1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

How Would You Solve the Late Game Problem?

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Wingednosering, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. NukingGandhi

    NukingGandhi Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2018
    Messages:
    69
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wishing he was back in Ohio
    In terms of infrastructure it would be interesting to have other soft limits than housing and food for population growth. Like how you can build sewers but all they do is give housing, I think there should be other aspects like sanitation and transit and raw materials need for expansion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2018
  2. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    Indiana
    Yes, and I think that is the point of my new domination victory idea. Maybe it could be based on score instead? If your score after the midpoint is say 3x bigger than the second civ, why keep playing to turn 500? Why shouldn't the game at that point say "you are so far ahead, you win"?
     
  3. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,714
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Lots of great ideas here. To summarise my own views, based on what I have read here.

    1. Build on the loyalty mechanic, by re-introducing Culture/Ideology elements from Civ4/Civ5 (especially cultural pressures at the border & ethnic mixing in cities).

    2. Have negative events make it harder to achieve a regular or golden age-& have positive events make it easier to enter these ages.

    3. Make victories much more dynamic-be able to lose ground due to inattentiveness as much as you can gain ground.

    3. Have pollution mechanics that can have more local impacts (like negative city health, reduced amenities & the chance of certain tiles losing their productivity.

    4. Give Dark Ages their own "dedications", & Golden Ages their own Policy Cards.
     
    Our_DeCay and SupremacyKing2 like this.
  4. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,714
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    In general, I would like to see a more dynamic game throughout. The Golden Age/Dark Age & loyalty systems were a step in the right direction, but definitely need to be extended upon. Semi-random events (good & bad) beyond natural disasters would help too. Also, how about we bring back the concept of State vs Non-State religions & their impacts on Diplomacy & Domestic Cohesion.....perhaps even a chance of a religious schism. More later game infrastucture for our Neighbourhoods & City Centers would also be excellent.

    That said, I am finding myself sticking with my games to the end much more since BNW & Civ6 came out, than any previous iteration of the game.
     
  5. mbarker

    mbarker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4
    Location:
    Suffolk, UK
    Major, disruptive late game global conflicts like the world wars.
     
    Krajzen and SupremacyKing2 like this.
  6. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    Indiana
    Yes, that could be great but it would require the AI to be a lot better at waging wars in the late game. I've had instances of late game world wars but the AI declares war and then does nothing.
     
  7. Aussie_Lurker

    Aussie_Lurker Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    7,714
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    If Military Alliances/Defense Pacts actually forced joint wars.....then we might see more of that. Players & AI's could try and refuse, but this would end the diplomatic relationship & cost a lot of favour with multiple civs.
     
    SupremacyKing2 likes this.
  8. Lazy sweeper

    Lazy sweeper Warlord

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Evil gods. Civs focused on total destruction of science, or faith, or both, just because they earned a very particular general, scientist, artist, prophet, whatever, that changes the overall agenda and conditions of a civ for the time being, if he is not killed, or sold to someone else, that would then receive that special gift ; just one victory type, kill everyone on map, regardless of any warmongering mechanism...
    Unit kills without war declaration. Trespassing intimidations.
    Scientists, merchants, generals, engineers, back to power districts as it was in civ IV. Slain, torture, and kidnap of them
    External border operations, like Antarctica Science stations, where International team works together for advancement without the need to possess the tiles to build this structures.
    Same for Great library in ancient times, we need to build it to discover classicism pre-conditional techs, we need to tear it apart to get to classical era, torch it to the ground.
    Eureka bottleneck mod is not working. Not if we can't trade, steal, the Eureka or tech somewhere else!
    We need to postpone writings to at least 10 other pre-techs.
    We need to force AI to struggle for collaboration efforts in order to get to Laboratory with this scientists forced science trading, made difficult,
    Evil nature. You get Einstein and Fermi killed? You get no Space missions victory chances at all untill another scientist can replace them in some
    out of border international station, or Evil island secret lab well hidden in some remote island guarded by mercenary U-boots.
    Have way more satellites options like Beyond Earth, comms operations, to overcome a new fog of war mechanism necessary
    in order to make this ordeal work...


