Down With Domination!

[superslug]

The CivIII Domination win condition is something I find more of an annoyance than an actual goal.

I realize it's an attempt to address games that get abandoned because at that size you've practically won already, but it's also a constriction to manuever around when trying to achieve a different condition.

I suggest that either
A) Civ4 not include it at all or
B) make it tougher. In addition to 2/3 pop and territory, add a requirement that your military outnumber everyone else combined.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

...you just want the Hall of Famers to get higher scores ...

It is annoying when you get it inadvertantly, however.

 

[CoolioVonHoolio]

...you just want the Hall of Famers to get higher scores ...

It is annoying when you get it inadvertantly, however.

well if you dont want it turn it off, anyway i think its fine the way it is.

 

[mastertyguy]

Dom should stay the way it is.

 

[dh_epic]

There's nothing wrong with domination. It should always be an option.

If anything, it should be made easier. 66% is kind of high -- you've probably already obtained an unbeatable victory at 50%.

 

[Aegis]

You can change the percentages of the land/pop requirements, ya know. You have to do it while choosing victory conditions. Just click the "Game Limits" button below your civ's portrait head and double-click the feature you would like to adjust.

 

[covenant]

Yeah I never play it at 66, always at around 51 or 55....

 

[superslug]

You can change the percentages of the land/pop requirements, ya know.

Modding isn't allowed for the current Hall of Fame, and I seriously doubt I'll allow it for IVHOF.

 

[Vael]

The key with domination is knowing when a game is won - in other words, not ending it too early when other civs might have a chance as well as not requiring players to spend hours bashing through enemies after the game's conclusion is already decided.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I like the domination victory, but I think that like the UN vote, you should be able to choose to not accept it. It's frustrating having to use mapstat to figure out where your at percentage wise.

 

[Vael]

I never liked the UN vote. I'd prefer a more fleshed-out diplomatic victory. Any sort of UN system would be completely useless in MP to boot.

 

[MeteorPunch]

I never liked the UN vote. I'd prefer a more fleshed-out diplomatic victory. Any sort of UN system would be completely useless in MP to boot.

True that...it's cheap win.

 

[Aegis]

Modding isn't allowed for the current Hall of Fame, and I seriously doubt I'll allow it for IVHOF.

That's considered a mod? Wow. I never knew. Even if you increased the percentage?

Any sort of UN system would be completely useless in MP to boot.

Just like in real life!

 

[MeteorPunch]

That's considered a mod? Wow. I never knew. Even if you increased the percentage?

That would increase the possible score.

 

[Vael]

Yeah, that's the problem with this sort of thing... you need some sort of end-game trigger for Civ, when in reality no one actually 'wins'.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

If I understand you correctly, Vael, then I think you are on the right track.
My opinion is that you should be accumulating 'points' towards all the various victory types-simultaneously. Then, once a certain % of Civs reach the Modern Age, an 'end game' counter is activated-generating a random number of turns between that turn and the end-game turn. This number would be greater than 5 but, say, less than 80. This would make things more interesting because NO-ONE, not even the AI players, would know exactly WHEN the game is about to end (still not sure if there should even be a warning to players to indicate the end-game phase has begun). I also had a thought that starting nuclear wars might reduce the number of turns in the end-game phase, making victory more difficult for all concerned.
Anyway, the point is that, when the game ends, your placings in each victory type (allied or solo) are determined, with ultimate victory going to the player with the best placings overall-with ties being worked out on the basis of your demographic scores.
This way, one player might get overall victor, but other players might have the pleasure of knowing they won the Religious victory type, or the Economic Victory type, or the Diplomatic Victory type. Thus, a game could end with a number of different winners (hopefully making human players think more about enjoying the game for itself, rather than worrying about whether they are going to WIN or not!)
Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[superslug]

Thus, a game could end with a number of different winners (hopefully making human players think more about enjoying the game for itself, rather than worrying about whether they are going to WIN or not!).

Games without definitive winners are useless. Winning, or at least trying to win is what's enjoyable about games.

 

[Vael]

Games without definitive winners are useless. Winning, or at least trying to win is what's enjoyable about games.

That's not true for all games. All of the Sim* (s, City, so on) games are played to be played, rather than to be won.

I do think that Civilization is a game in which there needs to be a winner, but I don't think that disagrees with AL's proposal here. Ideally the normal current victory conditions would be done away with and in their place would be a whole new system which tracks all of your progress. That way, rather than a simple "Spaceship victory" or "Cultural victory" one would be able to achieve such milestones which would add to the overall score - being the first to launch the Spaceship would give a large VP bonus, but would not decide the game.

I think this is also a much easier way to balance the different playstyles. Rather than giving a single definitive UN victory or Culture victory the game would give VPs for having good relations with civs and for building up culture. We would no longer be stuck with 'dud' victory types because of this mechanic, since if one style was too weak or too powerful it could simply be given a VP boost to bring it in line with the other styles.

 

[superslug]

That's not true for all games. All of the Sim* (s, City, so on) games are played to be played, rather than to be won.

I was an avid SimCity2000 player, as were many of my friends. Even though the game didn't have a final mechanism, we generally decided that getting the ARCO's to launch was a "win" just so we'd know when to quit.

The idea of a more dynamic scoring system is interesting, but if being the first to launch a spaceship doesn't automatically win the game, I likely wouldn't play the game. Going back to CivI, that particular victory condition is canon.

 

[mastertyguy]

I don't play to win, I play to have FUN. If you lea from the beginning to the end, it becomes boring before long. Cleaning up the mess becomes boring. But wht is more interresting than a close space race, or more stressful than the UN vote you have been waiting for so long? Knowing that you CAN lose anyway is the best.