Hubris - The solution to late game rut?

[BackseatTyrant]

One thing I've always rooted for in the Civ series, is a proper future era and all that it entails; Call To Power will always have a special place in my heart, with how it let the player take the historical legacy they themself has built since the dawn of agriculture, into a fully-fledged sci-fi setting. However, whenever I suggest this, I somehow always get pushback for the idea, and the problem mentioned almost always goes as follows:

The game is basically already over by the time you reach the Industrial era. One civ will have snowballed so much it's impossible for any other to win

I've seen this sentiment has been repeated many times throughout other contexts, and when I try to come up with a mechanic to counteract this phenomenon that seems to plague the 4X genre, one word keeps popping up in my head: Hubris.

It'd basically function as the complete inverse of the Era Score introduced in R&F, but with a small twist. Every time a civilization does something that would be considered a "historic moment" through a nationalistic lens (e.g. defeat a strong foe in combat, conquer a key area, build a great wonder, win a technological race), but even a single of said civ's settlements suffers from insufficient living standard during such moment, the Hubris meter would go up. There'd be no direct consequences from the Hubris, but once it'd reach a critical threashold, all hell would break loose, and a severe collapse of the empire would be imminent. Morever, I think mechanic should work so that it's not possible to pull the Hubris level back down, only prevent it from going further up, thus highlighting the consequences of not looking after one's own.

I'm suggesting this, because it should properly discourage human players from always trying to be the biggest and greatest ever. Plus, it would be amusing to see CPU players who are programmed to still play with that mindset, then gloriously crumble under the weight of their own successes. On top of that, worrying about Hubris would give more meaning to the game's various standards-of-living metrics (Food, Water, Health, Housing, Leisure, Literacy, Equality etc) beyond a very detached and almost inhumane "this gives a bonus to population growth and/or production speed".

Also, since I mentioned Call To Power, I would be amiss to not bring up the RockPaperShotgun article on the game, specifically where it mentions the plethora of civilian unit classes that lets the player undermine enemy player's progress. I wonder if the same kind of units could be used to boost enemy Hubris or enemy sensitivity to Hubris...

 

[pokiehl]

This is a really interesting idea to consider. I always felt like Civ needed some “end game crisis” like Stellaris has to shake things up and keep it exciting until the end. The problem, of course, is making that fit into a history themed game. For Stellaris it’s no problem; it’s a sci-fi game so they were free to be creative with designing the emergent factions that threaten the entire galaxy.

For Civ, I never could figure out what might make sense, but something like the “Hubris” you’re describing could very well be the framework for it. Cool suggestion.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Come on, the one who pirated pokiehl's account, who are you ?

Seriously, I've imagined a similar mechanic in the idea in my signature, with whatever called currency but that I called by that time "coercion points". Basically once you created your first city or state, you had a coercion points threshold to reach to prevent your empire from a certain chance % of collapse per turn. The problem here was that I didn't know whether there would still be a small chance of collapsing even if you have reached the threshold or not. Not : it could potentially annihilate any collapse by cautious players. Yes : the eventual collapse will feel unfair, especially in modern eras.

But I have another idea right now : What about a 1 chance on 10000 to collapse with the threshold reached in any turn ? Early, that could be acceptable, but that means that one time among 10000 you might still collapse in a turn in modern era. As there is 500 turns in a standard game, that make 10000/500 = 20 chances to collapse with the threshold reached everytime, it is to say 1 chance every 20 game. And if we count "during the modern era only", it's even much less than that. I think that's a reasonnable rate to make every player experience the collapse of say, USSR for example, at least once.

Anyway, to produce "coercion points" you need a government place like a palace and specialists affected in there. So, after you formed your first state or city, you would have to build those and would be at the mercy or the RNG meanwhile. So, collapses are more or less intended to happen anyway, early that is. After, I imagined that each collapse would lower the thresold, or raise your default "coercion points" to represent that your nation is learning about its environment and the running of a state. So that after X collapse, you would anyway reach the threshold.

Last but far from being the least, a collapse is not game over. It might be annoying in modern times when everything is a civilization (no more barbarians or hunter-gatherers nor pastoralists, well, presumably) but in early game it might even be desired : your population sparsing around discovering new lands, the possibility to return to an hunter-gatherer way of life or barbarian, and hopefully many other advantages. You could even gather your population into your old territory and cities, and, by having learned from your environment, earn new unique technologies, improvements, promotions, units, resources, etc.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Come on, the one who pirated pokiehl's account, who are you ?

