Completing all four legacy paths should immediately trigger a victory

[pjotroos]

This isn't much more than a thought that was running through my head last couple of days, but I figured it might be good for a short chat as we wait for the news about the December update.

One thing that stands out to me is how normalised it has become to complete all four legacy paths in exploration (and how easily done it is in modern if you don't pursue a victory project); both here and on reddit, people will often judge the strength of leader or civilization not based on how good they are for their preferred win condition, but on how easily you can do full sweep with them.

I think that - more than any other element - contributes to the feeling of sameness post-antiquity. In the first age, it's normal to prioritise the area you care about, but by exploration, the full sweep is a very real posibility. Some of the legacies are barely in question. Can you ever really miss exploration science, or modern economic, if you just play a regular, half-decent game?

And - gamers being gamers - if something can be easily done, it becomes the default expectation. I think before any tuning or changes to legacies, the expectation needs to change. A four-legacy era should be a feat; something that requires a very specific plan, plenty of optimisation, science, culture and economy trade-offs, and a bit of luck. And if it happens, it should immediately send you to a victory screen - same way full conquest in earlier eras does (and both should grant the leader victory achievement regardless of the era, to signify that it's a valid win).

Once that expectation is set, the relevant legacy paths can then be re-tuned to make all four harder. A good outcome should be two out of four - so we can go back to having culture-focused games, science-focused games, and so on, rather than the current whack-a-mole.

What does everyone else think? Does this resonate?

 

[marius_kaparius]

I could see that being fun as a short term solution. The real solution is that the Legacy Paths and Victories should be more interesting.

 

[Head_North]

I like the idea of being able to win the game in any era!

 

[uppi]

Would this also apply to the AI? If it finished all 4 legacy paths you instantly lose? What if that AI was in distant lands? You could only prevent that by being faster and then you would be back at trying to achieve all legacy paths (only this time with a game over, if you don't manage it).

Those games where the AI actually plays well might be those which are interesting in later ages. I would hate to lose those games early. And I am not a fan of victory conditions not applying to the AI. And then there is MP to consider. At most, I could see it as an additional option, but then it would not accomplish the goal of denormalising going for all legacy paths.

 

[pjotroos]

Would this also apply to the AI? If it finished all 4 legacy paths you instantly lose? What if that AI was in distant lands? You could only prevent that by being faster and then you would be back at trying to achieve all legacy paths (only this time with a game over, if you don't manage it).

Yeah, it definitely should also apply to the AI. I think losing an occasional game against AI is fine - but I also think this is where the tuning comes in. Completing all four should be exceptional outcome. I don't think I ever saw that from AI; certainly not in antiquity. The wondermongers tend to be wide off the mark for settlement numbers.

 

[NoCure]

I'm on board with this change but I always bank a Legacy Path or two anyway to avoid progressing the Age, then fire it when I hit the Age countdown. It would be a little more risky with the AI able to terminate the Age if/when they completed four paths, but I think for my gameplay little would change. Antiquity would be the main risk as the AI actually does a decent job of working down the paths. In my experience they NEVER get treasure fleets in serious numbers, nor factory resources.
Antiquity: Easy to hold off on slotting 20 resources or 10 codices (codices are easiest since you can slot them at will)
Exploration: Just park treasure fleets in your homeland ports. Also if you haven't hit the conquering/settling foreign lands path, you can activate it with a few overseas missionaries.
Modern: Don't murder everyone.

 

[MutilationWave]

I like the idea, which is hopefully the plan, of making most legacy paths more difficult and interesting. I disagree with ending the game when you get all four. Maybe if they are expanded to six paths, with their highest levels difficult to achieve.

 

[pjotroos]

I like the idea, which is hopefully the plan, of making most legacy paths more difficult and interesting. I disagree with ending the game when you get all four. Maybe if they are expanded to six paths, with their highest levels difficult to achieve.

Your last sentence is sort-of my point. Six should be difficult to achieve if & when that comes, but four should also be difficult to achieve. It definitely shouldn't be anywhere as trivial as it is right now in exploration.

