How would you solve the snowballing & endgame problem?

[Krajzen]

Title. I think this is the most important problem of Civ series and 4X games in general. It is not that hard to do a fun early - to - mid 4X gameplay. You throw a bit of exploration here, some important foundational decisions there, micromanagement is not too big, competition is roughly equal at this stage as everyone begins at the some point (and it is easy to boost AI in the beginning)... The challenge is how to do the latter half of games like this actually fun, namely not containing
1) Enormous amounts of tedious micro decisions of ever decreasing importance
2) Lack of wonder, surprise and discovery
3) The hardest one: competition being set in stone by te mid game, with mid game winners being clear late game winners and rest of players having no way to catch up.

Recently released Humankind has managed to somewhat solve number 1 due to the way army and city management work here (although I really dislike its idea of the map dominated by extremely few cities ruling enormous amount of land, it just feels wrong to me), mostly failed at number 2 and disastrously failed at number 3.
Civ6 has completely failed in all those regards and endgame is widely considered to be its weakest point. Which is hilarious because so many of its features were ostensibly designed to prevent snowballing and uncatchable runaways, and they have all utterly failed in this task (hello R&F expansion and climate disasters).

So, how would you solve the problem, if everything civ6 did in this regard was not even nearly enough?

########my loose ideas#######

The 4X game IMO has to be designed from the ground and its fundamental systems in such a way that it prevents hyper stable equilibrium of dominant competitors by its core dynamics. I don't know how exactly this problem should be solved, but I feel this would probably require contemplating the very basic economic, internal stability and tech systems of a game.
Now this is problematic, because you have to do it in a non - frustrating way, and it has to be somewhat ahistorical. IRL empires were very limited in size (mostly), usually lasted no more than two centuries in a good shape and collapsed all the time. I'd honestly welcome a 'hardcore' 4X game which functions like a roguelike, in which long survival itself is a great achievement (will you stand the test of time?) but there is no way Civ series go in such direction.

Some of my ideas
1) Make something really clever some different genres games did, namely introduce a separate AI 'game director' which dynamically throws the challenge at the most dominant players at the global level. What am I thinking of is Left 4 Dead or Alien: Isolation style "you are never too far from or too strong vs enemy", just in 4X way. For example a game director looks at every civ's performance at the end of every era and subtly shuffles the world to throw obstacles at the dominant players - in such a way it would feel somewhat natural, such as
- barbarian invasions and migrations at the end of ancient/classical era (Sea Peoples, Huns etc)
- chaotic climatic change which just happens to hit the continent with the most runaway player
- brand new major players emerging in later eras (think medieval era nomadic empires) targeting the richest guy
- if designers really have balls, pandemics (although that could be too random and unpreventable)
- event chains linked in the organic way to massive empires, such as involving civil wars, corruption etc
2) Brand new major players emerging in later eras, with sufficient resources to greatly disturb status quo. Both civ5 and civ6 have mods 'historical start dates' which do so and they introduce so much beautiful mess. I'd love to see a 4X game in which empires actually dramatically rise and fall with eras.
3) Industrialization IMO should be a massive late game event, which is EASIER to perform if you are SMALLER and less proud culture, and which can completely disturb the usual balance of power. Think of how IRL Britain and other small European states have suddenly completely eclipsed China because of that.
4) World wars by the late game should IMO be a regular occurrence.
5) So should be rise of 19th century nationalism and 20th century decolonisation, giving a lot of headache to massive empires.
6) Regarding colonization and exploration, I think it would be great if until the 19th century large areas of map were just plain impossible to colonize, exploit or even explore. Think of how IRL Africa had almost completely unknown interior to Europeans all the way until 19th century. Also, making some sysyems and incentives of 'countries settle and fight over trade posts and colonies all over the world in later ages' would be great to disturb sttus quo.

Those points deal with problems 2 and 3. Dealing with problem 1 would require ditching 1UPT unit system and figuring out how to switch from "every tile minigame matters" to "macro strategic choices while micro is automated" approach by the late game.

Tl;dr the game should do everything it can by its core design to disturb status quo and change major map dynamics all the way until the very end of a game.

 

[MistroPain]

Hi, thought I'd chime in on the point about the endgame. Snowballing is indeed a problem with 4X games and one that I don't think will ever be satisfactorily dealt with until we have better scripts for the bots we go up against (the reason I say satisfactorily is because I really think targetting the player specifically is a great way to make players ragequit, and I'd especially point to your number 1 point, thats just not fun IMO. I don't personally like it when the game feels like its picking on me specifically, even if I am running away with a win, others might disagree).

