Fergei
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2020
- Messages
- 255
Realistically, if you are having a multiplayer game, players are going to lose interest long before 66% of land and population has been achieved by one player. It will be clear who is going to win long before 66% is achieved (except in rare circumstances where an AI or human is amassing a great tech, productivity, cultural or diplomatic lead that might snatch victory from the dominant Civ).
So I was toying with changing the domination conditions to make it a more viable victory condition in a multiplayer game. This raises two questions for me:
Question 1: Would the AI change it's behaviour in response to changes in the domination level?
For example, if an AI was on 40% of land and population in two identical games (one with domination set at 66% and the other at 50%) would the AI potentially employ tactics to seek the domination victory at 50% that it might not do if it was at 66% (e.g. prioritise military options because it sees the victory line in sight)? Or do we think the AI is oblivious to such calculations?
Question 2: What sort of domination victory conditions would keep you motivated to extend a multiplayer game rather than conceding? (assuming 8x Civs, Standard map)
For arguments sake, say one human player has a seemingly uncatchable tech, culture, productivity & diplomatic lead - they are moving serenely along in Republic or Democracy, have favourable late game traits and have very sound defences. You have a bit of an empire gained through extended conquest, but are backwards, expansionist, corrupt, hated and have little city improvements. For arguments sake you conceivably have no chance of space, diplomatic or cultural victory. Often times, such a scenario would lead to the others conceding the game rather than play out a seemingly foregone conclusion that might take 5+ hours to arrive at.
But say that Domination victory wasn't set 66%, but something lower and less unattainable - would this potentially retain your interest in playing out the remainder of the game (both as the underdog and the frontrunner)? If so, what sort of figure might be appropriate in a 8x Civ game (human, or mixture of human & AI)?
- Too high, and it remains unattainable (demotivating for other players to continue the game).
- Too low, and it renders the game a bit of a farce and prevents other victory conditions ("Woohoo, I got 20% of the landmass and am victorious at 800AD!")
Realistically, in an 8x Civ game, could anyone above 40% be considered pretty dominant?
It might be tempting to define 50.01% as dominance in a mathematical sense, but it still feels like you'll know who is the almost certain victor in an 8x Civ game long before anyone reaches 50.01%. Looking online I routinely see multiplayer games conceded with over 50% of the land mass not even developed (because experienced players can easily identify a lost cause and would have more fun starting a new game instead).
So I was toying with changing the domination conditions to make it a more viable victory condition in a multiplayer game. This raises two questions for me:
Question 1: Would the AI change it's behaviour in response to changes in the domination level?
For example, if an AI was on 40% of land and population in two identical games (one with domination set at 66% and the other at 50%) would the AI potentially employ tactics to seek the domination victory at 50% that it might not do if it was at 66% (e.g. prioritise military options because it sees the victory line in sight)? Or do we think the AI is oblivious to such calculations?
Question 2: What sort of domination victory conditions would keep you motivated to extend a multiplayer game rather than conceding? (assuming 8x Civs, Standard map)
For arguments sake, say one human player has a seemingly uncatchable tech, culture, productivity & diplomatic lead - they are moving serenely along in Republic or Democracy, have favourable late game traits and have very sound defences. You have a bit of an empire gained through extended conquest, but are backwards, expansionist, corrupt, hated and have little city improvements. For arguments sake you conceivably have no chance of space, diplomatic or cultural victory. Often times, such a scenario would lead to the others conceding the game rather than play out a seemingly foregone conclusion that might take 5+ hours to arrive at.
But say that Domination victory wasn't set 66%, but something lower and less unattainable - would this potentially retain your interest in playing out the remainder of the game (both as the underdog and the frontrunner)? If so, what sort of figure might be appropriate in a 8x Civ game (human, or mixture of human & AI)?
- Too high, and it remains unattainable (demotivating for other players to continue the game).
- Too low, and it renders the game a bit of a farce and prevents other victory conditions ("Woohoo, I got 20% of the landmass and am victorious at 800AD!")
Realistically, in an 8x Civ game, could anyone above 40% be considered pretty dominant?
It might be tempting to define 50.01% as dominance in a mathematical sense, but it still feels like you'll know who is the almost certain victor in an 8x Civ game long before anyone reaches 50.01%. Looking online I routinely see multiplayer games conceded with over 50% of the land mass not even developed (because experienced players can easily identify a lost cause and would have more fun starting a new game instead).
