Building a Civ game backwards

HorseshoeHermit

20% accurate as usual, Morty
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
1,466
Location
Canada
What should the victory conditions of a new Civ game be? I think there's a good reason to ask this question first.

One can consider this thread just a place for focusing conversation on the titular design tactic, but to belong to the aspirations of that perfect 4X historical game thread.

We can get a very fine sense of what it should take to prove victorious in a "simulation of Human society across history" without having encoded any hard rules of gameplay yet. And moreover, I will argue that having the victory conditions in mind, are the best way to derive all other elements of a strategy game. It makes so much sense, doesn't it? The things you would want to put in the game, are just enough to let that victory manifest itself and no more. Gameplay in a *strategy* game falls on that razor.

Strategy gameplay derives ALL its meaning from the true efficacies of each decision toward the victory. Therefore the only way to design strategy gameplay is to be designing routes of various efficacy toward a victory. Every mechanic is understood only as a platform of decisions, and so mechanics cannot be designed without a concrete idea of the victory approached or delayed by decisions. In short we cannot simulate any resource or attribute arbitrarily, because the gameplay value of any knob or symbol is its exchange rate with the making of a victory, and things with undefined value (or 0 value), by not -existing- in gameplay, can't be taken to simulate or refer to what they are intended to be. They won't co-vary as a simulation.

Instead, from a victory definition, we get a sense of a gameplay system that culminates in that condition. From gameplay, we get at least a normative calculus for approving or disapproving of different mechanics. With mechanics, we can iterate all the hundreds of decisions of using them. And we would know the starting asset bundle from an arbitrary choice, in virtue of it positioning the player for engaging decisions right out the gate.

Some victory conditions are traditional. There's an extraterrestrial colony victory. There's a domination victory. When you ask about a "Science" victory, I end up agreeing one should exist but actually as a specific example of a more general principle of victory. If a faction achieves supremacy in some domain and maintains at least parity in the others, this should be able to end the game - and at a stage earlier than the "achievement" oriented ones. This is indeed to address the demand for a mercykilling of drawn-out games that are won before half their necessary length is played out.

Maybe all victories can be just things that trigger this one single condition: The hearts and minds of the game's human beings are unable to see an end to the dominion of that impressive faction, which has achieved [some particular] supreme standing. There can be a dozen such achievements, each one just serving to immortalize the player's "faction" as a way of life. This leads me to a point that emerged as I wrote this. I think that the answer to "What does the player's faction actually mean?" is one that can co-emerge with answering what the victories are. By choosing a victory, we have drawn up a road to creating those conditions, beset by the obstacles to that condition. The player is the steward of a people who want those conditions and aren't in control of the obstacles to that condition - at least directly. This is as far as I can figure.

And so, consider each of these "victories" just a word prompt for trying to get at the two answers together: Who IS the player, and what will mean that it has achieved its immortal sovereignty before all other Earthlings?

Diplomatic victory: Chosen as the permanent leader of a World Union.

Cultural victory: The music we adore comes from your publishers. Styles, fashions, architectures are all your people's creations. The very idioms of language proceed from your people's works and mouths, never surpassed. (Imagine scientific dominance even contributing to this, from super-saturation of publications with the thought and writing of your scientists.)

Economic victory: The industries and finance of this faction are inextricable from all others; no livelihood carries on without this faction and everyone knows it.

Niche victory: Everything depends on you for something. They could never challenge you and would never threaten you with war.​

The idea of needing safety from war, at least civilian invulnerability, is very prominent in my eyes. It is always weird when a player wins while struggling with invasions, except for that space colony one to an extent. Again, it seems better if the space colony generates a kind of "awe" or something , and it works over time and that, through its own mechanic, disarms the invaders and -then- makes you win.

Notice how these interpretations iterate the same idea, of humankind becoming unable to see itself without you somehow. Economically indispensable. Culturally pre-eminent. Diplomatically chief. This I think puts victories into two kinds: The domination victory where no other player exists, and also includes creating the extraterrestrial colony; and the niche-type victories where you have woven yourself into all other societies, not destroying them but superseding them sort of. All people 'come to realize' that society IS your society, or something like that.