The problem with end game is how we define the end game, and I suspect some people define it as literally playing in the Modern era. Civilization is a unique game in that it offers multiple avenues for victory. The problem is that each victory condition ends up with an unenjoyable slog where you do weird things like having to actually defeat every other player, wage what is essentially a war using alternative titles (Religion/Culture mechanics), etc. I would prefer to define the 'end game' as the approach to each of these victory conditions. As such I would much rather see the developers sit down, think about each victory condition, and design the mechanics ground up with those conditions in mind. IE to really resolve this issue, the 'victory' and its approach needs to be integral in the design of the game, and need to be woven in to the fabric of the game, whilst also competing with other conditions to ensure that your actions in one area impede/improve your abilities elsewhere whilst also being balanced. The conditions should also evolve over time to reflect the increased societial interactions, and should indeed have conditions that push certain victory types to near impossible (IE force the player to change focus; for example, with things like the UN in place and concepts like MAD, a Domination victory should be near impossible in the modern/near future eras, however, policing the world and thus using your military investments to attain a diplomatic victory should become possible, and thus your game transitions to a game of manipulation).

Indeed a REALLY tough ask that I suspect no game will ever achieve, but they can try. I suspect if a game were to truly achieve this, it would essentially need to be multiple games aggregated into one.

Examples on how this can be done that I can think off:

-Economic Victory (The center of Trade): Make each tile improvement produce a good; goods naturally flow in trade and have impact your society; players compete for goods by competing for control of certain production centers or trade centers; being the center of trade in the world (with the definition becoming harder as you progress through the ages (IE you need to trade with more and more societies) acts as your Economic Victory condition. The mechanic is inherently tied to the very way your civ operates (each tile matters); it creates conditions that necessitate military investment (to not just get eaten up by the big guy next door); it creates conditions in which your trade expertise can in exchange pave the way to a religious and cultural victory if it fails (creates a natural backup path); it also disrupt science victories (leaking science), and offers opportunities for others to manipulate your society which can backfire. The 'slog' is avoided by creating a mechanic naturally tied into the game by tying it directly to each tile you exploit, and offering consistent alternative threats that you have to take care off beyond the competition with other trade-victory-aiming civs.

-Domination Victory (Conquest): Domination is inherently the most sluggish; the problem is that it typically requires control of every other civs capitals (haven't played civ in a while but I remember it being that, correct me if I am wrong). This inherently leads to a slog, and if you are planning to play on the largest map sizes then you might as well do what a lot of other people do, build up your army, conquer your first neighbour, and decide: yeah I've won now, lemme start a new game. You almost never want to finish this condition (or at least I never want to).
Part of fixing this includes the need to rework the inherent mechanics of war. 1UPT is something you and many others on this forum have pointed out as being inherently flawed. Personally I think the developers need to create a system in which every war fought is exciting. That means they need to create a system in which the player is able to effectively execute the maneuvering of large armies without it feeling terrible (moving each and every unit independently MUST not be a thing going forward, they need to resolve that); they need to create systems where numbers/tech does not inherently = win (but certainly should offer large advantages); and they need to create a system in which the scripts they are able to create can be fairly competent in competing with the player. I really think they need to look at wargames like Hearts of Iron and model war accordingly. You create armies, draw lines on the map, account for supply lines, the armies simultaneously attack one another when you press end turn. Your input is the maneuvering of those armies, using smaller fast moving groups to harass supply lines, trying to envelop other armies (IE Terrain MUST be an important component), without spreading yours too thin and making yourself susceptible to breakthroughs, and if they want to make things exciting they can implement 'tactics' where you expend some resource of some sorts to enact special attacks. Such a system would require a very reworked system, the introduction of all kinds of new stats for units (like Initiative to define the attack orders), and a map generator that can competently create maps where armies are able to effectively maneuver and fight.
The other big part is defining where the victory itself lies. As I mentioned earlier, conditions should evolve over time to account for expanding civilization interactions. IE I could argue that Romes conquests IRL should be looked at as an example of a domination victory. However, today, it would not be a domination victory at all. In fact a modern domination victory should be near impossible. Having these sorts of systems gives players time frames to work with, and thus creates a goal oriented game (inherently less sluggish). Its important the definitions don't just JUMP (IE the progression of 'eras' needs to not be so explicit) otherwise again players will ragequit if they missed taking one capital that would have netted them a victory because the turn that followed was a new era.
I also mentioned above that conditions should interact with other conditions. If you conduct repeated conquests, it should become inevitable that you expose yourself to other problems. For example, religions should gain bonuses against warmongers; exposing you to a situation where you waging war against a civ where the majority of your populace follow the same religion becomes problematic (massive happiness losses). Wars should steer trade away, causing economic issues as certain goods flow away from your empire. Your misdeeds should cause distrust world wide, making future diplomatic victories an issue. Your wars also misplace populations, creating vengeful barbs, or supporting the growth of neighbours through refugees that could turn around and force them to deal with you (to stop flow of refugees), or simply take advantage of those refugees (more pops) to outcompete you economically and then beat you at your own game. Etc. etc.

Basically, the point of my examples is:

-The mechanics woven into the game and into one another makes each victory feel more impactful, and thus the end game (the paths to victory) need to be accounted for with the design of the game from the get go.
-The endgame won't feel as sluggish if there are clear time frames creating a goal oriented game for the player; and it especially won't feel as sluggish if the mechanics link to one another to continuously make the player consider alternative threats (the key there being that they are alternative threats in addition to direct ones).