    As Steven Spielberg in one of his films once said, life always finds its way...
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  9. Lazy sweeper

    Lazy sweeper Warlord

    Joined:
    May 7, 2009
    Messages:
    104
    Because it sees Science victory too easily achieavable, often it ends up with my civ against one other major civ, that does nothing except focusing on space victory, and just by pillaging space districts, you get an easy win, too easy. There must be some Evil victory conditions set perhaps, where you get your win by killing the more units, AI must see a prize in focusing to kill units, burn down cities, like victory points needs a general revamping. It is absurd that even when I get a total domination victory, my status might be that of Nerone at best!!

    We badly need a total annihilation victory type, and hopefully a Kill the leader option, where leaders are actual units, with hero powers.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
  10. Gronaz

    Gronaz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2019
    Messages:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Strasbourg, France
    It is true that in most games, especially multiplayer, one or a few dominant players have kind of already won since mid game and if not playing one of them, passing turns to see them win is boring. Even when winning in solo, dominating late game without resistance is boring.
    In a later thread I detailed two new victories in order to change that. An economic victory would be fun, with war for resources monopolies and offensive trade routes, but it would still be like domination. However, a new collective victory could create tensions till the end. It would allow players with no more chance to win to gang up in some federation (merging science and culture yields) against dominant players to prevent them to win and bring peace.
     
  11. killmeplease

    killmeplease Mk Z on Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,794
    Location:
    Samara
    a typical computer game stays challenging because of rising difficulty
    in civ the difficulty is falling because of the snowball effect
    opponents can snowball too but you do it faster or you are losing early and losing hopelessly is even more boring than a guaranteed win
    ideally, rubberbands should pull up opponents very close to the leader, but for such a long game as civ, to design a rubberband which would work well during the whole game isnt quite possible so maybe there should be not a rubberband but rather a rocket (to which a losing player ties himself trying to overtake the leaders).
    so, a losing civ soars up, with a chance to overturn the situation, or to fail miserably (not a big deal for a losing civ).
    towards the end more and more civs should do that, trying to use the last chance. it can feel crazy but fun.
    technically, such power up could be a bonus, very strong but temporary. the player has to do something, e.g. take a city every X turns (and this period decreases), not losing own cities. with each city taken the bonus rises, but if the player fails a single time, the bonus vanishes, while he is at war with all the players from the top half of the score table (thats the price of this 'rocket'). there could be similar powerups for different victory types, or some generic ones good for any vic. unlocked at certain late game techs/civics.
    for the leader this will mean a chance to lose, if not to a 'rocket' civ but, if it has crippled the leader enough, to subdominants. so in the late game he will be occupied with fighting emerging threats.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
  12. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,810
    Location:
    Abroad
    I would say presenting new challenges like financial crashes, terrorism, treaty negotiations, and giving a small chance for new territories to appear on the map (whether new countries to settle or resource nodes to exploit) would make a globalized world come alive more in the late game.
     
  13. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Doctor of Funk

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    5,208
    Gender:
    Male
    I think these two are heading in my direction: The game doesn't change. Stagnation and tedium set in. Civ, and maybe other 4x games, are terrified of knocking the player off-balance. I don't know why, but they are. In a pseudo-historical game like Civ, for instance, the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution should each take a baseball/cricket bat to the entire world order. I'm serious, throw the card-table over. Cats and dogs, living together. A fox in the henhouse. Smash your guitar, right there on the stage. I'm running out of tired metaphors, but you get the idea. Introduce a little pandemonium. Mayhem. Carnage. What do we get instead? Press Enter 200 times, is what. It's all so timid and tidy. And for what? It certainly doesn't mimic history, that's for sure, but it's also not a very compelling game. Like SupremacyKing, my games are fun while they last, but they're typically over before I even reach the Industrial Era, because I know that nothing will happen.
     