I hope people have some thoughts on this approach they'll share.
 
Maybe all victories can be just things that trigger this one single condition: The hearts and minds of the game's human beings are unable to see an end to the dominion of that impressive faction, which has achieved [some particular] supreme standing.

I think the word here is 'hegemony' and the concept of the hyperpower. Applied to civ this would mean achieving several victory conditions at once: military, cultural, diplomatic, scientific and economic.

It would be interesting strategy-wise, since you couldn't just focus on one area, but you would still lean on one to achieve the others, though domination in one area would lead to others.
 
I think the most important thing to avoid is a repeat of science victory. Not that there cannot be a scientific victory, but in the sense that the way 5 & 6 handled science wins, it's so isolated. There's no interaction with other players like cultural or diplo victories have.
"Sit in base and pile up passive yields until you have a rocket ship" is just very boring to play with from a mechanic standpoint.
 
Not that there cannot be a scientific victory, but in the sense that the way 5 & 6 handled science wins, it's so isolated.

There does need to be a victory type like that though, in part for play variety and in part for newer players who maybe are not good at dealing with the AI at first.
 
Avoiding "numbers go up" victories (eg, science, and large parts of culture as well) would be nice. I would rather have culture center more on rock band style interactions (and focus on cultural influence/hegemony more than tourism) than on passively attracting tourists. I'd probably integrate the current religion victory into the culture victory - religion would be just one aspect of your culture that you can chose to focus on spreading.
 
Avoiding "numbers go up" victories (eg, science, and large parts of culture as well) would be nice. I would rather have culture center more on rock band style interactions (and focus on cultural influence/hegemony more than tourism) than on passively attracting tourists. I'd probably integrate the current religion victory into the culture victory - religion would be just one aspect of your culture that you can chose to focus on spreading.

Hard disagree. Spreading rock bands is one thing that makes the late game cultural victory really tedious for me. Also just feels a little...silly.
 
Better silly than boring uninteractive number-watching. The game should be played on the map, not on point counters off to the side
 
There does need to be a victory type like that though, in part for play variety and in part for newer players who maybe are not good at dealing with the AI at first.

Beyond Earth’s victory conditions largely had a long stage where you could directly try to thwart a victory countdown. We have the current rocket launch travel time thing, but I can’t make my open go down, I can only make myself go up faster. It’s just that specifically in 5 and 6, science is very un interactive, and the difficulty in attacking vs defending makes it really attractive to just hole up and launch.

I just feel like that can be improved somehow.
 
Beyond Earth’s victory conditions largely had a long stage where you could directly try to thwart a victory countdown. We have the current rocket launch travel time thing, but I can’t make my open go down, I can only make myself go up faster. It’s just that specifically in 5 and 6, science is very un interactive, and the difficulty in attacking vs defending makes it really attractive to just hole up and launch.

I just feel like that can be improved somehow.

I mean, you can continuously pillage Spaceports to delay the victory so there isn't a total lack of interaction but there does need to some kind of win that is simple enough for new players to win that also isn't easily countered by the AI.
 
Last edited:
Better silly than boring uninteractive number-watching. The game should be played on the map, not on point counters off to the side

Agree to disagree: I would much prefer making more global decisions and watching how they affect the numbers than managing an army of rock stars.
 
What should the victory conditions of a new Civ game be? I think there's a good reason to ask this question first.

I would start by thinking about how to make victory conditions not being the same as ending the game. When the only way to win is to have the biggest yields at the end of the game it eliminates some possibly interesting gameplay elements. Fore example anything that causes a set back in the game needs an offset -dark ages need heroic ages and disaster need fertilization. Game ending victory conditions have a tendency to have an 'optimal' way of playing. Domination helps Diplo and Wide is better then tall so there's endless rounds of changes to balance them out without much success.

