Fixing the victory conditions

[Dale]

Victory conditions are a bit of mess, in my opinion. The conquest and science victories, you could be just coasting along, and then in the last 10% of the game race for the victory. Either of then. Then you have cultural victory, which if you don't play a certain way from turn 1 becomes out of reach. Oh, the diplomatic route, make a single mistake (ie: piss off a single AI) and it becomes unobtainable too.

Victory conditions also represent a single state at the end of play. You win a science victory because your spaceship launches. You win a conquest victory by no one else surviving. You win a diplomatic victory because a single vote got you in. Each of these victories really on a single state. How many victories have you "fluked by accident"?

So what can we do?

I think I've come up with a way to make victory reflect the entire game. The victory is completely based off of how you play the game, not just how you ended it. Victory should be based on how you influenced the game World, not how you are on a single turn.

Premise:
Victory is achieved by the movement along various Scales of Influence (SoI). These SoI determine how well you did in a number of areas of the game. If you excel at an area so that you are the clear leader, you become the winner of that game.

Scales of Influence:
- Military: A reflection of military power and how your military performed.
- Science: A reflection of scientific research and how much of a technology innovator you were.
- Culture: A reflection of your Civ's culture and the cultural influence on the World.
- Diplomacy: A reflection of your Civ's dealings with other entities in the game.
- Economic: A reflection of the financial management of your Civ.
- Domestic: A reflection on the happiness and health of your population.

How it works:
For every action that you perform in the game, the SoI move to reflect the choices you make for your Civ. Some examples:
- Win a battle: military scale increases.
- Conduct positive diplomacy: diplomacy scale increases.
- Build a bank: economic scale increases.
- Research a tech: science scale increases.
- Build a wonder: culture scale increases.
- Build a colosseum: domestic scale increases.
- Win a war by backstabbing your neighbor: military scale increases, diplomacy scale drops.
- Implement slavery: economic scale increases, culture scale decreases.
- Reject a plea for military assistance: diplomacy scale drops.
- A successful war for a long time: military scale increases, domestic scale decreases (war weariness).

Victory:
During game setup the player can set each scale requirement to whatever level they wish. So if they want a high requirement of diplomacy in their game then set the scale for diplomacy high. By mixing and matching the scale requirements for the 6 categories you can create any sort of victory condition you want. If the player doesn't want to handle this, default values for each scale will be used (play testing would have to show what the marks are).

As you can see there are many varied opportunities here. In this way, the decisions you make during the game lead to victory based on how you played the game. It you've conducted a lot of successful wars through backstabbing your neighbors, then diplomacy victory will be impossible but a military victory will be quite possible.

What do people think of this idea?

EDIT: Added victory definition.

 

[Charles Martel]

Best fix: scrap all victory conditions and make the game open-ended, just like Europa Universalis does.

 

[Dale]

Best fix: scrap all victory conditions and make the game open-ended, just like Europa Universalis does.

Sorry, fail. The player needs a goal to aspire to otherwise the game becomes a chore (like EU becomes in the end). If the player has a goal, the game becomes an achievement. And they come back and play again.

Simple design - 101 that.

EDIT: BTW, EU does have goals, become the strongest nation in the World.

 

[Danielos]

Best fix: scrap all victory conditions and make the game open-ended, just like Europa Universalis does.

I agree. Victory conditions is just gamey. Let the game flow without any artifical constraints and aims just like real history.

 

[Danielos]

Sorry, fail. The player needs a goal to aspire to otherwise the game becomes a chore (like EU becomes in the end). If the player has a goal, the game becomes an achievement. And they come back and play again.

Simple design - 101 that.

Make up your own goals. The game shouldn´t need to tell you what to do and what your aims should be.

 

[Dale]

I agree. Victory conditions is just gamey. Let the game flow without any artifical constraints and aims just like real history.

But that's exactly what my proposal does. Allows you to play the game how you want, without locking in or locking out victory conditions. It's as open-ended as you can get.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Oh, the diplomatic route, make a single mistake (ie: piss off a single AI) and it becomes unobtainable too.

Just kill the AI you pissed off.