  14. Rhyno100

    Rhyno100 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
     
  15. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    Indiana
    Thanks.
     
  16. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,482
    Location:
    Poland
    The dilemma:

    If the game is too static, then by the end game you have no way to catch runaways and win it, it becomes determined and boring.
    but
    If the game is too dynamic, then you can fail constistently and then quickly win at the end, not facing the consequences of your previous actions and not exactly developing your civilization over time but rather failing the entire time and then snatching the victory in the last moments.
    It's anticlimatic, annoying, unpredictable and makes previous long development feel pointless.

    Imagine if victory conditions in Civ were to defeat this one Final Boss of history in military battle, with any means, and any failed mediocre civ could achieve it with some stupid cheese, such as selling all its cities to buy giant death robot and killing it and winning everything.
    Of course it's ridiculous scenario but I think it works as an analogy.
    To some degree, victory in Civ game should result from good development of a civilization across ages. This feels satisfying and seems to be more grounded in reality. For Great Britain and its colonies (mainly US) to dominate the world in 20th century, they first had centuries upon centuries of slow cultural development which allowed them to make intellectual breakthroughs which enabled scientific revolution, industrial revolution, which led to English language becoming lingua franca of the entire planet Earth and its model of society being copied by everybody, which is the closest to Civ victory and real life culture ever got so far.

    So that's the real problem. We wanna for last ages of the game to reflect our great buildup and progress of early eras, but also remain exciting, with the possibility of plot twists and unexpected victories by various underdogs.

    Personally I have two ideas how this could be done.
    1) World Wars, or Shogun II Total War brute force method "everybody allies and actively fights against potential hegemon"
    In Shogun II Total War if you take control of a certain percentage of the map (IIRC it is 30%?) so in any other game by this point you'd have trivially easy walk to the victory, everybody else allies against you and declares war. Of course, in a game like Civ it would essentially turn all victories into military victories, so it could be something else rather than literal war - such as some sort of cold war, cultural embargo (against cultural victory), actual embargo (against economic victory), ruining your efforts at UN - I mean World Congress (diplomatic), or everybody else creating joint science organization in an attempt to catch to your levels of tech (scientific victory).
    ADVANTAGES:
    - It's relatively simple, straightforward solution on paper. You could maybe even make a special Emergency for it.
    DISADVANTAGES:
    - Could seem really anticlimatic
    - Could be very annoying to deal with every game, tedious
    - Could not work, due to the way technology works in civ games - if you runaway hard enough it doesn't matter if you fight 3 civs or one on the battlefield, cavalry won't beat your tanks.

    2) Creating a specific mechanic which is a gateway to later eras, way easier to cross if you develop well in early eras, but if you somehow cross it while lagging behind before - then you can rapidly rise and become contestant for the victory.

    I'd make this mechanic represent Industrialisation.

    Think about it. When Industrialisation came in IRL, it completely "changed the game". Old empires which didn't adopt it quickly enough fell greatly behind (China), while those which managed to adopt it became very dangerous despite having no previous imperial history (Japan). In the same time, it didn't just happen randomly out of thin air - in order for this to happen Japan had to be very highly developed society fulfilling certain conditions (I vaguely recall now contents of a certain book I was once reading on this subject). Industrialisation is the gateway to the modern power - South Korea was nothing in the year 1960, Third World country, and is absolute beast nowadays. China generally failed horribly for 3/4 of century, and then it achieved insane growth in last 40 years and now is rising behemoth that could threaten to became victor in civ terms (by year 2050 :p )

    Introduce a gameplay mechanic in the industrial era which significantly alters some gameplay systems, so post industrial civs really dominate over pre industrial civs. However, the process of adopting it is very painful, disproportionately more painful the bigger the empire is, and in fact it is the first way of making the late game more dynamic - empires which were easily winning so far may be simply so damaged when trying to cross it than others, seemingly weaker, catch up. Industrialising civ is also unstable and prone to invasions, civil unrest etc. However, if it is adopted succesfully, then it provides the more powerful boost the more backwards state adopted it.

