Adding a 'moral' element to the game

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi DH,

Not much to say, really! It was just a sort of 'Thats one of our best exploits for winning the game, and YOU want to take it away?!!!' that kind of thing (really just variations on that theme !)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Btw, the easiest way to win is DIPLO at the moment.
To make small countries more competetive 1) tech aquiring must be easier and 2) more governmental forms should be implemented (Huge boni but a rather harsh distance corruptionwould help small countries, for instance). Atrocities should also cause unrest in certain governments, reputation needs some tweaking just like the diplo win and violà you have a kind of morale win. You can play nice and win via diplo. I see no need for a half baked morale system the AI will not be able to handle. Anyhow, civ is a game and games are won by scores and not by fair play competition.
To aussie_lurker and dh_epic: Who is in your opinion the morale leader in the world? Think about it and you will see that morale scoring is de facto impossible.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

I think it's really strange that people are complaining that this will force players down a certain path when this idea is meant to do the exact opposite.

Right now domination is the only recourse. Conquest is even a smart tactic if you want to be a cultural powerhouse, a tech powerhouse, or an economic powerhouse. You'd be foolish not to be a conquesting megalomaniac. Disregard your reputation, go ahead.

I don't have a problem with the above except that it's the only, or clearly the most profitable choice.

I think this idea is supposed to make it possible for America to go toe to toe with Germany. Germany wins if they conquer the world, but America doesn't need to conquest the world to win -- they only have to save it (over and over again). With enough balancing, both options could be equally viable. And when two options are equally viable, that's when you've truly opened up gameplay.

As of now, to be altruistic isn't just a worse option than conquest... it's actually *penalized*.

I'm not complaining of being forced into a single playstyle model. I think it's best to give the option of how to win to the player. There should be equal opportunity at high scores for any play style. The conquering despot should be able to earn just as high a score as the moral builder.

The sad fact is that currently to get a high score you need a large empire for two reasons: happy people & sheer size. Get those two things and you have a high score modified by a few other things. Instead there ought to be scoring methods that reward the peaceful builder, researcher & diplomat. Perhaps add a scoring dimension of improvements (including wonders & spaceship parts) per city. Builders will far exceed the warmongers for this score plus a large empire is more likely to score less on this scale. There needs to be more scoring methods included to encourage other play styles.

 

[dh_epic]

Mr. Blonde, who is the domination leader in the real world? Who has won the space race?

Real life doesn't have a decisive winner. Civ does. We're essentially creating a set of quantifiable victory conditions that don't exist in real life and may never exist. We create victory conditions in the game based on exaggerations of what real nations would do -- and this is how the game achieves its variety and realism, by dangling these carrots.

A lot of real nations try to have the widest borders. (Nobody controls the entire world, let alone 50%.)
A lot of real nations try to have the largest economy. (Nobody has ever won anything for being the richest.)
A lot of real nations flex their technological muscle, through space no less. (Nobody has ever been to alpha centauri.)
And a lot of real nations try to prove that justice is on their side. (Nobody ever earned the title "Savior of the World".)

Diplomatic victory just FEELS cheap. I don't know anyone who actually likes it. To tweak the game to make diplomatic victory harder doesn't solve the problem because a vote is just intrinsically lousy and feels like slamming on the breaks midgame. There needs to be something else completely.

Dwarven Zerker touches on this. The idea that being a conquester and an expander lays the foundation for nearly any victory type is anti-competitive. The idea of having equal opportunities for multiple play-styles is key. I think the proposition of a Moral Victory is not to tie it into the current scoring mechanisms (that count up the number of happy people and buildings and such) but for it to be its own seperate score or set of requirements.

One person makes an end run to dominate 50% of the world.
One person tries to stall that and hopes to win via points at the end.
Another person guns it for Space.
And another person desperately tries to "save the world" just two more times, so they can achieve victory, and the title "Protector of the World".

The key is balancing the victories so nobody has a huge advantage.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

One person makes an end run to dominate 50% of the world.
One person tries to stall that and hopes to win via points at the end.
Another person guns it for Space.
And another person desperately tries to "save the world" just two more times, so they can achieve victory, and the title "Protector of the World".

The key is balancing the victories so nobody has a huge advantage...