If you are specifically looking to improve the 'endgame' experience, and by that you are specifically referring to the modern era, then the way to do that is to indeed create an evolving game. Again a tough ask, but one in which the player shifts focus over time towards varied mechanics. A well done series of victory conditions as mentioned above can alleviate much of that to begin with. That said, I do think there are two areas that need to be brought up:

-The end game should be a game in which you are forced to reckon with a global diplomatic system. A silly congress that votes on x and y is nonesense, especially when that congress is forming in the middle ages, and also especially when the victory condition that comes with it is guess what all the other civs are going to choose. The diplomacy system should act as a means to curtail key actions of bigger players, namely it should be the main tool which curtails domination victories. The diplomacy system should be one in which guile is rewarded. The latter especially, if combod with a game in which diplomacy evolves over time into this global system, will make the end game infinitely more enjoyable.
I won't suggest how they can do things, just that they've done it wrong so far, but I would like to point out that I don't think any game has ever pulled off diplomacy well, at least not any that I have played, unless you throw characters into the mix (and even then). I really hope they come up with a good solution. If diplomacy feels rewarding to maneuver through, the game as a whole feels significantly better, not just the end game, but I really think a focus on diplomacy will make the end game especially more fun.

-Science victories must incorporate other elements of the game. Science is a weird one in that the reward for its investment is already significant regardless of your victory aims/goals for your civ. As such having its own dedicated win condition feels off. If they want to do a space exploration/colonization victory, then why not literally bring the first X into it, make it a science/exploration victory.

Apologies for the wall of text, but just some ideas.

 

[Haig]

Alliance/ideology team victories.

In the endgame alliances would work towards end goals together, for example Germany, Rome and Japan as allied powers they aim for science victory together, other alliances would try to stop it.

Or England, China and Babylon are aiming for cultural victory together.

It could even have the ideology mechanism from civ 5 where you need to choose an end game ideology and that brings you closer to some civs and enemies with other.

P.S. Krajzen and MistroPain great ideas but too tired to comment now, going to sleep..

 

[Xandinho]

My suggestions are almost the same of yours. The late game really needs a turning point.

Take out the Atomic Era
And maybe the Future Era as well. One of the resaons for the late era is so boring is because it's too long. The Atomic Era is suppose to represent the Cold War, but it's totally unecessary. Cutting the Atomic Era would increase the size of the other eras and could make the game a little more immersive. I bet most people will prefer to spend more time playing in the Medieval Era and earlier eras.

Ideologies/Political alliances/World Wars
Political decisions should be a big thing. The world should be divided by big political blocks, alliances with civs that follow the same ideology as you should lead to world wars. The AI needs to be very aggressive, and they have to build a lot of army and nuclear bombs. Culture could be your "weapon" for both to influence other civs and not to let yourself be influenced.

Industrial Revolution
I agree that the Industrialization should be a massive turning point the game. Energy has to be a thing that matters, in Civ6 it's insignificant.

Great Corportations
Global corporations should take the lead in economic, scientific and cultural development. They could expand the influence of your civilization, and without them you could be left behind even if you have a big empire.
Corporations wouldn't be something that you would create, but it would be the initiative of the population itself following certain factors, for that it would be necessary to have a prosperous and free economy with a lot of resources. Resource-poor civilizations could even encourage people's creativity in creating service businesses. All this would depend on premature industrialization.

More late wonders
The game stays funny according as you still have important decisions to make, and continuing to focus on science or culture to achieve that important wonder that's in the end in the research tree would be a good way to keep the game funny. But the wonder needs to be viable to build (not like the current Golden Gate Bridge and Sydney Opera House which are totally useless and unnecessary). Also, they shouldn't be associated with just one specific type of victory (like Cristo Redentor which is only useful if you are pursuing cultural victory). I think there should be at least 10 powerful wonders from the modern era.

More late projects
Same as wonders. These projects don't need to be only related with space projects. Creating an interconnected computer network would increase their science and cultural diffusion. Creating an improved encryption system would help your civilization protect itself from spying actions. Political propagation projects would lessen the ideological influence of other civs on you.

Migratory Movements
Citizens might prefer to migrate to peaceful civs with better quality of life. Although I'd like to see this, I think it is the least important on the list.

Others
Global warming should be quite late in the game, and not happen as soon as like in Civ6.
Resource dependency on some units should be more flexible.
More later buildings and districts, and they have to be worth building.
Unplanned urban growth would cause sanitary problems, which would severely compromise the city's productivity.

 

[criZp]

1. Get rid of as many civilian units as possible. Put their functions in simple "click and be done with it" interfaces that don't require ordering things around.
1. Allow unit stacking. Very essential.
1. Get rid of the district placement minigame. Having cities be different based on their surrounding terrain is nice but the civ 6 district mechanic wasn't the way to do it.

