Domination Victory

[ilmis9]

Is there anyway how I can manualy tweak requirements of DV?
Like:
2/3 of population+1/2 capitals and 1/3 of landmass.
Not trying to strive for way easier wins, but this would make more ways of AI winning. Also would be fun to always watch out for somebody not reaching neccesarry threshold of DV.

Maybe Im just looking for something too realistic or not really mod wise archievable.
Will appreaciate every reply.
Thanks!

 

[CppMaster]

No.
And... it doesn't really matter. You can declare a winner whenever you want. Victory screen won't change anything.

 

[ilmis9]

No.
And... it doesn't really matter. You can declare a winner whenever you want. Victory screen won't change anything.

Thanks for reply!
I does matter. It could change the way AIs decision making by using DV as a scape goat. For example-mediocre AI next to a neighbour with high population/landmass with combination of weak military. Im aware that 7/10 civs with great land mass/population have some decent military, but there are still those 30% of times AI can take advantage of others and get closer to win. If thats possible to be coded.
Just and idea

 

[nekokon]

You can try making a proposal. I had similar idea but based on the current congress requirement not sure if we can even have enough votes, so unless you can find a dev who's willing to sponsor (semi bypass the poll) kind of hard to make it into VP.

 

[ilmis9]

You can try making a proposal. I had similar idea but based on the current congress requirement not sure if we can even have enough votes, so unless you can find a dev who's willing to sponsor (semi bypass the poll) kind of hard to make it into VP.

Alright, thanks for reply!
But how about the idea? Your thoughts on this?

 

[nekokon]

I would say 1/3 of the total population (with optional 1/3 of total capitals) would be enough, but with a reverse scaling based on time. Reasons being:
- We're talking about total world performance (and not individual civ performance). If there's a civ that has 1/3 the total score of every civ in the world likely it's already the winner regardless of victory type.
- 1/3 total amount would indicate there is a possible of 2 strong DomV civs competing for the victory at the same time. That's already an undercut compared to other victory types which usually would have 3-4 contestants, but based on the snowballing nature of DomV this is a good enough starting number.
- Only count population and not city because AI love spamming useless cities and human player love burning them down, thus the numbers won't be consistent enough to balance.
- There might be capitals requirement but it would likely be applied to human player only, since AI won't just stop after taking the capital (so having it as a requirement does nothing, but human player can abuse that by conquer everything else while leaving capital to lessen the diplomatic penalty). 1/3 should be enough for that purpose.
- Having reverse scaling based on time means early on the requirement would be higher, but as the game stretches out the requirement would get lowered (due to the fact that total world population grows much faster late game). So it can start from 1/3 world population at the start of the game, but around turn 500 1/4 or 1/5 would be enough to win (this means said civ still need to be at double to triple the performance of average civ when it wins, which is already quite a bit higher than other victory type's score when they win).

 

[ilmis9]

I would say 1/3 of the total population (with optional 1/3 of total capitals) would be enough, but with a reverse scaling based on time. Reasons being:
- We're talking about total world performance (and not individual civ performance). If there's a civ that has 1/3 the total score of every civ in the world likely it's already the winner regardless of victory type.
- 1/3 total amount would indicate there is a possible of 2 strong DomV civs competing for the victory at the same time. That's already an undercut compared to other victory types which usually would have 3-4 contestants, but based on the snowballing nature of DomV this is a good enough starting number.
- Only count population and not city because AI love spamming useless cities and human player love burning them down, thus the numbers won't be consistent enough to balance.
- There might be capitals requirement but it would likely be applied to human player only, since AI won't just stop after taking the capital (so having it as a requirement does nothing, but human player can abuse that by conquer everything else while leaving capital to lessen the diplomatic penalty). 1/3 should be enough for that purpose.
- Having reverse scaling based on time means early on the requirement would be higher, but as the game stretches out the requirement would get lowered (due to the fact that total world population grows much faster late game). So it can start from 1/3 world population at the start of the game, but around turn 500 1/4 or 1/5 would be enough to win (this means said civ still need to be at double to triple the performance of average civ when it wins, which is already quite a bit higher than other victory type's score when they win).

I do totally agree on every point you made. Did not even consider lot of things you mentioned. You are totally right with population>land and reverse scaling on top of that. Main idea is too extend amount of contestants for victory.
Would love to see this one day on VP.
Cheers!

 

[balparmak]

At first I wasn't into this, but it really makes sense when you think about it and nekokon made great points. Domination currently exists only for the human player anyway as there's no chance (unless you're playing duel maps) the AI can do that, teaching it to snipe capitals isn't feasible afaik. We can keep "conquer all capitals" as an option for humans, but adding a "half (or third) the capitals and population" option would actually make it possible for the AI to win, and that's without any additional AI code. I have no idea if it's hard to code a new victory condition though, victory progress screens will need a rework for sure.

 

[CppMaster]

So that would mean that if you conquer your continent you just win without the need of meeting anyone on the other continent (That assuming half of the capitals, not event a third). Would that be satisfactory? Imho it should be at least more than a half, so 5/8.

 

[nekokon]

It's optional for a reason. If it's for AI the suggested numbers would be enough so that they can feasibly win (and can push human players to react accordingly), and if it's for human players once you can conquer your whole continent you're already way too ahead and capable of just winning the game outright regardless.
If it's just for the satisfactory in conquering the whole world before ending the game you can just turn off domination victory and go conquering all you want (and still would be able to win by other victory type way earlier than that), or make it an advance option.

Biggest huddle would be whether there's a dev who would be interested in doing this. As Recursive replied in the other thread we're unlikely to have much change in gameplay mechanic aside from balance, and I don't know how much of these suggestions would count as new mechanic. Anyone who wants to can try making it into a proposal, I take no credit.