Seriously, I've imagined a similar mechanic in the idea in my signature, with whatever called currency but that I called by that time "coercion points". Basically once you created your first city or state, you had a coercion points threshold to reach to prevent your empire from a certain chance % of collapse per turn. The problem here was that I didn't know whether there would still be a small chance of collapsing even if you have reached the threshold or not. Not : it could potentially annihilate any collapse by cautious players. Yes : the eventual collapse will feel unfair, especially in modern eras.

But I have another idea right now : What about a 1 chance on 10000 to collapse with the threshold reached in any turn ? Early, that could be acceptable, but that means that one time among 10000 you might still collapse in a turn in modern era. As there is 500 turns in a standard game, that make 10000/500 = 20 chances to collapse with the threshold reached everytime, it is to say 1 chance every 20 game. And if we count "during the modern era only", it's even much less than that. I think that's a reasonnable rate to make every player experience the collapse of say, USSR for example, at least once.

Anyway, to produce "coercion points" you need a government place like a palace and specialists affected in there. So, after you formed your first state or city, you would have to build those and would be at the mercy or the RNG meanwhile. So, collapses are more or less intended to happen anyway, early that is. After, I imagined that each collapse would lower the thresold, or raise your default "coercion points" to represent that your nation is learning about its environment and the running of a state. So that after X collapse, you would anyway reach the threshold.

Last but far from being the least, a collapse is not game over. It might be annoying in modern times when everything is a civilization (no more barbarians or hunter-gatherers nor pastoralists, well, presumably) but in early game it might even be desired : your population sparsing around discovering new lands, the possibility to return to an hunter-gatherer way of life or barbarian, and hopefully many other advantages. You could even gather your population into your old territory and cities, and, by having learned from your environment, earn new unique technologies, improvements, promotions, units, resources, etc.

This... sounds basically like the complete opposite of what I was suggesting; accumulating "coercion points" to prevent an empire collapse, suggests you want the game to punish the player for not being authoritarian enough. Also, making this mechanic a matter of RNG, is a terrible idea; there is no strategy in leaving things to chance

 

[Naokaukodem]

This... sounds basically like the complete opposite of what I was suggesting;

No lol, it's not "the complete opposite", I have no clue what makes you think that.

accumulating "coercion points" to prevent an empire collapse, suggests you want the game to punish the player for not being authoritarian enough.

I just employed the term "coercion" because I was thinking about keeping the empire cohesive, but in fact it would also work with natural disasters prevention, famines, invasions... so in fact "coercion" is maybe not the good term. It's instead here to represent the elites (specialists) that work to keep the empire an empire from multiple perspectives. And again, it's not here to punish, a collapse is not game over and can and should bring a lot of positives.

Also, making this mechanic a matter of RNG, is a terrible idea;

As to RNG, it's here to make collapses possible, so not a waste of time development, otherwise players would always avoid them. It's also meant to let the player to take risks if the threshold is not reached voluntarily. (taking risks vs. hindering oneself voluntarily) Now if it's reached the odds of collapsing would be so that he should experience a collapse less than 1 game out of 20 in an entire game, that he could recover from it, and that he might want anyway, but we can make it less likely even more depending on players' preferences. It also depends on how the game is made, if hunters-gatherers, barbarians or pastoralists or city-States can win the game somehow for example, and more generally their importance, gameplay etc.

there is no strategy in leaving things to chance

It's not because there is no RNG that there isn't a factor of chance. For instance, in your idea the player may or might not increase its hubris, it would just be a matter of how are its cities in those "moments". By the way with no RNG he will make everything possible to avoid those, by the thiniest margin possible. And if he doesn't/is new to the game, its entire game would be wasted for what ? Doing too good ? So Settler would be harder than Deity... unless you concentrate only on things that don't increase hubris, it is to say not that many things. The best way to play your game would be to pass a number of turns and wait for the AIs to collapse, the game would be basically boredom until modern era when you convert into a scavenger, unless I misunderstood you.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I suppose 'Hubris' as a gameplay mechanic the way you described could be compelling but it does not make too much logical sense to me.