    Example:
    English civ industrializes first. Then other nearby civs industrialise too (except Spain, which seemed guaranteed victor in renaissance era but now it falls from grace). Japan industrialises too, because it fulfills conditions despite being not very imperialistic and not doing anything really global before. China, the most powerful civ thus far, fails to industrialize and falls behind horribly. Industrialized civs fight for domination in the modern era. In the atomic/information era, China finally manages to industrialise and other powers maybe could stop it but failed - and now suddenly China returns from ashes to threaten seemingly guaranteed hegemon.

    ADVANTAGES: Doesn't it sound dynamic?
    DISADVANTAGES: This mechanic may be tricky to do, and when done improperly make runaway civs even more runaway, and late eras even more static and boring than before :p
     
  17. old_andy

    old_andy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2009
    Messages:
    46
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southern Sweden
    While I can't be sure, I think that the late inclusion of rock bands might be a way to alter the balance to ones favor during the end game.

    Lookit me, running mah piehole like I know what I'm talking about! :D

    Of course my credentials on the matter are two guys who posts videos of play-thoughs of press release versions of GS that I've watched in the last few days... so obviously I'm an expert :smoke:

    - if anyones feels that I should get whacked up-side the head for that last remark, you may feel vindicated in that my wife just whacked me up-side the head as she's reading this over my shoulder as I type.. which is really annoying by the way.. puts me right off my chain of thought.. god I'd give 20 bucks if *someone* made me a sandwich.. <displays stupid I-love-you grin>

    holy crap, that worked, she's gone!

    Rock bands.. right.

    Let's say you know you can't win the science race, you know the others can't win the religion or domination because you have a solid defense and your home religion is strong, and there's a chance you may lose the culture race, now you can use all that saved up faith to purchase rock bands, and if they have the 'indie' rock promotion, they'll 50 loyalty off a neighboring city.

    With this mechanic, not just the flipping of cities through the power of underground post modern thrash punk music, but also the sheer volume of culture/tourism from each rock band gig, can propel a lagging civilization to the finish line in short order.


    I think the sandwich was a lie. :undecide:
     
  18. SaiH

    SaiH Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    202
    Location:
    Austria
    I think the problem with late game has correctly been identified.

    SupremacyKing2's suggestion to re-define victory could really help. The aim of a Civ game is to lead your civ and stand the test of time, so it would totally make sense to count all victory points that your civ has earned througout the whole history while your civ has to survive until the end of turns. I don't know if everybody would like this new concept because it prevents certain playstyles that are centered around playing as efficient as possible an win as early as possible. But one could solve this problem by letting the player chose in the game settings if he wants to go for classical victory types or for one overall victory.

    I think – obiously like others here – loyality could be the key feature that can provide a mechanism that prevents the late game from becoming boring. I suggested some helpful changes to the loyality system and their effects earlier in that thread and I'm glad that others might think the same way.
    The problem here might be that players could feel bad about losing parts of their empire due to loyality issues and the remaining part of your civ seems less competitive. But I think this problem is not really an issue if the game is centered around this new victory concept suggested above. Even when nationalism causes your empire to break in smaller countries, you still have your glorious history that counts towards your overall score and there ist still enough time to catch up in later eras which makes them really matter.
     
  19. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    Indiana
    Thanks. Yes, your victory points that you earned before your civ breaks up would still count towards your final victory score. In addition to that, I would also recommend giving your remaining cities some type of "nationalism" bonus to offset the loss of cities. You could even let the player pick their "nationalism" bonus like they pick a religious belief now. The new bonus would represent your civ gaining a new sense of nationalism about itself. This bonus would serve to offset the loss of cities by giving you some type of strength or ability that you could use to build a stronger civ.
     
  20. Warwolf22

    Warwolf22 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2019
    Messages:
    12
    Space. Mars/lunar colonies. Adds more divscovery and competition.
     

Share This Page