I'm going to have to think to find some possible solutions. No point in complaining without offering an alternative.
 
Science Victory can always be modified towards are more SciFi victory type (to be more consistent with Beyond Earth and the like). Instead of Launching A Rocket And Waiting For It To Reach A Distant Star System, you could "discover" an alien artifact on your exoplanet colony, decrypt it. Whoever does that first wins the respect of the other Civs, and they elect them winner.

Domination Victory can be split in two, like it was in Civ 3. Conquest Victory requires you to defeat or vassalize every known Civ. New 'Domination' requires you to directly own over half of all land tiles in the game while having 2/3rds of the world population living in your empire.

Diplomatic Victory can remain an election, but it needs to be modified. A minimum of two leaders must be nominated, and the AI in charge of the other Civs must not default to abstaining - they should vote for a candidate if this player is an ally or if their opponent is a mortal enemy. Votes should be bought by some other means than diplomatic currency, and the amount of votes a Civ can cast should have several determinants (Empire Size, Population, Tourism, Wonders Built, Vassals and certain technological advancements.)

Economic Victory should be achieved by directly controlling Corporations and Resources, and keeping the rest of the world in a strangehold because of it. Mechanically, I picture it similarly to how CV works, but without Tourism as a modifier.

Culture Victory is the hardest one to define. What could be seen as a cultural marvel? The way I see it, is that you have to create a powerful cultural heritage by creating Great Works and building Wonders, increase their infamy by luring in Tourists, but making it a passive, nebulous modifier like it is in Civ6 is not the way to go about it. It needs something to tie it all together. Personally, I'd suggest adding levels of Cultural Heritage to the appropriate 'items' (Great Works, UIs, Wonders, Parks), which you can boost with Culture, and which passively increase with the amount of Tourists they generate. Achieving a set amount of 'items' with maxed Cultural heritage (say: 10, at least five of which need to be Great Works) should convince the other Civs to follow your lead.

Religious Victory should be dissolved or absorbed into Culture Victory. Religious Conversions and Relics can function as early forms of Tourism, exclusive to followers of your religion. Religion's main purpose in your Civ should be utilitarian (all religions are technically organized religions due to the government's (your) hand in shaping and spreading them.), a tool that helps you win but doesn't win in itself.

but all in all I agree with the OP. Before you think of systems and modifiers, you must think of win conditions first.
 
What should the victory conditions of a new Civ game be?
I think they should be optional, but the current "uncheck if you don't like it" (in start menu) is not enough - (players') preferences varies between just having to adjust to some (of the) elements and wanting to actively play such VC related elements; "sensible" v/s "gamey".
Hence I've suggested tieing VC and Game Modes to allow better fights for specific VC - added elements should be playable for AI.
Then I think there should be a "generic" VC based on those elements, but it has to be better than of an obviously gated and/or linear design.

We can get a very fine sense of what it should take to prove victorious in a "simulation of Human society across history" without having encoded any hard rules of gameplay yet. And moreover, I will argue that having the victory conditions in mind, are the best way to derive all other elements of a strategy game. It makes so much sense, doesn't it? The things you would want to put in the game, are just enough to let that victory manifest itself and no more. Gameplay in a *strategy* game falls on that razor.

Strategy gameplay derives ALL its meaning from the true efficacies of each decision toward the victory. Therefore the only way to design strategy gameplay is to be designing routes of various efficacy toward a victory. Every mechanic is understood only as a platform of decisions, and so mechanics cannot be designed without a concrete idea of the victory approached or delayed by decisions. In short we cannot simulate any resource or attribute arbitrarily, because the gameplay value of any knob or symbol is its exchange rate with the making of a victory, and things with undefined value (or 0 value), by not -existing- in gameplay, can't be taken to simulate or refer to what they are intended to be. They won't co-vary as a simulation.

Instead, from a victory definition, we get a sense of a gameplay system that culminates in that condition. From gameplay, we get at least a normative calculus for approving or disapproving of different mechanics. With mechanics, we can iterate all the hundreds of decisions of using them. And we would know the starting asset bundle from an arbitrary choice, in virtue of it positioning the player for engaging decisions right out the gate.