...AND that they all have an equal chance at the highest score! If a MP game were played by the above players only the first player would have the highest score while the 2nd and 3rd could be declared winners but still have relatively low scores. To many, many people the real barometer of their play is shown on the scoreboard.

 

[Sirian]

Score sucks. No matter what goes into the scoring system, something else will be left out.

Score is the best way to measure in games that run a set period of time (football, basketball, hockey) or a set number of rounds (baseball, boxing, tennis). Why don't they score track and field events? Because there's no need. The first racer across the finish line wins. The farthest javelin or discuss throw... The highest or longest jumps... The first swimmer to touch the wall... Adding "score" to games with a more direct means of measuring would actually detract from the game!

Score is useful in Civ (perhaps) for scoring partial games or games that run out the clock with no winners, but otherwise it detracts from the game, in my opinion. Players get caught up in maxing score and lose sight of everything else. There are better ways to measure Civ performance than "score", in my view.


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, not that I mind that score is in, but I agree with Sirian. There's no "catchall" score. To me it's like different ways of being successful. You don't add up someone's business acumen along with their record in technological innovation when evaluating if they're a good career person. You say "that man is a good businessman" and "that man is a good scientist" and leave it seperate. Winners in their own rights. Like hockey and baseball.

But I think we can agree that a more multidimensional Civ is very important.

That each different strategy needs to have an equal chance of winning.

To extent Sirian's analogy, if Civ 3 is a marathon race to the finish line, then Civ 4 should allow you to run half the race, then throw 3 javelins into a bullseye and still win the race. Different goals, but equal victory. Choosing what victory to pursue is as important as pursuing it well.

 

[Dwarven Zerker]

Score sucks. No matter what goes into the scoring system, something else will be left out.

Score is the best way to measure in games that run a set period of time (football, basketball, hockey) or a set number of rounds (baseball, boxing, tennis). Why don't they score track and field events? Because there's no need. The first racer across the finish line wins. The farthest javelin or discuss throw... The highest or longest jumps... The first swimmer to touch the wall... Adding "score" to games with a more direct means of measuring would actually detract from the game!

Score is useful in Civ (perhaps) for scoring partial games or games that run out the clock with no winners, but otherwise it detracts from the game, in my opinion. Players get caught up in maxing score and lose sight of everything else. There are better ways to measure Civ performance than "score", in my view.


- Sirian

Don't get me wrong, I don't care for score except when I'm trying to score a huge amt. Unfortunately, there's a lot of people that use the scoreboard as a gauge of their civ abilities.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Morale is too abstract and I see no way how a morale win can be implemented within the frame of civ. The victory conditions for space, cultural win, domination and conquest are clear and comprehensive. Diplo sucks because the goal to achieve is rather abstract, the same will be the case for a morale victory. Morale changed over ages and is defined differently nowadays, depending on your culture. The morale scoring system has to change over the ages in civ if they implement it to stay close to history. Morale is abstract and complicated, a comprehensive scoring will be even more difficult. I can see endless discussions on the forum why certain acts are considered moral/amoral or why this act scores that high and the other act socres this low. The AI can achieve all victory conditions except diplo quiet easyily because all it has to do is to expand. If you implement a victory which contradicts expansion, it will be a victory which can only be achieved by the human player. For these reasons the morale victory will be, as the diplo win, turned off by most of the players.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Again, Mr Blonde, you can't simply consider this idea in the context of the current game system!
In MY model, your own people are controlled by the AI, so if you consistently act in a fashion that THEY deem to be immoral, then you could be faced with a rebellion and/or civil war-at the very least you could end up with a VERY unhappy population, which lowers your productivity! Also, if you DEAL with nations that they deem to be immoral or genocidal, then they will also make a huge fuss!! Of course, you could simply change to a less open and democratic society, thus restricting your peoples rights to vent their frustrations, but this could also have other unintended side effects! The point is, though, that the human player is as hamstrung by a moral code as the computer is, though there are ways around this moral code for computer and human player alike! Also, the type of victory for which a player, computer or human, aims for might be dictated in part by their character. So, for instance, your militaristic and expansionist civs might focus much more on the domination victory (and hang the moral code). Your religious and commercial civs, on the other hand, might seek a moral victory! You see, though, that morality wouldn't entirely prevent a player from using tactics from civ2 and 3, its just that doing so would carry a heavier penalty than it currently does!
Lastly, as I mentioned in the original post, what is deemed an atrocity is determined by your current 'stage' of morality! This way, in the early game, you can act in a manner which, by today's standards, would be considered utterly reprehensible! Yet, to your people and even your neighbours, such behaviour might be considered 'normal'!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