 

[ilmis9]

It's optional for a reason. If it's for AI the suggested numbers would be enough so that they can feasibly win (and can push human players to react accordingly), and if it's for human players once you can conquer your whole continent you're already way too ahead and capable of just winning the game outright regardless.
If it's just for the satisfactory in conquering the whole world before ending the game you can just turn off domination victory and go conquering all you want (and still would be able to win by other victory type way earlier than that), or make it an advance option.

Biggest huddle would be whether there's a dev who would be interested in doing this. As Recursive replied in the other thread we're unlikely to have much change in gameplay mechanic aside from balance, and I don't know how much of these suggestions would count as new mechanic. Anyone who wants to can try making it into a proposal, I take no credit.

I could try to make it into proposal, but not sure if it will be soon. Have to free up time for that. Yes, as being said, main goal is to make AI strive for DV, opening more windows for that, extend amount of victory contestants. There was this other thread showing that in 100 game stats there were 0 DVs. Same by my experience playing on emperor.

 

[rkkn]

Yeah I don't think domination victory should just be based off total number of cities or population. You should have to at least interact with every civ. So it can be half of all cities or whatever, sure, BUT also at least one city from every civ. So you can't just win by conquering your continent and never touching the other continent, when your starting continent happens to be larger than the other one. (Sometimes 5/8, or even 6/8 civs starts on the same continent while the other has the rest)

 

[ilmis9]

Yeah I don't think domination victory should just be based off total number of cities or population. You should have to at least interact with every civ. So it can be half of all cities or whatever, sure, BUT also at least one city from every civ. So you can't just win by conquering your continent and never touching the other continent, when your starting continent happens to be larger than the other one. (Sometimes 5/8, or even 6/8 civs starts on the same continent while the other has the rest)

Will take notes and do proper proposal.

 

[pineappledan]

Hard No.

We already have a cop out win: time victory. You can leverage military success into all sorts of victory paths, but if you just make it an arbitrary threshold of population or land we will be back in a situation where players accidentally default into win conditions, and then people will complain about That.

Domination has clear objectives, and even if the AI has difficulty winning via domination, they can still effectively translate war winning into CV or DiploV. This proposal also comes hot on the heels of a major tactical AI glitch that is making them very bad at invading, skewing perceptions that the AI is bad at war. Thus, I have no interest in even discussing this until the AI fixes are implemented. Furthermore, the DomV is not contingent on you conquering capitals, it’s only based on other civs losing theirs. The win is about survival, not strictly conquest, which is far more interesting than some threshold.

 

[SpecifiedUsername]

Yeah, I completely agree. VP steered Civ game away from a complete game through to the ages, to as intense and complex wargaming and strategy maths in just 1-2 eras as was before in the entirety of the game from ancient to future tech. Once you able to establish being number one by medieval, renaissance, industrial, this rarely ever changes and it's just forcing yourself to waste time if want to see the victory splash screen. Tight games, being underdog then skyrocketing, or true comebacks become rarer and rarer in my experience. I don't play majority games after a certain snowball potential has accumalted anyway.

If we have something like equivalent to Total War short campaign, maybe not only in domination (for example three conquered or vassaled capitals) but science (first to renaissance?) or culture (some specific set of wonders or religion conversions), that would be good.

 

[nekokon]

Hard No.

We already have a cop out win: time victory. You can leverage military success into all sorts of victory paths, but if you just make it an arbitrary threshold of population or land we will be back in a situation where players accidentally default into win conditions, and then people will complain about That.

Domination has clear objectives, and even if the AI has difficulty winning via domination, they can still effectively translate war winning into CV or DiploV. This proposal also comes hot on the heels of a major tactical AI glitch that is making them very bad at invading, skewing perceptions that the AI is bad at war. Thus, I have no interest in even discussing this until the AI fixes are implemented. Furthermore, the DomV is not contingent on you conquering capitals, it’s only based on other civs losing theirs. The win is about survival, not strictly conquest, which is far more interesting than some threshold.

I wasn't aware of the tactical AI glitch, but if it's rather easy to add "require all capitals for domination victory for player" as advance option for ppl who don't want to accidently win the game. Capitals requirement doesn't matter when it's for AI for the reason explained in my previous post.

Beside the goal of this isn't to make AI win DomV easier, but to make it into a threat just as much as other victory types, in the sense that when an AI civ is close to victory you need to do something to counter that. Currently having a strong domination civ is actually beneficial for human players (slowing down other competing civ) unless you're its neighbor (it's still easy to focus solely in defending your lands instead of expanding) or you're aiming for DomV yourself.

 

[ma_kuh]

I'm sure this isn't the sentiment of OP and others, but I'm fine with domination not being a realistic win condition in itself, and instead being a tool to reach Diplo victories through vassalization. After all, you're being voted world hegemon, if you dominate enough civs and force their votes, it's basically the OP's suggestion. I would look at giving warmongers more tools to win through diplomacy if they are lacking, rather than changing the rules so even the last super power can't hold out against their rival. At least with CultureV you can (at least theoretically) be the last hold-out even if everyone else folds to tourism.

 

[Jdoug312]

This proposal also comes hot on the heels of a major tactical AI glitch that is making them very bad at invading, skewing perceptions that the AI is bad at war. Thus, I have no interest in even discussing this until the AI fixes are implemented.

To be fair, in no version that I'm aware of has the AI been a  real contender for domination victory. Not even when the AI has been at its tactical best.

 

[ilmis9]

Posted proposal. Hope to see you there!