Can Civ be made so comebacks are possible?

[gettingfat]

Civ4 is a good game, don't get me wrong. However, there were many games when I had too much lead over the AIs during the mid-game, I simply restarted because I knew I'm going to win anyway. In some other games, catching up a builder civ far away watching you beat up by two or three aggressive civs is also extremely difficult (still remember being surrounded by Caesar, Catherine, Genghis Khan, Tokugawa with Gandi peacefully doing his research untouched far away).

The issue is, currently there are very few mechanisms to allow a late-game comeback if you're substantially behind after the mid-point of the game.

Historically, the rise of any big civ would fell eventually, and give the hot seat to another civ. The culture, land grabbing, tech advances all carry their burdens. I think the game should at least provide a few more winning paths for the lesser players, e.g.

- re-install the tech stealing, and allow some random tech gains if you take over a city (and make sure the AIs will do that on you)
- When a high tech civ has a war with a low tech civ, the low tech civ may randomly pick up some techs from the superior invader. (one may learn from the guy who beat him, right?)
- when the tech lead by one civ is too big, the tech research cost will be even further reduced than the current rate (Isn't that what many Asian countries are doing? It's easy to simulate than to invent a tech)
- Random financial-oriented tech transfer between civs may happen if they do trades.
- When your culture grows very high, maintainence goes up (salaries go up in advanced countries, unions, people go on welfare)
- AIs will gang up on the leader if the difference is too great

Any more ideas?

 

[Point13]

That actually sounds very good and could work.

Perhaps somebody could make a mod. I'm not sure exactly how it would work though.

 

[Efexeye]

I'd ask, what difficulty level are you playing at? On Noble (basically even between humans and AI's) it's always tough for me to keep up with the AI's...

 

[gettingfat]

I'd ask, what difficulty level are you playing at? On Noble (basically even between humans and AI's) it's always tough for me to keep up with the AI's...

I 90% play at Monarch level. I tried Emperor, too much AI cheating and too stressed.

 

[Lucas87]

Great post. I've always felt like the civ series couldn't reflect the rise and fall of empires very well. Generally the most powerful civ in say 1500 is the most powerful at the end of the game. It tends to make it hard for guys a little behind in tech to catch up. I actually have a little bit of an issue with the whole tech model in the civilization series. I personally believe it should have more of a natural flow between civs known to each other and friendly with each other (open borders, etc.) So if you were a scientific leader you could maintain some tech lead, perhaps particularly so in a certain area, but unless you were superisolationist (which would hurt your tech anyway) you could not gaurd a massive tech lead. This could replace the explicit tech trading as currently exists. This may adversely affect balance, but I think a different model for technology should at least be experimented with. The model in the civ series just seems a little dated to me.

 

[ZippyRiver]

Usually if your behind it's because your deficient in a certain area. Identify that deficiency and address it. If not too far behind you can make a comeback. I did in my current game. Was not behind everyone, but now top dog. (noble)

 

[morofski]

It is hard to find a balance between rewarding good early play and offering possible ways to get back up front for backward Civilisations. One might be to offer more nailbiting features like The Internet and The Space Elevator but earlier in the game. As it is The Space Elevator can be instrumental in putting a slightly backward Civ ahead in the space race but the Internet comes far too late to help a civilisations that are being trounced by gunships for example. Historically, great empires got lazy or found too many internal conflicts to stay stable and thus made themselves open to attack (the Romans, the Greek, the Ottomans, the British) so some way to model those sort of challenges would be good. Perhaps making more things more expansive or impossible to upgrade so that switches from the Industrial to the Modern era become more difficult for civs that dominated in the previous era.

 

[gettingfat]

Usually if your behind it's because your deficient in a certain area. Identify that deficiency and address it. If not too far behind you can make a comeback. I did in my current game. Was not behind everyone, but now top dog. (noble)

It's easier said than done. Usually when you are still behind at around 1000 AD, it's because of:

1. The builder AI is likely having a widespread religion that was found early, so nobody attack him and he is getting tons of research fund in the Holy city. If you have a different religion you are prone to be attacked and you can't spread religons because some civs won't even open border for you. You may switch to no religon but then you lose the 25% production from organized religion, which means a lot till late game.

2. You get early rushed by one or more aggressive AIs and can't build any tech lead. Even you take care of them, they are not going to be your friends and trade techs with you. And you need to spend a lot of resource for building up military force to keep them in check.