If you dont have control over your people it´s not civ any more. The senate votes which prevented wars or forced you to make peace were abandoned in Civ3 for a reason...they sucked. Unrest is okay with me, but nothing more. All I have at the moment is information on civ1-3, SMAC, MoO1-3 and I evaluate your suggestions within their frames. Civ4 will be different from these games, no doubt about it, but it will also be a successor to these games so my evaluation is legitimate. Maybe it would be helpful if you would give us a more detailed scoring system and your morale victory condition.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Look, I am the FIRST person to admit that the senate in cikv2 was FLAWED-not as a concept, though, but in its implementation!! The excuse of 'it won't be civ anymore' is becoming a REALLY tiring excuse for not introducing innovative new ideas! As the game stands, you can kill, maim and destroy without any penalty-thus giving victory to warmongers over builders by default. My system would introduce REAL consequences for your actions-consequences which would help curb both snowballing and warmongering!!! Also, just because you don't have total control over your people, doesn't mean you can't manipulate them and adjust their thinking-thats what social engineering is for! If that doesn't work for you, though, then simply change to a government which is more repressive-letting you do almost anything you want-but be prepared to pay the price in domestic and foreign relations terms!!! The senate in civ2 acted in a totally irrational fashion, wheras my model has a number of different factors which help to 'predict' the way in which your people will react, if at all, to your decision making. For instance, a civ would almost certainly NEVER sign a peace deal with a nation that has a bad reputation, and/or is invading you or belongs to a very foreign culture and/or a hated form of government!! If, however, your democracy was invading a sovereign democratic nation-especially one from the same culture group and/or religion-then your people might demand that you sign a peace deal with them if its on the table! You could ignore them, but a penalty would accrue! Also, having a high morality and a libertarian society would also bring a host of benefits but, as I KEEP stressing, these benefits must be weighed against the trade off in your behaviour! If you want a detailed explanation of my model, try looking at my original post-its all there in detail!

Oh and, btw, I have dealt with this kind of pessimism when we were debating the development of civ3 and, I must say, if the 'it won't be civ anymore' brigade had prevailed last time, then civ3 would have instead been civ2b (i.e., just a minor rehash of civ2 rather than a VERY different and engaging game!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

There is no need for morale as I posted earlier. They could overwork governments and triggers for unrest (more governments, more atrocities and unrest based on the government and the atrocities you commit). If you want a moral victory, please post the conditions. I prefer them to overwork the AI, tech, resources, and social engeneering. They will implement religions into the game. Implementing a morale system and balance it is at the very low end of my wishlist. I am quiet positive about other changes, but for me your idea of a morale system has too many uncertainties and leaks. I hope you dont take it personally, but there are more simple and comprehensive ways to make morale being part of the game.

 

[Albow]

Hi Aussie,

I like your idea a lot. I was wondering about the interaction between a civ's traits (basically, what your average joe is like) and what you do. Example:

A militaristic/expandy civ won't be too upset about starting a war, or ROP-rape
A mil/religious one however has more 'honor' perhaps, and might view this as slightly reprehensible
while a ind/sci civ will think these things are truely gross (even fairly early on). Of course, need to take into account your citizens moral level (as you described).

If implemented, I would like to see the moral level of your citizens being something that could reach a highish level quite early on, that could be influenced by your state-sponsored entertainers (yes my children, killing is good, lets sing a song about this), so that moral level can change ie propaganda. Perhaps, even have Moral leaders (like a GL), who could make a sweeping reform one way or the other (thinking Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr etc)...

a real leep into social engineering muhahahaha .... this way, your interactions with other civs will depend not only on your reputation to hold deals, but if your citizens are considered the devil by other civ (perhaps could even tie into a 'world-religion' or at least 'culture-group' identification system, so that high morality in one culture type might be actually low in another?)