 

[Charles Martel]

Sorry, fail. The player needs a goal to aspire to otherwise the game becomes a chore.

Players can set their own final goals. Random quests may give additional instrumental goals. "No victory conditions" doesn't mean "No goals".

Not even HOF and multiplayer games necessarily require pre-set victory conditions: common targets can be agreed on an ad hoc basis.

Absence of pre-set victory constraints tends to encourage role-playing over dull micromanagement, which is generally a good thing.

 

[Willowmound]

I think Dale's idea is very good.

 

[Dale]

Players can set their own final goals. Random quests may give additional instrumental goals. "No victory conditions" doesn't mean "No goals".

Not even HOF and multiplayer games necessarily require pre-set victory conditions: common targets can be agreed on an ad hoc basis.

Absence of pre-set victory constraints tends to encourage role-playing over dull micromanagement, which is generally a good thing.

Thats different to what you originally said. Your first comment was to scrap all victory conditions and have it open-ended, as in goal-less.

I agree that players should be able to set their own goals. To that end it should be possible to define what parametres the scales I defined above must meet to achieve your goal.

If your goal is to create a highly cultural Civ with some conquest and diplomacy, you could set the cultural scale requirement high, the military and diplomacy scales medium and the rest low. If you want a strong all-round Civ then set the scale requirements of all sliders high.

So by mixing and matching the requirements of the scale requirements over the 6 categories, you have created your own goals. This sort of scale manipulation would be perfect for MP games. Depending what scales you make a requirement of victory, makes for very interesting play.

 

[Danielos]

Dale, I think you are right. If victory conditions should be included, they certainly need to take the entire history of the game into account.

 

[Chalks]

I think the idea of a diplomatic victory coming from lots of "positive" diplomatic actions doesn't work too well. That's basically a victory from becoming a global doormat.

 

[Dale]

I think the idea of a diplomatic victory coming from lots of "positive" diplomatic actions doesn't work too well. That's basically a victory from becoming a global doormat.

A positive diplomatic move is not a doormat move, only if you let it.

- Joining an ally in war is a positive diplomatic action.
- Honourable declarations of war (ie: you don't backstab them) is positive diplomacy.
- Befriending a Civ then attacking it is a negative diplomatic action.
- Refusing a plea for help from a city-state is a negative diplomatic action.

A positive diplomatic action is one seen as honourable. That in no way implies doormat.

 

[Chalks]

A positive diplomatic move is not a doormat move, only if you let it.

- Joining an ally in war is a positive diplomatic action.
- Honourable declarations of war (ie: you don't backstab them) is positive diplomacy.
- Befriending a Civ then attacking it is a negative diplomatic action.
- Refusing a plea for help from a city-state is a negative diplomatic action.

A positive diplomatic action is one seen as honourable. That in no way implies doormat.

My point is that the logical conclusion is that the quickest and easiest way to win a diplomatic victory is to perform as many "positive" actions as possible, which would require you to obey every request and give as much of your wealth away as you can. Even though it can be achieved via other means, the obvious and easiest method is just rolling over for everyone.

My main issue is that in my opinion "winning at diplomacy" is where you negotiate in such a way that you come out on top. If you make everyone love you because you give away your entire treasury in gifts, that's not really winning at diplomacy. When you negotiate a truce between two warring nations in exchange for gifts and increased favour from both of them, THAT is winning at diplomacy.

If you feed resentment between two nations so that you can act as a trade broker between them and make loads of profit, or make powerful allies in such a way that you can do anything you want and nobody will touch you, that is winning at diplomacy.

 

[Danielos]

Hehe, nice guys finish last!

I think a diplomatic victory should mean you are a peaceful nation, that also strives at peace and peaceful solutions at all times. If you manage to get the entire world love you and end all wars and conflicts you should win a diplomatic victory! Kind of like Sweden...

 

[Dale]

My point is that the logical conclusion is that the quickest and easiest way to win a diplomatic victory is to perform as many "positive" actions as possible, which would require you to obey every request and give as much of your wealth away as you can. Even though it can be achieved via other means, the obvious and easiest method is just rolling over for everyone.