Is it supposed to emulate the "Why are we sending rockets to the moon when we should be feeding our people?"

I think at the very least there should be methods to reduce it. And maybe give it a different name like Instability (to weave it with other mechanics??)

 

[Evie]

I think the idea of "hubris" leading to all hell breaking loose all of a sudden is both rather unrealistic, and distinctly excessive in gameplay terms with the switch from "everything is fine" to "everything is falling apart".

A more realistic interpretation (and better for gameplay) of the complacency that is bred by unending success would be gradually increasing penalties the more you accumulate victories - and reducing them as others start to catch up.

 

[Patine]

I think the idea of "hubris" leading to all hell breaking loose all of a sudden is both rather unrealistic, and distinctly excessive in gameplay terms with the switch from "everything is fine" to "everything is falling apart".

Yes, it does sound kind of like those big disaster movies that were thick on the ground out of Hollywood between the late '90's and the early 2010's (especially with their contrived and ridiculous resolutions).

 

[Leucarum]

Decadence could be another way to theme an ability like that. Though probably better to have a continuous scale of maluses, otherwise players will just bring themselves up to, but never exceed the threshold to maximize benefits.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I also think that basing that on special moments is kind of difficult, if not impossible. I would rather see the hubris go up a little bit each time there's some malfunction or discontent than having it rise during those moments.

 

[Patine]

Decadence could be another way to theme an ability like that. Though probably better to have a continuous scale of maluses, otherwise players will just bring themselves up to, but never exceed the threshold to maximize benefits.

Decadence would not just be an endgame phenomenon, like the TS is talking about, though.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Ah, Hubris, that fine old Classical Greek concept.

But I suggest it could/should be a lot more nuanced than simply "accumulate Hubris Points (Hubricity?) and Collapse.

After all, IRL the empires that suffered such Collapses did so for many different specific reasons: external and/or internal pressures, 'complacency' (as in, using more and more resources for personal/private gain rather than Maintenance of the empire), Rising Competition from other states that finally Out Compete your Hubriciousness, etc.. The resulting collapse also takes many forms: complete disintegration under pressure (Rome, several Chinese Dynasties) into a Conquered or fragmented state, Economic (as in, no longer able to sell anything you have at any price you want - see Britain circa 1930 or USA circa 1980), Gross Overestimation of your own capabilities (as in, Khwarizim versus Genghis, Nazi Germany versus The World).

That last would be difficult to model, because one has to assume that a human player can read the map and count the units/cities/technologies arrayed against him, and such simple counting should be reasonable to program into an AI's calculations as well.

The rest would seem to require several different mechanics to simulate, or could all be 'lumped' into a single Steady Increase in Negative Characteristics. I suggest, though, that to avoid making it a system fairly easily avoided by the Human Player, the rate of Increase of Negativity should be directly related both to what you try to do for Victory (Economic, Military, Diplomatic Dominance) and to decisions/actions taken by the other States/Civs in the game - putting all the modifiers under control of the player's decisions simply risks making it another road to Human Player dominance, another system that he/she can avoid while the AI cannot.

In this respect, it might well resemble the oft-reviled current system of Reputation, wherein any attempt to even begin a Domination Victory results inm Universal Condemnation/Denounce Cascade by every other Civ in the game. Rather than such a simple-minded explicit system, have your Hubris modify other states' Opinion of you, but not just due to military action, also to economic, diplomatic, political actions. Suzereign too many City States - provoke a negative factor in your relations with other Civs. Maintain too high a percentage of Gold income from trade? Provoke Envious trade practices by other Civs. This Negative View of your Civ could be increased among not only Civs, but also City States and other NPC in the game, right down to Barbarians.

Eventually, the point of the exercise is that you are getting lousy trade agreements, losing suzereignty of all your City States, losing Money, and getting the short end of any Diplomatic gestures. Whether all that leads to a 'tipping point' which enacts more extreme actions/measures depoends on what is seen to be needed to handicap the Race to Victory. Personally, I think, in another link to existing system, it could tie in to the Loyalty system, in that citizens who are losing money to Foreign Trade/Embargoes, losing access to City State bonuses, getting harassed whenever they try to visit/do business outside of the Civ, are going to start demanding that Things Change. Trigger the Revolution, Succession, Passive Resistance, or All Out Overthrow the Gummint!