Some victory conditions are traditional. There's an extraterrestrial colony victory. There's a domination victory. When you ask about a "Science" victory, I end up agreeing one should exist but actually as a specific example of a more general principle of victory. If a faction achieves supremacy in some domain and maintains at least parity in the others, this should be able to end the game - and at a stage earlier than the "achievement" oriented ones. This is indeed to address the demand for a mercykilling of drawn-out games that are won before half their necessary length is played out.

Maybe all victories can be just things that trigger this one single condition: The hearts and minds of the game's human beings are unable to see an end to the dominion of that impressive faction, which has achieved [some particular] supreme standing. There can be a dozen such achievements, each one just serving to immortalize the player's "faction" as a way of life. This leads me to a point that emerged as I wrote this. I think that the answer to "What does the player's faction actually mean?" is one that can co-emerge with answering what the victories are. By choosing a victory, we have drawn up a road to creating those conditions, beset by the obstacles to that condition. The player is the steward of a people who want those conditions and aren't in control of the obstacles to that condition - at least directly. This is as far as I can figure.

And so, consider each of these "victories" just a word prompt for trying to get at the two answers together: Who IS the player, and what will mean that it has achieved its immortal sovereignty before all other Earthlings?

Diplomatic victory: Chosen as the permanent leader of a World Union.

Cultural victory: The music we adore comes from your publishers. Styles, fashions, architectures are all your people's creations. The very idioms of language proceed from your people's works and mouths, never surpassed. (Imagine scientific dominance even contributing to this, from super-saturation of publications with the thought and writing of your scientists.)

Economic victory: The industries and finance of this faction are inextricable from all others; no livelihood carries on without this faction and everyone knows it.

Niche victory: Everything depends on you for something. They could never challenge you and would never threaten you with war.​

The idea of needing safety from war, at least civilian invulnerability, is very prominent in my eyes. It is always weird when a player wins while struggling with invasions, except for that space colony one to an extent. Again, it seems better if the space colony generates a kind of "awe" or something , and it works over time and that, through its own mechanic, disarms the invaders and -then- makes you win.

Notice how these interpretations iterate the same idea, of humankind becoming unable to see itself without you somehow. Economically indispensable. Culturally pre-eminent. Diplomatically chief. This I think puts victories into two kinds: The domination victory where no other player exists, and also includes creating the extraterrestrial colony; and the niche-type victories where you have woven yourself into all other societies, not destroying them but superseding them sort of. All people 'come to realize' that society IS your society, or something like that.

I hope people have some thoughts on this approach they'll share.
Sure things! Setting a ("bucket filling") race to victory, tells of a lazy design approach; but "achievements" would be contested if not gained in direct contest - I'm looking at you, Space Race.
In a generic VC, there could (still) be "achievements" to break up any "bucket filling" race to make "exchanges to victory points"; but looking at the "wonder building"-concept, there winner-takes-it-all, tells yet again of lazy design approach - here would actually the Space Race mechanism be an improvement.

Also, as mentioned by others in this thread, there should be upsides and downsides w/e you do. Combined with a meta-play that won't benefit linear strategy thinking, this could be interesting.
To give a simple abstract example:
Let's say there are 200 opportunity points (op). In a two phased victory point exchange system that could mean the optimal distribution would be 100 (phase1) * 100 (phase2) = 10000 victory points.
Because there are downsides, all op can't be spent in just one domain but also somewhere else to unlock needed things; so the optimal distribution would in reality be at most 50 (phase1) * 50 (phase2) = 2500 victory points for the primary domain (and less for the secondary).
Those phases (incl. victory) should be something for player to consider when to start/end.​

Notice I wrote opportunity points and nothing about yields. Here is what I think about yields (and that may shock some in this forum).. W/e been yielded in turn 1 should not keep accumulate but have lost it's value long before victory being claimed.​

One can consider this thread just a place for focusing conversation on the titular design tactic, but to belong to the aspirations of that perfect 4X historical game thread.
I've added this thread to the list in that first post. :hatsoff:
 
Last edited:
Domination Victory can be split in two, like it was in Civ 3. Conquest Victory requires you to defeat or vassalize every known Civ. New 'Domination' requires you to directly own over half of all land tiles in the game while having 2/3rds of the world population living in your empire.