2. Exploration must go more slowly. I was thinking that units could in some way be limited to operating close to their home territory, at least in the first half of the game (like a supply limitation). That would limit exploration rate to expansion rate.

3. Yields could be subject to an anti-snowball transform function that has a derivative of 1 at x = 0, but bends down into a derivative of say 0.5 at high values (what constitute a high value would change as the game progresses, being based on the current game year).

My idea for unit stacking copied from another thread:

Unlimited units can be in a tile. But each turn, your units in one given tile can only make one attack against units in another given tile. Once one unit in a stack has made an attack, the other units must then either attack in a different direction, or move to another tile before they attack, or simply wait as reinforcements.

Whatever unit enters a tile first will be at the "top of the tile" and will be the unit that enemies are targeting (so you don't choose who you attack in an enemy stack, simplifying the interface). If one of your unit in the stack makes an attack on an enemy tile, that unit will be moved to the top of the tile, so that the enemy can counter-attack it on their turn. Alternatively, each of the six sides in a hex tile could have its own "top of the tile" stack, which would make it possible to counter-attack multiple units.

Ranged support could be allowed to attack while staying at the bottom of the stack, under the frontline units.

A healing/logistics system could also be implemented, by making only one unit in a stack able to heal. This could be the injured unit furthest down from the top of the tile.

 

[BuchiTaton]

1. Get rid of as many civilian units as possible. Put their functions in simple "click and be done with it" interfaces that don't require ordering things around.

This. Most of the civilian units could be reduced to one by kind of statistic, for example Archaeologist, Naturalist and Great Scientist chould be just Scientist the greats Artist, Musician, Writer and Rock Band must be just Artist for the culture boosts, also Trader and Merchant should be the same, any Great title and their related abilities are granted to some of your regular units under the proper circumstances.

1. Allow unit stacking. Very essential.

Yes, just with some limits. Militar units covering broad battle fronts feel wacky for pre-20th century warfare.

1. Get rid of the district placement minigame. Having cities be different based on their surrounding terrain is nice but the civ 6 district mechanic wasn't the way to do it.

Agree, too much city management for a empire building game, cities must be huge just after industrial revolution and massive just on the last era. Some districts fell really absurds like the Water Park and the Diplomatic Quarter.

2. Exploration must go more slowly. I was thinking that units could in some way be limited to operating close to their home territory, at least in the first half of the game (like a supply limitation). That would limit exploration rate to expansion rate.

Right, long distance exploration before the proper "Age of Exploration" should be very difficult, maybe just "great" merchants/traders could do this and just between linked empires.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Right now, you 'win' the game through Conquering Everybody, jamming your Culture or Religion down everybody's throats, attracting masses of Tourists, or abandoning the planet to its own devices and rocketing off to ruin another one.

All of these assume a Linear Progression for 6000 years of gaming 'history'. Let's take a closer look at the realty.

The Mongols, arguably the most successful "World Conquerors', never touched Africa, the Americas, Polynesia, or South Asia, got driven out of the Middle East, and turned back from Europe because of political problems back home (their government-type required the leaders to all be there physically to vote on a new Leader). Nobody else even came close: Rome, China, India, Persia, all the 'World Empires' in fact were strictly Regional Empires only. Britain came closest to a 'World Empire', but never in fact controlled more than a fraction of the world's population or cities or capitals - whatever measure you want to use for 'Conquest'.

No religion has ever come close to being universal. In fact, it is almost a Rule that spreading a religion through multiple different cultures and peoples guarantees that the religion will schism and you wind up with different versions feuding with each other: look at the history of the 'universal' (Axial) religions like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and then try to count up the different versions of each.

There are countries making a good thing out of fleecing the furrin visitors, and some have been doing it for a long time (400 BCE Egypt already had turned the Giza pyramid complex into a Tourist Trap for Greek and other visitors) but no one country has ever gotten a majority of all the visitors, even when transportation technology made it possible for almost anyone to go almost anywhere whenever they wanted to. And as for 'adopting' another culture, people Don't. The USA and its version of English in the late 20th century probably came as close as any culture/language combination to dominating the World, but people adopted English as their second (or third) language, not their primary one, and non-American, indigenous versions of the 'American culture' , like movies, TV shows, shopping centers, etc, not the originals transplanted, are the current form of the 'cultural' domination - think Modify, not Copy.

Trashing the planet and taking off for somewhere else makes a suitably dramatic End Note for the game, but as of this writing they aren't even sure they can keep a primitive orbiting station working for less than a dozen people, let alone establish anything resembling a viable colony on another planet or any other astronomical locale. That 'Victory Condition' is strictly Science Fiction for the foreseeable future.

The game needs realistic Victory Conditions. And it needs somewhat realistic (not completely realistic unless you plan to market it strictly to Masochists) results from the various decisions you have to make. You can conquer another culture/Civ, but making the conquest stick without changing your own culture or committing genocide is another matter entirely.