Which, in turn, could trigger some form of Collapse. But again, 'Collapse' doesn't have to mean End Game.
Western Roman Empire collapsed, but the Eastern Empire remained a going, even expanding concern for another 1000 years. Every Chinese Dynastic collapse for 2000 years was followed by a new Chinese or semi-Chinese or 'foreign' Dynasty and State - frequently with many or most of the characteristics of the previous 'pre-collapse' Chinese State.

So the form and degree of Collapse should vary, giving the gamer (or AI) another set of problems to contend with that may be Serious, even Devastating, but not necessarily Hopeless. As an example, Royal France spent most of the 18th century Bankrupt, and losing virtually every major colonial possession she had accumulated in the previous century. She ended this steep decent from Louis XIV's "I am the State" to Louis XVI's "I am in a State", followed by Revolution, abrupt change of government, internal Civil War and destruction or radical change in most of her internal cultural, political, and economic system. In game terms, her pursuit of every Victory Condition was crippled.

20 years after the Revolution of 1789 France controlled all of Europe west of Russia and Austria, had conquered and reorganized Germany and Italy. It took a coalition of virtually every other major state in Europe (and several minor ones) to defeat France by 1815, and yet she was still considered the Major Power on the continent, second only to Britain and maybe Prussia, until 1871. In other words, Collapse was and should be a Relative Term, with results and consequences potentially possible to overcome. Realities of population, production, and some egregious mistakes in diplomacy and military decisions wrecked France as a major power in the mid-20th century, but that could be said to be separate from the Royal France Collapse of one and a half centuries earlier.
'
That, I think, should be the model for any Hubris Collapse: disastrous possibly, dangerous certainly, but Never Game Ending.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Shuckee Gee, I guess a Wall of Text drove everybody off . . .

So, just to goose this idea a bit, here are some ideas about what could trigger/impose Hubris Points on a Civ. Numbers are not absolute, but more to show the relative importance that could be attached to some actions, all within the context of hampering the rampant rush to victory that now comprises most end game play by the human players.

Military Hubris:
Every Foreign Capital you control: 25 Hubris Points
Every foreign non-capital city you control: 10 Hubris points (including City States)
Every Unit loss you inflicted in excess of your own Unit losses 1 Hubris Point
Every Great General/Admiral you have or have had 5 Hubris Points
Every foreign city you Raze 15 Hubris Points (including City States)
Every Encampment and Encampment Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Harbor District, Shipyard you have 1 Hubris Point

Cultural Hubris:
Every Wonder you have Built and still Control 25 Hubris Points*
Every Great Work you have 10 Hubris Points
Every City that defects to you from Culture/Loyalty 15 Hubris Points
Every tile you have as a result of a Culture Bomb 1 Hubris Point
Every Great Person of any kind you have had 5 Hubris Points
(except Generals, Admirals, Prophets or Scientists)
Every Theatre Square and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Entertainment Complex and Building you have 1 Hubris Point

Religious Hubris:
Have Founded a Religion 15 Hubris Points
Every foreign city you spread your religion to 5 Hubris Points (including City States)
Every foreign Religious Unit you destroy 2 Hubris Points
Every Apostle or Guru you build 1 Hubris Point
Every Holy Site and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Relic you have 1 Hubris Point

Scientific Hubris:
Every time you got a Technology first: 10 Hubris Points
Every time you built a Unit type first: 5 Hubris Points
Every time you built a Structure type first: 5 Hubris Points
Every Campus District and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Great Scientist you have had 5 Hubris Points

Diplomatic/Civilization Hubris:
Every Diplomatic Quarter and Building you have 5 Hubris Points
Every Entertainment Complex and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Industrial Zone and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Commercial Hub and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Trade Route to a foreign city you have 2 Hubris Points (including City States)
Every Envoy you generate 1 Hubris Point
Every Barbarian Camp you have destroyed 1 Hubris Point
Every Natural Wonder you found first 1 Hubris Point
Every Natural Wonder in your territory 10 Hubris Points

* = Wonders could also each be given a specific Hubris Point total they generate based on the type of Wonder. Late Game (expensive to produce) Wonders giving more Hubris, Cultural or Religious Wonders giving more Hubris related to those categories. Likewise, Uhique versions of Districts, Buildings, or Units could/should probably all produce more Hubris than regular versions.