My main issue is that in my opinion "winning at diplomacy" is where you negotiate in such a way that you come out on top. If you make everyone love you because you give away your entire treasury in gifts, that's not really winning at diplomacy. When you negotiate a truce between two warring nations in exchange for gifts and increased favour from both of them, THAT is winning at diplomacy.

If you feed resentment between two nations so that you can act as a trade broker between them and make loads of profit, or make powerful allies in such a way that you can do anything you want and nobody will touch you, that is winning at diplomacy.

How is giving in to every request "positive diplomacy"? It's not. And you'd be silly in game to do that too.

We have similar definitions of "positive diplomacy", which I have described. I never implied being a doormat was positive diplomacy. It's quite the opposite in fact as the other Civ's will have zero respect for you.

 

[Dale]

Hehe, nice guys finish last!

I think a diplomatic victory should mean you are a peaceful nation, that also strives at peace and peaceful solutions at all times. If you manage to get the entire world love you and end all wars and conflicts you should win a diplomatic victory! Kind of like Sweden...

See I'm different. I believe a diplomatic victory should be defined by honourable diplomacy with the other entities. Where they respect you. You can still wage war when required, but the honourable way (ie: responding to an allies request, declaring on a "villain" Civ, protecting those weaker than their attacker). Basically (to use an EU term) when you have Cassus Belli.

 

[Chalks]

How is giving in to every request "positive diplomacy"? It's not. And you'd be silly in game to do that too.

We have similar definitions of "positive diplomacy", which I have described. I never implied being a doormat was positive diplomacy. It's quite the opposite in fact as the other Civ's will have zero respect for you.

Surely civilizations will have more respect for you if you help them out? And will get angry with you if you deny their requests for help. Therefore the best way to do well in this rating is to always obey their every command.

I've always disliked the way the "diplomatic victory" was handled, so I'm not just picking on your idea in particular. Civ has never been very good at measuring diplomatic prowess beyond "Everyone lubs yoo!"

 

[Dale]

Surely civilizations will have more respect for you if you help them out? And will get angry with you if you deny their requests for help. Therefore the best way to do well in this rating is to always obey their every command.

I've always disliked the way the "diplomatic victory" was handled, so I'm not just picking on your idea in particular. Civ has never been very good at measuring diplomatic prowess beyond "Everyone lubs yoo!"

"Everyone lubs yoo!" is what I want to change.

In the real World, if you give in to every demand you do not get respected by other nations. Seriously, you massively lose respect. Being a doormat does NOT, I repeat DOES NOT equate to positive diplomacy. And since in my proposal only positive diplomacy moves the scale forwards (negative diplomacy moves it backwards) then just folding to every request "to keep them happy" will not move the scale forward.

 

[Chalks]

"Everyone lubs yoo!" is what I want to change.

In the real World, if you give in to every demand you do not get respected by other nations. Seriously, you massively lose respect. Being a doormat does NOT, I repeat DOES NOT equate to positive diplomacy. And since in my proposal only positive diplomacy moves the scale forwards (negative diplomacy moves it backwards) then just folding to every request "to keep them happy" will not move the scale forward.

Take the following example:

You're a relatively weak civilization with big ambitions. You have a resource rich neighbour who you've been eyeing, but they could probably cause you some serious problems at this point, you need time to build your forces.

You use your diplomatic skills to befriend both the neighbour and another medium sized civ. You get the other civ to stop trading with your neighbour, and get your neighbour to increase their hostilities towards the other civ, while making sure they both love you.

You secretively build up your army while these two are so busy shouting at each other to pay any attention to you, then when you are ready, you back stab your neighbour, and the other civ immediately jumps at the opportunity to attack their hated enemy.

Your civilization gains massively despite being at a disadvantage because you used diplomacy to manipulate the situation to your advantage. You win at diplomacy.

However, simple diplomacy evaluation system says "ooh, backstab of friend! --diplomacy points for you!!"

I don't like the idea that "good diplomacy == being nice". Being good at diplomacy is the ability to manipulate situations so that you come out on top despite being at a disadvantage. If someone wants gunpowder but friendship with them is really not worth that technology, giving it to them might earn you +nice guy points, but it's actually a bad diplomatic decision because it puts you at a disadvantage.