I'd figure 75% of the map makes more sense.

Honestly, one thing if at all possible I would like to see more "Or" options for victory types. The problem with all of the victory types is that regardless of what civ you are playing they boil down to the same thing over and over and over. A culture victory nowadays is definitely the most variable but still comes down to having unlocked the necessary civs/techs, using the right policy cards, Rock Band spam, and so on. Maybe a diplomatic victory could be broken into two different types - "culture" vs "science." The culture path would be like world peace or something and the science would be solving climate change or world hunger. Just something to add some more variety into the late game so you are not always following the same path over and over again.
 
Domination Victory can be split in two, like it was in Civ 3. Conquest Victory requires you to defeat or vassalize every known Civ. New 'Domination' requires you to directly own over half of all land tiles in the game while having 2/3rds of the world population living in your empire.

I'd figure 75% of the map makes more sense.

Domination victory that also recognizes the how you conquer the world. Take a couple of cities early, going ahead in technology and running the table is different then having to grind out a victory against equally strong opponents. The amount of the map or percentage of defeat/vassalge could be adjusted by what percentage of the worlds combat strength you have defeated and how much damage your forces have sustained.
 
Also, as mentioned by others in this thread, there should be upsides and downsides w/e you do. Combined with a meta-play that won't benefit linear strategy thinking, this could be interesting.
To give a simple abstract example:
Let's say there are 200 opportunity points (op). In a two phased victory point exchange system that could mean the optimal distribution would be 100 (phase1) * 100 (phase2) = 10000 victory points.
Because there are downsides, all op can't be spent in just one domain but also somewhere else to unlock needed things; so the optimal distribution would in reality be at most 50 (phase1) * 50 (phase2) = 2500 victory points for the primary domain (and less for the secondary).
Those phases (incl. victory) should be something for player to consider when to start/end.​
What is being multiplied here? I completely didn't understand.

I think the most important thing to avoid is a repeat of science victory. Not that there cannot be a scientific victory, but in the sense that the way 5 & 6 handled science wins, it's so isolated. There's no interaction with other players like cultural or diplo victories have.
"Sit in base and pile up passive yields until you have a rocket ship" is just very boring to play with from a mechanic standpoint.

I think not just scientific victory, but scientific progress itself should require that the world be explored, at a certain point. And it shouldn't just be assumed that scientists have the opportunity to peacefully go do that. If the planet has been a global war since before the middle ages, that should impact and change the timeline in many respects.

I have this... proto thought, I'm sort of nursing. To extend that "background of peace" presumption. About some simple systems that would correspond to how the Major Civs become Big Deals relative to each other. Like, get recognition. Because, you know, the starting point is that they're not a big deal to each other, they're just foreigners with blursed ways and tiny settlements. But , when you get to so-called modern times, you have this split where all the little things suggest , you know, small scale mingling , of not being blindly nationalistic. And yet the city capture number says that half the population gets the torch, because you're not culturally influential to them. Like uhhhh.... well, maybe yeah, if the two nations really had nothing that made the other seem any different from a big mob of barbarians, I guess that's true, so I suppose the problem is that it is entirely likely, and the standard, for the civ to carry on with 0 Tourism (speaking of Civ5) to its name, while the fact is there is presumed to be something that makes nations start to recognize each other if it's following history. Some way that, y'know, scientists publish things behind the iron curtain. Economies cross borders. People learn other languages not for diplomatic careers . Media are shared.

