very important if you want to rushbuy scientists

Conquest requires a lot of gold if you don't want to go bankrupt after making your first invasion force.

Of course it isn't that simple, but every victory condition does have a resource "theme/focus" to it.
 
I don't see a problem with this:
Spaceship Victory = Beakers
Conquest Victory = Hammers
Culture Victory = Purple Scroll Thingies (now Suitcases)
Diplo Victory = Gold

I don't want Diplo to be some weird roleplaying victory.

Spaceship Victory = makes your empire powerful through science
Conquest Victory = makes your empire powerful through military domination
Diplo Victory = Less than the others but still, gives you lots of allies, makes you safer by having friends, and gives you many city states bonuses
old Culture Victory = makes your empire powerful by policy bonuses
new Culture Victory = just makes rivals a bit unhappy... MEH
 
Of course it isn't that simple, but every victory condition does have a resource "theme/focus" to it.

Not at all: The whole point of spies and city state quests and religion and what not for diplo victory is that you could TOTALLY make having a ton of gold secondary. In G&K, the easiest way to win a diplo victory on high difficulty levels is NOT to get a ton of gold, but rather to make sure you are everyone's first choice, hold onto a couple of your city states (with spies and gold infusions as needed), find the city states others don't care about, and then build the UN. It was a great victory condition that required science, production, gold, playing the AI diplomacy game, having a defensive army.... I would win on Immortal and sometimes Deity without even having to put a single point into Patronage.

Now it's: get gold. get patronage at least first two policies. get more gold. reach globalization. get even more gold. do not be at war. get so much gold it affects game performance on your PC. win. congratulations, you have bought the world.

It's turning a dynamic victory condition into a static one. And all because of one little change: You can vote for yourself, so of course you would, always.

So stupid.
 
diplo is much worse. However, the cultural path is kind of fun, but not for the reason you think it would be.

I'm talking not about archaeology (it's just a worker with a specific job. Build>deploy>choose artifact or great site. Meh) but actually getting, trading, and organizing your great works to maximize your tourism.

I've only played 1 full BNW game so far, but I was so far ahead by the end I knew I had it clinched, and was next-turning just as I always had been. Turned out I won a diplo victory (the system seems a little broken. . .) without even trying about 10 turns before I would have won a cultural.

It's turning a dynamic victory condition into a static one. And all because of one little change: You can vote for yourself, so of course you would, always.

So stupid.

True that, really only made sense when you could have other civs as a vassal state and force them to vote for you. That's the last big thing that's missing from GaK/BNW imo. Dominating a civ (and not always simply through war.) without fully exterminating them made so much more sense. Think Art of War, Turn an enemy into a friend. . .
 
Pretty easy: Go back to G&K's simple rule of "No voting for yourself." Or, so that CS money-war is still in the equation, make it so the base delegates cannot vote for themselves.

There should be some advantage to having people actually like you in a diplomatic victory (in fact, it should be a requirement). Right now, there isn't. You just have to be not at war (so you can station a diplomat there for the globalization bonus). There are no benefits diplomacy gives to a diplo victory for anything beyond "we are not at war". This is incredibly stupid.

On second thought, I'm not sure we really want that. The AI is so bonkers that it would be unfair to the player to penalize them towards victory just because the capricious AIs don't like them for stupid things like "We're both friends with the same city states!"
 
On second thought, I'm not sure we really want that. The AI is so bonkers that it would be unfair to the player to penalize them towards victory just because the capricious AIs don't like them for stupid things like "We're both friends with the same city states!"

That's the Diplo game though. If you're trying to be world leader, you have to win over the other civs. If he REALLY cares about that one city state, and you want him to vote for you... stay away from it, let him have it... What the AI cares about is a bit random, but they're pretty consistent about caring about it.

Just because the world is full of crazy people doesn't mean we don't still have democratic elections.
 
That's the Diplo game though. If you're trying to be world leader, you have to win over the other civs. If he REALLY cares about that one city state, and you want him to vote for you... stay away from it, let him have it... What the AI cares about is a bit random, but they're pretty consistent about caring about it.

Just because the world is full of crazy people doesn't mean we don't still have democratic elections.

The final level of Diplomacy (globalization) does reward diplomacy, because you must be at peace with other civs to have your diplomats present.
 
Top Bottom