I'm on board with this change but I always bank a Legacy Path or two anyway to avoid progressing the Age, then fire it when I hit the Age countdown.

Only reason I stopped doing it is because I don't want to spend any more time than I have to in Exploration anymore. Used to think Modern is the most boring era, but at least we have tools to end Modern when we're finished with it.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I'm struck by the comparison with other franchise games. Did any players in Civ6 -- in the same game -- 1) accumulate 19 dipomatic victory points, 2) convert all but one civ to your religion, 3) conquer (N-1) original capitals, and 4) launch the exoplanet expedition? No, that just didn't happen. Even granting that Civ6 vanilla had a mission to Mars, not an exoplanet, and lacked the diplo victory.

Nor did Civ4 players -- in the same game -- 1) accumulate UN votes, 2) build 3 legendary culture cities, 3) conquer 66% of the planet, and 4) build all the spaceship parts. The tradeoffs required to pursue either military or cultural victories, leaving aside diplomacy, made it very difficult to achieve more than one victory condition.

Granted, Civ7 is still in its infancy, before any expansions or major gameplay changes. But the tradeoffs for achieving the Civ7 victory conditions are not so influential that players can achieve more than one. Indeed, the game includes achievements for reaching more than one legacy path.

 

[pjotroos]

I'm struck by the comparison with other franchise games. Did any players in Civ6 -- in the same game -- 1) accumulate 19 dipomatic victory points, 2) convert all but one civ to your religion, 3) conquer (N-1) original capitals, and 4) launch the exoplanet expedition? No, that just didn't happen. Even granting that Civ6 vanilla had a mission to Mars, not an exoplanet, and lacked the diplo victory.

Yeah, this is exactly what triggered that thought - I went back for a round of Civ VI over the weekend, and playing a strong science game means I'm getting no progress on cultural or religious victory; I need the available resources to progress that, I can't divert them for spamming apostles and culture districts. I miss having those trade-offs.

 

[uppi]

Yeah, it definitely should also apply to the AI. I think losing an occasional game against AI is fine - but I also think this is where the tuning comes in. Completing all four should be exceptional outcome. I don't think I ever saw that from AI; certainly not in antiquity. The wondermongers tend to be wide off the mark for settlement numbers.

Here is Pachacuti going places:

I was a bit behind, but still won that (especially since Lafayette is stronger the later the game goes.

I really hated the early loss mechanic in ARA, it is basically what killed the game for me. So I don't want it in Civilization.

 

[MutilationWave]

Here is Pachacuti going places:

This is awesome to see. I've never seen an opponent come close to this. Do you have any idea how he did so well?

 

[pjotroos]

Here is Pachacuti going places: (snip)

I really hated the early loss mechanic in ARA, it is basically what killed the game for me. So I don't want it in Civilization.

Fantastic to see. I'd have loved to have lost a game like that, just so I feel like I actually need to pay attention to what the opponents are doing. Was it Deity?

I think you can switch off victory conditions already, so that would still have you covered.

 

[uppi]

This is awesome to see. I've never seen an opponent come close to this. Do you have any idea how he did so well?

Fantastic to see. I'd have loved to have lost a game like that, just so I feel like I actually need to pay attention to what the opponents are doing. Was it Deity?

Yes, it was Deity. He had plenty of space on his side of the continent and used that to build a lot of settlements and build a strong economy with Mississippians. In the middle of the continent there was a Maya player who was a bit too aggressive (probably Bolivar, but I only have a save after the end of Antiquity without that player). So Pachacuti, Ben and me formed a triple alliance against the Maya to take them down. And Pachacuti took quite a bit of the spoils, getting him the military legacy path.

He was way ahead at the beginning of Exploration, but I turned on him and eventually managed to cut him down to size.

 

[MutilationWave]

Also good to see opponents taking settlements well. I haven't had time to play in a couple weeks and probably won't for a while because of work, so thanks for elaborating.