Someone, I dont remember who, wanted a bold reimagining of the great works system that covered great works even outside the cultural sphere. Scientific papers. Military manuscripts. Etc. Along those lines, I'd just like for something to be the baseline , keeping track of the globalising, humanizing developments of... this sort, and for certain radical consequences to occur if those things are obstructed by extraordinary gameplay trajectories.
 
Why not just combine diplomatic/cultural/religious victory? Is there a meaningful real-world distinction between them?
  • Alpha Centauri victory - somehow build a spaceship to get the space. Got to keep this because it's tradition for Civ. Problems with science victory stem from tech tree being an obsolete game feature. Plus, make it so there is a non-negligible chance that a spaceship will fail. 6 added a lot of guff and junk to space victory while making it less interesting than in 4. Building components felt more interesting and epic than launching missions. Plus there was a potential trade off of sending the vessel less than perfect.
  • Domination Victory - has to be in by default. If you wipe out all AI, by definition you win.
  • Soft Power Victory - get rid of the tourism idea. Countries like France and America didn't become cultural hegemons because they had a bunch of paintings in a vault. Dont have enough time to lay out what this would be, but it should be some combination of religious supremacy, legendary cultural status, and positive diplomatic relations.
  • Score Victory - should be more viable, to punish strategies that rely on focus on a victory condition at the cost of long-term gameplay. Turn 250 victories should not be possible. If a victory condition has to boil down to clicking end turn a bunch of times, I at least want the tension of the turn limit being a real factor.
 
Why not just combine diplomatic/cultural/religious victory? Is there a meaningful real-world distinction between them?

Unless religion gets a major rework I'm fine with it going away as a victory type but I'm not as sure about incorporating into another victory type.

Soft Power Victory - get rid of the tourism idea. Countries like France and America didn't become cultural hegemons because they had a bunch of paintings in a vault. Dont have enough time to lay out what this would be, but it should be some combination of religious supremacy, legendary cultural status, and positive diplomatic relations.

I feel like the biggest problem with this be actually programing it because it would have too many moving parts.

Score Victory - should be more viable, to punish strategies that rely on focus on a victory condition at the cost of long-term gameplay. Turn 250 victories should not be possible. If a victory condition has to boil down to clicking end turn a bunch of times, I at least want the tension of the turn limit being a real factor.

A better method would be to get X points not have the most points after X turns.
 
Last edited:
Cultural Victory - Use civ 5 ideologies as a base. When your civ has adopted every ideology policy every other civ has picked, you win the game. This also requires you to exert pressure on the other civs to force them to change to your ideological government. As a civ in a losing position, it also forces you to make a choice - pick less strong policies that will delay the lead cultural civ from winning the game, or pick more strong policies that they have already picked.
Such a victory type would basically supersede diplomatic victory, as it is essentially all the other governments recognise your government as the best. It still relies on generating tourism (to influence other civs) and culture (To unlock new policies). Or we can use some other mechanic instead of tourism to influence other civs (happiness?).

Space Race Victory - I prefer making it "first civ to land a man on the moon", because then you force players to decide between going for nukes or space win first. When we delay scientific victory we lose this choice.
Regardless, I don't think a civ should generate science towards other non-space race related stuff while going for this victory type. So in civ 6 this would look like when you're constructing space race projects, you are generating 0 science per turn. This would reflect that your finest scientific minds are all preoccupied with the project. This also leaves you vulnerable to other civs developing military tech to take you out.
This would be considered the "production" victory.

Science Victory - The objective is to create a disease that will wipe out humanity, except for your own citizens who possess the antidote or vaccine. Run a special project with a % chance of winning you the game based on how many techs you have researched. Project is always more likely to backfire on you than be successful, which kills large amounts of your own population and/or units.

Time Victory - Basically if you get one era ahead of every other civ in the game, the game should just declare you the winner. People seem to find these types of games boring to play out, so there should be a victory type that will end the game early in this way.

Economic Victory - Stockpile more than half the worlds strategic resources. Basically, the other nations of the world recognise that if they go to war with you, you will win due to an abundance of resources.
 
Top Bottom