$.02

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@Albow:
I can assure you that I DO envisage your characteristics AND Civic settings as impacting on your 'relative' morality! So, for instance, a civ with a morality of 7 might abhor Slavery, the killing of civilians AND even launching an unprovoked war! However, if the civ is highly nationalistic, then it might see nothing wrong with enslaving a civ from a completely different culture group (think Western Europeans enslaving Africans). If they are highly religious, then they would see nothing wrong with killing civilians from a different religion, as they are 'heathens' (think of the Crusades) and, if they are highly militaristic and/or expansionist, then they would see nothing wrong with declaring an unprovoked war on another nation-though the expansionist civ would probably only feel justified in doing so if it was a means to increasing their 'living space' (think 'Manifest Destiny' of the 19th century!)
@MrBlonde
I should let you know that I HOPE victory conditions for civ4 will have a complete overhaul, and see a moral victory in that context! In my preferred model, the Space Race victory isn't JUST the A/C victory (in fact, it might be good to scrap A/C as the Space Race victory!) but is instead a victory based on the number of successful 'Satellites', 'Orbital Bases' and 'Off-world' colonies your civ creates-making it a 'slow accumulation victory). Domination victory would need to modified, the current diplomatic victory would be scrapped (and replaced with the 'moral victory'), and Economic, Religious and technological victories would be added!
In addition, the game would end at some random turn between 2100 and 2500AD (though you could still retire earlier if you wanted!), with each game ending at a different time. When the game finishes, it determines which who Won which victories, and the player who wins the most victories is the overall winner! So, for instance, the player might win the Tech, Economic and Space Race Victories, but lose the cultural, religious, moral and domination victory! Any ties for a ranking would be sorted out on the basis of ‘demographic’ rankings.
Anyway, I hope that clarifies things a bit better!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Albow]

would you have a 'moral' advisor? I can just see some of the funny quotes they would come up with now ...

Sire, your people are a bunch of drunken swines who adore nothing more than fighting and pillaging. They seem to think your recent ROP violation as hillarious!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, I for one wouldn't mind a 'moral' advisor, though I would see it more as an extension of the Domestic Advisors job!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Haven't been around for a while...

But I think that the naysayers neglect the fact that the old strategies would still be available -- conquer, raze, pillage, betray, spy.

It's just there would now be an equal but opposite reward for peace, giving cities back, liberation, keeping your word, and standing up to the worst evil.

For example, Hitler could have become much closer to a domination victory in WW2. But in doing so, he would have given an opportunity for another step towards moral victory for anyone who tried to stop him. In the Civ world, without the second victory condition, everyone would have *joined* Hitler, *ignored* Hitler, or tried to be a out-Hitler Hitler! That's not only unrealistic, but unstrategic.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, DH, what do you think of my new method of determining outright victory? I think it would help to overcome a major problem in the existing game, which is that when people see there time is about to run out, they might start to 'rush to victory' come what may! In my system, though, you *know* the end of the game is near, but not HOW near!! Also, because each victory is determined seperately, you could have the tyrannical player still win, overall, because they will possibly have a tech, domination and space-race victory-which might be enough to get them across the line. Of course, the 'Allies' might band together to do anything they can to STOP this player from obtaining one or all of these victories! (Perhaps by pooling their science research to get ahead on techs, cooperating on space race, or by taking back captured cities) The nation which most drives this cooperation could, depending on other factors, win themselves the diplomatic/moral victory as well! You see, though, that suddenly simply conquering the entire planet is NOT the most effective means of winning the game, but is more on an equal footing with other victory types!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I love the ideas.

I think the key is that for every incentive there is to tear things apart, there needs to be an incentive to try to hold things together or push back with equal force. This goes doubley true for the last stretch of the game. With the "end of the world" coming, it's easy to say "enh, who cares what happens in 2051? Let's nuke everything, abandon every one of our allies, ..." The key with a moral victory is it would also give an incentive for the opposite. "Do I nuke everything? Or do I wait for some evil tyrant to make a move, and strike hard, with the force of the world's support behind me?"

I'm really for any solution that promotes this kind of dilemma. Right now, there are very few dilemmas in the game of Civ. It's all about mastering the art of conquest, which isn't particularly challenging for me anymore, nor engaging. I'd like some choice.