3. Overexpand at the early stage, that slow down the research due to high maintainence. Courts are expensive to build. Vassalage is hard to have at higher level. Communism doesn't come till late. By that time you're dead meat.

4. At Monarch or higher I can guarantee you the AIs will gang up. If civ A has a tech it will be in the hands of every civ except you very quickly. They will build Great Wonders quick enough once they have the relevant tech. When you are ahead in early game you can sell tech to maintain your 90-100% research rate and build a couple of selected Great Wonder to maintain your dominance. If you are behind your infrastructure will also be behind, and you can almost forget the great wonders. Even you attack one of the AI civs and get money from pillaging your 100% research will still not be enough.

 

[Helmling]

That's always been one of my gripes with Civ: There is no rise and fall. When you fall, you've fallen. When you rise, you're untouchable.

I like your suggestions to balance things a bit more, but I also have to say that Civ 4 is by far the best about avoiding this problem in game play among all the Civ releases.

I'm surprised you're even seeing this happen much at all up on Monarch. I sure don't on Prince. I'll pull ahead and the AI's will start swapping techs left and right and before I know it, my lead is gone and the top 3 or 4 AI's are sitting on several techs I don't have.

 

[Qono]

Historically, great empires got lazy or found too many internal conflicts to stay stable and thus made themselves open to attack (the Romans, the Greek, the Ottomans, the British) so some way to model those sort of challenges would be good. Perhaps making more things more expansive or impossible to upgrade so that switches from the Industrial to the Modern era become more difficult for civs that dominated in the previous era.

This sounds pretty good. Maybe (if there is room) have a couple cities break off and form their own country (taking form of one of the other civilizations in the game)

 

[Saint_Saturn]

During the games I've played, I have seen a fair amount of leader-spot trading. Now, while the changes are never drastic (I've never seen civ's move spots more than a few tiers above/below), I do see changes occuring enough to where I never feel safe being the head honcho. I only can be a contender at the noble level still, but for me, I generally see enough variance in the scoring to make me feel that this game plays out realistically. If you do want to try and make a sudden shift in the scoring (especially late game), then the only thing I can think of is to get one hell of a large invading force and take over some large rival cities. To make this even more advantageous, a rather popular mod is around that gives you a portion of research free to a tech that the AI has that you do not have - so if you are warmongering around and have fallen behind in techs, then start whomping on more people, and free techs will start pouring in.

 

[gettingfat]

I think the game designers also need to make the AI civs more win conscious. For example, I have never seen a single time (after playing at least 30 games) the AI will try some desperate measures in the last 100 rounds, when they are really behind me (or another AI leader that they are supposed to "hate"). They seem don't mind losing. They win at high difficult level simply because they cheat and have much better start conditions.

The game will be more interesting if the AIs are actually scripted that they want or try to win. For example, when one player (including the AI) has two cities getting legendary culture, the ones that have poor diplomacy rating with that guy will search for the city with the third highest culture and try to sabbotage it. I will certainly find the late game more exciting.

 

[flipk1d]

- AIs will gang up on the leader if the difference is too great

Any more ideas?

AI does gang up on leader.....

right now im on immortal and every single AI has been at war with me within the last 30 turns or so, always at least 2 at a time, and they are sharing techs

this being said, comebacks are def possible vs AI, especially w/ uu's or a lucky break here and there

 

[Ramboost]

I think the game designers also need to make the AI civs more win conscious. For example, I have never seen a single time (after playing at least 30 games) the AI will try some desperate measures in the last 100 rounds, when they are really behind me (or another AI leader that they are supposed to "hate"). They seem don't mind losing. They win at high difficult level simply because they cheat and have much better start conditions.

The game will be more interesting if the AIs are actually scripted that they want or try to win. For example, when one player (including the AI) has two cities getting legendary culture, the ones that have poor diplomacy rating with that guy will search for the city with the third highest culture and try to sabbotage it. I will certainly find the late game more exciting.

I totally agree with this point of view. It can really disappoint me to see the passivity of the AI regarding the victory conditions........... when I am close to a population victory, the AI does NOTHING. If it was a AI nation that was close to a population victory I surely would declare war and start pillaging those farms..........

 

[Arturus]

- re-install the tech stealing, and allow some random tech gains if you take over a city (and make sure the AIs will do that on you)
- When a high tech civ has a war with a low tech civ, the low tech civ may randomly pick up some techs from the superior invader. (one may learn from the guy who beat him, right?)
- when the tech lead by one civ is too big, the tech research cost will be even further reduced than the current rate (Isn't that what many Asian countries are doing? It's easy to simulate than to invent a tech)
- Random financial-oriented tech transfer between civs may happen if they do trades.
- When your culture grows very high, maintainence goes up (salaries go up in advanced countries, unions, people go on welfare)
- AIs will gang up on the leader if the difference is too great

Any more ideas?