And I think the game needs an entirely new type of Victory that is, perhaps, the opposite of the Bigger Is Better trend in the current types. Perhaps a Victory that consists of having kept your little digital population happier than anyone else's for a longer period of time during the game. Given that in every survey of Happiest Countries these days the top winners are all Small Countries: Denmark, Finland, Singapore, etc, that would change the eternal Wide Versus Tall debate completely

 

[PiR]

The game needs realistic Victory Conditions.

Honest question: why?
It's a game, after all.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Honest question: why?
It's a game, after all.

It's a game that purports to represent or be based on (vaguely) History. It cloaks itself in historical imagery and phrases. IF the Victory conditions are complete Fantasy, as they are now, you will get the kind of conditions that are being lamented here - utterly unrealistic expectations and game situations, that get more unrealistic and fantastic the further into the game you play, until the late game becomes the grotesque parody of a game it is now.

Well, okay, maybe it's not that Bad - but if it were Good this Thread never would have started.

 

[Krajzen]

Right now, you 'win' the game through Conquering Everybody, jamming your Culture or Religion down everybody's throats, attracting masses of Tourists, or abandoning the planet to its own devices and rocketing off to ruin another one.

All of these assume a Linear Progression for 6000 years of gaming 'history'. Let's take a closer look at the realty.

The Mongols, arguably the most successful "World Conquerors', never touched Africa, the Americas, Polynesia, or South Asia, got driven out of the Middle East, and turned back from Europe because of political problems back home (their government-type required the leaders to all be there physically to vote on a new Leader). Nobody else even came close: Rome, China, India, Persia, all the 'World Empires' in fact were strictly Regional Empires only. Britain came closest to a 'World Empire', but never in fact controlled more than a fraction of the world's population or cities or capitals - whatever measure you want to use for 'Conquest'.

No religion has ever come close to being universal. In fact, it is almost a Rule that spreading a religion through multiple different cultures and peoples guarantees that the religion will schism and you wind up with different versions feuding with each other: look at the history of the 'universal' (Axial) religions like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and then try to count up the different versions of each.

There are countries making a good thing out of fleecing the furrin visitors, and some have been doing it for a long time (400 BCE Egypt already had turned the Giza pyramid complex into a Tourist Trap for Greek and other visitors) but no one country has ever gotten a majority of all the visitors, even when transportation technology made it possible for almost anyone to go almost anywhere whenever they wanted to. And as for 'adopting' another culture, people Don't. The USA and its version of English in the late 20th century probably came as close as any culture/language combination to dominating the World, but people adopted English as their second (or third) language, not their primary one, and non-American, indigenous versions of the 'American culture' , like movies, TV shows, shopping centers, etc, not the originals transplanted, are the current form of the 'cultural' domination - think Modify, not Copy.

Trashing the planet and taking off for somewhere else makes a suitably dramatic End Note for the game, but as of this writing they aren't even sure they can keep a primitive orbiting station working for less than a dozen people, let alone establish anything resembling a viable colony on another planet or any other astronomical locale. That 'Victory Condition' is strictly Science Fiction for the foreseeable future.

The game needs realistic Victory Conditions. And it needs somewhat realistic (not completely realistic unless you plan to market it strictly to Masochists) results from the various decisions you have to make. You can conquer another culture/Civ, but making the conquest stick without changing your own culture or committing genocide is another matter entirely.

And I think the game needs an entirely new type of Victory that is, perhaps, the opposite of the Bigger Is Better trend in the current types. Perhaps a Victory that consists of having kept your little digital population happier than anyone else's for a longer period of time during the game. Given that in every survey of Happiest Countries these days the top winners are all Small Countries: Denmark, Finland, Singapore, etc, that would change the eternal Wide Versus Tall debate completely

Interesting thoughts, I have thought about it few times.

The problem is, I am currently finishing a massive session of civ5 and its victory conditions are simply... fun. And I'd say more fun and strategic than Humankind's fame system, which is arguably more realistic ("who wins history? the most famous civilizations!") but it is the epitome of the linear accumulation. In HK you literally just accumulate victory points based almost exclusively how big you are, and the bigger you are the more you get faster. And the important point: in HK the accumulation of points over the entire game matters, which means often it is literally mathematically impossible to catch runaway past some point, as you have simply no way to earn enough points to make up for his past gains. So HK's system is even more snowballing and even less catching up!

Meanwhile in civ5 you have those victory types which on one hand *kind of* use entire game's accomplishments and strategies (which is good), but on another hand they theoretically allow on the dramatic race at the very end - especially the space race, but the game also has some super late deal breakers that may change diplomatic/cultural winners. So it's not too bad in theory, and it's not the worst in practice when there are often like 2 - 3 competitors who have actual chance of victory untl the very end.