This is a First Pass, so I'm sure there is a lot I've left out. The idea is, reach a Tipping Point of Too Much Hubris, and Bad Things should start to happen to place a Brake on your continued headlong rush to victory. All your Diplomatic/Trade actions get negative responses, tax revenue goes down and Units are more costly to build because nobody sees any need to sacrifice time or money since We Be The Greatest, etc.

The Bad Things should be gradual, however, so you can reverse or slow the Hubris trend. BUT that will /should also require you to modify the actions towards Victory that started it in the first place.

 

[GeneralZIft]

When you do basically anything: get more points on a meter that makes you lose.

Not sure this is great game design

I think if you want to employ some kind of anti-snowball mechanic you could instead benefit the losing players instead of punish the winning players.

For example:

Tech points from trade

Culture points from propaganda (an anti-tourism mechanic you could have)

Reduced production / gold cost on Structures and Units that enough other players already own (How these things are built is now more common knowledge)

Increased gold from Migrants to other countries (A mechanic where you gain gold from YOUR tourists in other countries, as they are attracted by Tourism (Culture) and come home to spend)

Isolationist Policies - you could employ this to prevent enemy religions and trade. Smaller empires probably don't mind as much as bigger empires so this benefits Tall, Religious players who are losing Religion wars, for example.

I'm not sure what else, but you get the gist. I think if they really focus on making sure that some mechanics benefit Losers more than Winners, then we don't really need a "Hubris"

Just then also focus on Jealousy features for the AI, and you're done

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

When you do basically anything: get more points on a meter that makes you lose.

Not sure this is great game design

I think if you want to employ some kind of anti-snowball mechanic you could instead benefit the losing players instead of punish the winning players.

For example:

Tech points from trade

Culture points from propaganda (an anti-tourism mechanic you could have)

Reduced production / gold cost on Structures and Units that enough other players already own (How these things are built is now more common knowledge)

Increased gold from Migrants to other countries (A mechanic where you gain gold from YOUR tourists in other countries, as they are attracted by Tourism (Culture) and come home to spend)

Isolationist Policies - you could employ this to prevent enemy religions and trade. Smaller empires probably don't mind as much as bigger empires so this benefits Tall, Religious players who are losing Religion wars, for example.

I'm not sure what else, but you get the gist. I think if they really focus on making sure that some mechanics benefit Losers more than Winners, then we don't really need a "Hubris"

Just then also focus on Jealousy features for the AI, and you're done

Not at all. "makes you lose" would imply that Hubris is catatrophic which is exactly the opposite of what I posted earlier.

This is designed to give the gamer more problems rushing to victory in the end game, not stifle victory completely.

It is proposed because the AI in both Civs V and VI has been hopeless inept as an opponent so I think it is also hopelessly optimistic to assume some Breakthrough in AI design will make it so much better that it actually plays the game.

Note that as a side effect, such a system makes Tall a very viable alternative to Wide, since Tall play would avoid the worst effects of Hubris almost automatically.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Shuckee Gee, I guess a Wall of Text drove everybody off . . .

So, just to goose this idea a bit, here are some ideas about what could trigger/impose Hubris Points on a Civ. Numbers are not absolute, but more to show the relative importance that could be attached to some actions, all within the context of hampering the rampant rush to victory that now comprises most end game play by the human players.

Military Hubris:
Every Foreign Capital you control: 25 Hubris Points
Every foreign non-capital city you control: 10 Hubris points (including City States)
Every Unit loss you inflicted in excess of your own Unit losses 1 Hubris Point
Every Great General/Admiral you have or have had 5 Hubris Points
Every foreign city you Raze 15 Hubris Points (including City States)
Every Encampment and Encampment Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Harbor District, Shipyard you have 1 Hubris Point

Cultural Hubris:
Every Wonder you have Built and still Control 25 Hubris Points*
Every Great Work you have 10 Hubris Points
Every City that defects to you from Culture/Loyalty 15 Hubris Points
Every tile you have as a result of a Culture Bomb 1 Hubris Point
Every Great Person of any kind you have had 5 Hubris Points
(except Generals, Admirals, Prophets or Scientists)
Every Theatre Square and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Entertainment Complex and Building you have 1 Hubris Point