Alright I have a few thoughts on this. I think the tech stealing option is a good idea but I like some of your other ones better. Fighting a war with a more technologically superior nation and gaining tech out of that actually makes sense. Learn from the aggressor and adapt to survive; it is a very realistic idea. Also, taking an enemy city should give you a random chance of learning a tech that they had (maybe have a limit on this; for example, if they have more than 5 techs you don't have then you get it and have a higher probability the further ahead they area). Here again, learning from your enemies is fully realistic and I think an excellent idea.

I think the simulation tech idea you have already exists quite effectively. There are many techs that I don't get until they only cost a few turns to have. These are ones that I do not immediately need and are not in my research line (fishing for example if I am no where near the coast). Every time a specific tech is researched by a civilization, its cost goes down for all civilizations who haven't researched it. I also don't agree with increased maintenance costs for civilizations with high culture. This would also seem counter-intuitive as highly cultured civilizations spread their culture and make money off of people wanting it. Losing money for having high culture doesn't fit that model.

AIs ganging up on the leader I also do not agree with. I think they should have the same diplomatic model that the human has with the AI. Keep in mind, it might make more strategic sense for an AI civilization to take over a smaller one as a way to grow more powerful. Rather than a group of small civilizations trying to break down a big one, it would make more sense for one or two to try to gain superiority and the ability to rival the larger civilization.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. I think you have some excellent ideas and I hope Firaxis is paying attention as I think some of these have great potential.

 

[Analog Kid 1.0]

but the Internet comes far too late to help a civilisations that are being trounced by gunships for example.

Yea just ask folks in the mid-east bout that

 

[Renata]

I totally agree with this point of view. It can really disappoint me to see the passivity of the AI regarding the victory conditions........... when I am close to a population victory, the AI does NOTHING. If it was a AI nation that was close to a population victory I surely would declare war and start pillaging those farms..........

So you actually *want* the AIs to all gang up on you if you show any sign of getting too big for your britches? CivII worked somewhat like that, and that was the single biggest complaint people had with the game.

 

[Wodan]

I was thinking about this the other day.

It's kind of interesting, but historically, just as many civilizations utterly failed to assimilate / conquer another one as were successful. I'll toss out some examples.

Napoleon (vs the rest of continental Europe)
Spain (vs the Netherlands)
Germany (vs the rest of Europe... twice)
Japan (vs southeast Asia)
Rome (vs Europe, Africa, and the Middle East)
Greece (vs the Middle East)
Spain vs Portugal

I'm leaving out some which were purely (or mostly so) for plunder... that doesn't really count as a serious attempt at conquering or assimilation.

Now, when these countries did their thing, I think there was a good bit of cultural leftovers. e.g., Roman culture influence still there even after the empire fell. The longer they lasted before the fall, the more culture was left behind.

Now, what are the ones that actually succeeded, at least in part?
England/France/Spain (vs American indians) [This is debatable, because the original countries pulled out, but what was left was really a brand new nation/culture, which is different from the restoration of the previous nation in a new incarnation]
Catalan Spain vs the rest of Iberia [or do I have it backwards? Was Catalan the conquered one?]
Britain (vs the rest of the UK) [I'll probably get heat for this one]
... more

Anyway, point is, as often as not, the conquering/assimilating country couldn't handle the economic drain and pulled out, or lost militarily and was forced to give back occupied territory.

It would be interesting if this could happen in CIV without screwing with game balance. (You need to keep it possible for the player to "win" otherwise people will be discouraged.)

Wodan

 

[shadow2k]

At higher levels, the AI will gang up on you and do a much better job of catching up. If you're getting too far in front, you need to step it up a notch.

The AI does do things at the end that are victory oriented, such as not trading space techs away. The problem is, Space is about the only victory condition I ever see them try for.

 

[Acceptable_Loss]

I agree it would be nice if the civ series did a better job of modeling the rise and fall of empire but there's one problem I see in any system that tries to implement such a feature. The game is meant to be fun. it is not meant to be ultra realistic. I don't think many people would find it fun to have they're great empire stumple just because the game makes it very hard to stay on the top for long.

Plus cIV has already done a little to make this possible. The new maintenence system mean large empire can fall behind due to the high cost of supporting the empire