Domination victory is obviously terrible, and I don't like religious victory not because none religion could do this (in theory it could, way more than military domination - look, 'heresies of Judaism' took out like 60% of the planet IRL ) but brcause I don't like religions in civ being
1) The property and tool of a state - they should be separate forces both above and beneath the state level
2) All of them being 'exclusive intolerant missionary faith bent on global domination'
But science, culture and diplomatic victory are not that silly imo. All those victory conditions were sort of reached IRL, if not by USA then by the so called Western Civilization as a whole. Look how extremely "white men" have dominated science across last half of millenium, or how countries and institutions work everywhere (all over the world you have governments and universities based on Western ideas). Of course that 'victory' is only temporary and relative, but it is some sort of 'victory' up - to - that - point - in - history, so there is some basis for civ games to imagine 'a domination likr this but slightly even bigger'.

Anyway, it is simply good for a strategy game to have several ways to win it using long - term strategies which also generate some competition. After (in my opinion) failure of Humankind's model of less snowballey victory conditions I have no idea of something much better than civ5 - style victory conditions. I'd just make them slightly more grounded and most importantly make the game itself leading to them less snowballing, so there can be more than just 2 competitors at the end race, and they don't have to be obvious leaders for many ages but can be late game emerging underdogs.

On another hand, the strategy game also feels frustrating if your long term accomplishments can turn into dust in favour of some underdog who didn't work so hard for victory. So that's the great challenge on designing victory comditions in game like this: too much snowballing - boring and predetermined competition. Too sudden and random switches - make long term civ building feel pointless and not accomplishing anything.

There is yet another approach, to make civ games sandbox (no victory goals) like Paradox games or some economic builder games, but for some reason such approach just feels terribly wrong in 4X game imo. Maybe they are always too board gamey and not emough simulationist in the end, so it just feels strange when there is nothing to go for. After all everyone can just disable all victory conditions and few people do this. So in the end we end up either with victory based on 'domination' in some area, or 'prominence in history'.

I'd like to see some clever economic victory in the future civ game, like control global trade or corporations or currency somehow... And your suggestion of 'quality of life' victory is also very interesting. Maybe these two should be introduced while religious victory removed, it is both conceptually nonsensical and really tedious/boring.

 

[criZp]

I don't think there should be any other victory than total conquest victory. Civ isn't a game about fighting it's a game about building a nation/empire that you can go about in many different ways, all-out war with everyone if that's your thing or just building cities and trading with other friendly nations and mostly minding your own business if that's your thing. And in the latter case it doesn't make sense to pit different nations that are on good terms up against each other, just because "the game MUST let you win in a peaceful way". No, not necessary! Especially because devs seem unable to make any of these victories fun to play.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't think there should be any other victory than total conquest victory. Civ isn't a game about fighting it's a game about building a nation/empire that you can go about in many different ways, all-out war with everyone if that's your thing or just building cities and trading with other friendly nations and mostly minding your own business if that's your thing. And in the latter case it doesn't make sense to pit different nations that are on good terms up against each other, just because "the game MUST let you win in a peaceful way". No, not necessary! Especially because devs seem unable to make any of these victories fun to play.

That's a failure of the Developers, not an intrinsic failure of Victory Types. I think we have been ill-served as Gamers by being given Victory Conditions that stimulate poor pacing and Fantasy strategies, and it's been going on so long we think that nothing else is possible. If I believed that were true, then I, for one, would ee no point in even discussing the entire genre of 4x games, because they would be the Brainless Brontosaurae of Gaming.

@Krajzen , good points as usual. But again, I refuse to believe that the failure of the 4x game developers to produce decent Victory types and conditions so far means that it is impossible. I am not usually an optimist, but in this case I see no insuperable obstacles to achieving a playable, winnable, historically-derived 4x game except failure of concept and imagination. With enough imaginative and intelligent input from all sides, that can be corrected, IMHO. (Which is not to assume that my comments are either intelligent or imaginative, but there are bound to be some out there somewhere)

One concept that I think should be explored is the divorcing of Victory from End Of Game Conditions Only. As you mention, you can labor mightily through 299 to 499 turns and (potentially) get beaten at the last moment by some scraggly little Faction/Civ that builds a faster spaceship or gallops over your capital with End Game equivalents of horse archers. Or, specifically in Humankind, some Faction on another continent can run away with the game early and by the time you make contact with them it is impossible to close the gap in accumulated Fame, so you are reduced to racing for a Mars Win or fragging the planet with Pollution for a sort of in-game RageQuit.

None of that fits my definition of Fun Game.

What if, instead, Victory Condition (or Conditions) was based on how well you did throughout the game? Something similar to Fame, but possibly Sub-Divided into categories: you kept a higher percentage of your population Euphoric longer, you had the most economically, diplomatically, or militarily successful 'state' for the longest percentage of the game. And Accomplishment could be related to relative size as well: it doesn't matter that you had only, say, a population of 40 compared to MegaEmpire's 400, if those 40 were Happier, Richer, or more Victorious per capita, you would gain the higher 'score'. The MegaEmp would get a bonus for keeping the greatest number happy as opposed to mutinous, but Small States could still stay in the game, unlike now where in 4x Bigger Wins and there is no other way to play them.

And as a side note, let's get some In Game Recognition for Accomplishments. If your little state won a battle against 'overwhelming' odds or you defeated an enemy army besieging your Capital, you should get to put on the map at or near that site a Monument: the Thermopolye Stele or a Winged Victory pillar ala Borodino, complete with an inscription: "Ne Pasaran - They Shall Not Pass!" or "Za Nami Assur - Assur is Behind Us (we will not pass it alive)!"

And if you want to build a commemorative Wonder like the Mausoleum or Parthenon, you'd better accomplish something worth commemorating to 'unlock' it.

Note that adding 'tweaks' like this to the Wonder, Game Feats, and Victory Conditions also start to address those nagging questions and debates about Wide Versus Tall and Wonder Races that bedevil these forums.

 

[Leucarum]

Recently released Humankind has managed to somewhat solve number 1 due to the way army and city management work here

I have to disagree hard here. By endgame in humankind you have mega-cities which produce whatever you want in 1 turn. Maybe that's just how I've played the game but I found the micromanagement much worse than civ6 cities at end game... And if it wasn't for the fact that you can end the game very rapidly with the mars mission it would be too much.

On your overall point - Paradox has done much more and much better than anyone else to try and curtail snowballing in their games. They have the crises in Stellaris, the external invasions in CK3, or the internal politics in CK3, and all their games limit how fast you can expand theough conquest unless you game their systems.. The thing is so far this has always been possible even with their efforts.

But I have my doubts about how well these would work in Civ's favour. Civ is the gateway 4x game. It needs to be accessible to newcomers, and that means limiting 'punishment' mechanics - which anything devised to reduce snowballing is going to do. My first thought is to add optional game modes (as in NFP) which would help break apart empires that got too large, but maybe rather than difficulty levels buffing the AI, they should more focus on making your empire harder to expand and grow rapidly at higher difficulties.

 

[greenOak]

A few things must happen:

1. The late game needs to last longer. In a civ6 SV its easy to 1-2 turn tech all techs from the modern era on, which leaves you little time for late game mechanics and/or bonuses to mean much. Other victory conditions end before you even reach later eras.

2. It has to be possible to fail in the late game by not doing anything. Yields and costs dont scale up enough late game to make this the case. Good medieval/renaissance infastructure is sufficient to power through the late game.

3. Late game bonuses need to be substantially sttonger than early game bonuses. Modest late game bonuses just cant compete with early game bonuses because of the lack of time for them to take effect. Unfortunately, the late game mechanics that are actually strong enough to make catch up possible are often derided as OP - see rock bands.

 

[Scrum Lord]

My thoughts on how to address the above concerns:

1. To reduce micro: allow conquered cities to run on auto-pilot. I thought either Civ 4 or Civ 5 already had something like this. In general, the late game IMO just needs more quality of life automation so that you can focus more on the big picture.
2. To extend exploration: support bigger / more interesting maps that require more time or more advanced tech to fully explore. Allow submarines to travel through ice, etc. Perhaps require re-scouting to reveal late-game resources, and allow resources at the bottom of the ocean to only be discoverable by certain types of ships.
3. To counter snowballing: rework espionage into a stronger system for catching-up to more successful civs, at least for the AI. Make counter-spying less cost-effective or more expensive, and provide bigger / more frequent rewards for offensive spying, but only for civs that are falling behind--imagine a struggling civ suddenly stealing multiple techs and siphoning significant $$ in just a few turns. Perhaps the farther ahead a civ is, the bigger the rewards for spying against them. This could also be something that differentiates AI difficulty levels, which if anything might be a more interesting form of AI "cheating" than simply having bigger yields and attack bonuses.

 

[civac]

There need to be some obstacles to snowballing to give empires that are a bit behind a slight-moderate boost and ensure the game does not get unbalanced too easily. However, if an empire has reached a dominant position the problem is not that they are winning but rather that the game does not end. There is no need to device random disasters, internal turmoil or barbarian invasions. Just have the top dog win a domination victory if their lead really is unassailable. Punisher mechanics are not fun for many players. Moreover, while I'm sure an event system that includes schisms or uprisings (but also positive events) would be overall well liked such a system cannot be a part of the core mechanics and it has to be possible to turn it off. You would alienate a decent amount of players otherwise who don't fancy being punished for good play, in particular in such an arcady 4x like Civ. If the winning team has to deal with it by default this predictability would also kill some of its appeal. Just let the winning team win the game.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

All of these assume a Linear Progression for 6000 years of gaming 'history'. Let's take a closer look at the realty.

Are you saying that the Mongols and Egypt and Britain "won", or that they didn't? And if they didn't, and a "who did the best" victory is the only realistic thing to do, then I very much need a reason to believe in why the game ends on the turn that it does. Where's that reason going to come from?

The game needs realistic Victory Conditions. And it needs somewhat realistic (not completely realistic unless you plan to market it strictly to Masochists) results from the various decisions you have to make. You can conquer another culture/Civ, but making the conquest stick without changing your own culture or committing genocide is another matter entirely.

Perhaps you are reminded of the "inevitable entropy" idea I floated some months back. Each system's sustaining income is beset by inflation. But now I have a second idea.
Instead of the rather depressing tone such a thing would give to your whole trek through the ages, what if beginning to end the game is something that happens, or at least begins, with a literal bid? A bid to win the test of time? I'm definitely not saying someone could choose to end the game; I'm saying they get to choose this: Either the cultural ennui sets in, or a player explicitly tries to overtake the others in prominence. The functional requirements are that if no one takes the option , after a time, the inflationary thing will continue, which will necessarily make someone first, and everyone eventually, completely unable to maintain civilization. So someone will lose and their cities will crumble, and territory will be jumbled up. But if someone takes the option, they must satisfy an ultimatum or fall even more decidedly behind in whatever the win points are made of.

Combined with your thought, it would be a system that interacts with fame/points. And Civ6 prototyped a system of era scores that sequence discrete eras. Hmm.

And I think the game needs an entirely new type of Victory that is, perhaps, the opposite of the Bigger Is Better trend in the current types. Perhaps a Victory that consists of having kept your little digital population happier than anyone else's for a longer period of time during the game. Given that in every survey of Happiest Countries these days the top winners are all Small Countries: Denmark, Finland, Singapore, etc, that would change the eternal Wide Versus Tall debate completely

Hmm.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Are you saying that the Mongols and Egypt and Britain "won", or that they didn't? And if they didn't, and a "who did the best" victory is the only realistic thing to do, then I very much need a reason to believe in why the game ends on the turn that it does. Where's that reason going to come from?

History has no winners, because IRL it Never Stops. There's always another problem or process that turns your momentary 'Victory" to ashes. That alone is why a Historical Game is an Oxymoron - a game that never stops is no longer a game.

So, all Victory Conditions are going to be artificial. At the moment, in Civ they are based on an End Game condition, and the point at which the game ends may vary: it's when one Civ 'conquers' all the others, or converts them to its Religion, or takes off for Mars or whatever Escape Planet the game chooses. Being a game, there's no reason to worry about What Happens Next, because, for that game, It's Over.

My argument is, basically, that since the Victory Condition is artificial, so is the End Point, so base your criteria for 'victory' on how you played the game, not how you ended it - did you keep your population Prosperous, or Happy, or leave them more numerous or educated or awash in Luxuries or whatever other criteria we want to use. Why base it all on the condition at the Last Turn, which may have been reached by slogging through 1000s of years of ghastliness?

Perhaps you are reminded of the "inevitable entropy" idea I floated some months back. Each system's sustaining income is beset by inflation. But now I have a second idea.
Instead of the rather depressing tone such a thing would give to your whole trek through the ages, what if beginning to end the game is something that happens, or at least begins, with a literal bid? A bid to win the test of time? I'm definitely not saying someone could choose to end the game; I'm saying they get to choose this: Either the cultural ennui sets in, or a player explicitly tries to overtake the others in prominence. The functional requirements are that if no one takes the option , after a time, the inflationary thing will continue, which will necessarily make someone first, and everyone eventually, completely unable to maintain civilization. So someone will lose and their cities will crumble, and territory will be jumbled up. But if someone takes the option, they must satisfy an ultimatum or fall even more decidedly behind in whatever the win points are made of.

Combined with your thought, it would be a system that interacts with fame/points. And Civ6 prototyped a system of era scores that sequence discrete eras. Hmm.


Hmm.

One might define this as Setting In-Game Goals (or having them thrust at you) that contribute to you or your people's definition of 'Victory'.
"My Theocracy converted 100% of my own population to Our Religion by 1032 CE - Victory is Ours!"
- only it really isn't, you have just achieved a self-defined Victory Condition that contributes to a Game Victory overall.

That's related to the 'Fame' mechanic in That Other Game in that 'Little Victories" are going to be defined or become available based on the emphasis of the Civ: religious for Theocracies as per the example, military for militants, Money/Gold for traders and commercial states, etc. But some are going to be strictly Conditional: a completely non-militant Civ attacked by some would-be World Conqueror that fights him off decisively - that's a Victory, and one unlooked-for by that society/Civ/Player. That kind of mechanic would keep the entire system Dynamic and somewhat Unpredictable: actions by other Civs or players (Barbarians, City States, NGOs, etc) could affect what precise 'Victories" become available or desirable, regardless of what little game you thought you were going to play . . .

 

[dagriggstar]

Make the game much more dependent on co-operation with your neighbours than it is currently. Especially science and culture. Like maybe science and culture buildings only work if you have opponent cities nearby with open borders.

 

[PiR]

Many games have an escalating power and escalating difficulty towards the final boss. Maybe there needs to be a final trial at the end. Like everyone ganging up against you.