Religious Hubris:
Have Founded a Religion 15 Hubris Points
Every foreign city you spread your religion to 5 Hubris Points (including City States)
Every foreign Religious Unit you destroy 2 Hubris Points
Every Apostle or Guru you build 1 Hubris Point
Every Holy Site and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Relic you have 1 Hubris Point

Scientific Hubris:
Every time you got a Technology first: 10 Hubris Points
Every time you built a Unit type first: 5 Hubris Points
Every time you built a Structure type first: 5 Hubris Points
Every Campus District and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Great Scientist you have had 5 Hubris Points

Diplomatic/Civilization Hubris:
Every Diplomatic Quarter and Building you have 5 Hubris Points
Every Entertainment Complex and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Industrial Zone and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Commercial Hub and Building you have 2 Hubris Points
Every Trade Route to a foreign city you have 2 Hubris Points (including City States)
Every Envoy you generate 1 Hubris Point
Every Barbarian Camp you have destroyed 1 Hubris Point
Every Natural Wonder you found first 1 Hubris Point
Every Natural Wonder in your territory 10 Hubris Points

* = Wonders could also each be given a specific Hubris Point total they generate based on the type of Wonder. Late Game (expensive to produce) Wonders giving more Hubris, Cultural or Religious Wonders giving more Hubris related to those categories. Likewise, Uhique versions of Districts, Buildings, or Units could/should probably all produce more Hubris than regular versions.

This is a First Pass, so I'm sure there is a lot I've left out. The idea is, reach a Tipping Point of Too Much Hubris, and Bad Things should start to happen to place a Brake on your continued headlong rush to victory. All your Diplomatic/Trade actions get negative responses, tax revenue goes down and Units are more costly to build because nobody sees any need to sacrifice time or money since We Be The Greatest, etc.

The Bad Things should be gradual, however, so you can reverse or slow the Hubris trend. BUT that will /should also require you to modify the actions towards Victory that started it in the first place.

I'm not sure if most of these examples should be generating Hubris, especially not in the last category. Remember, the point of this system is to encourage the player to lay relatively low and tend to the people of their own civ; that is why Hubris should only generate when standards of living are insufficient in even one city, even in a single category. A lot of 4X games expect the player to be the bestest ever at all times, and I think that is the main thing that's making these games drag, especially towards the end, if the many posts I've seen here about it are to be believed. Anyway, here's a list of some examples of what I was considering to generate Hubris:

• Winning battles against another civ's strongest unit
• Winning battles against another civ's last unit
• Clearing a region of barbarians (or what else unaffiliated combatants are going to be called)
• Winning wonder races
• Winning space races
• Successfully influencing World Congress resolutions
• Culturally dominating another civ
• Religiously dominating another civ
• Leading the scoreboard on land area
• Leading the scoreboard on population
• Leading the scoreboard on GDP
• Leading the scoreboard on military strength
• Having more military strength than rest of the world combined
• Being the first to colonize an overseas continent
• Being the most to colonize an overseas continent
• Controlling the head of the biggest religion
• Sacking the head of the biggest religion

Basically, anything that would bring glory to the player, but cause suffering to the player's subjects, the player's enemies, and/or the subjects of the player's enemies. Granted, these criteria do look similar to victory conditions (at least partially), but that's exactly the point: to prevent any one civ to snowball themselves to an easy/early win

 

[GeneralZIft]

This sounds like anti-era score. I just don't think it's a good idea. Era score is already terrible.
Also, I don't understand what counts as "not tending to your people" that is very vague and confusing.

Under what conditions can I build a wonder and gain no Hubris? None? Okay...
If there are conditions, it should be related to the happiness of the cities maybe?
I'm just spitballing.

Again, like I said, from a game design perspective I don't think it's healthy to nerf the winning player when you can add way more mechanics to buff the losing player.
And/Or add authentic drawbacks to the winning player.

Not at all. "makes you lose" would imply that Hubris is catatrophic which is exactly the opposite of what I posted earlier.

This is designed to give the gamer more problems rushing to victory in the end game, not stifle victory completely.

It is proposed because the AI in both Civs V and VI has been hopeless inept as an opponent so I think it is also hopelessly optimistic to assume some Breakthrough in AI design will make it so much better that it actually plays the game.

Note that as a side effect, such a system makes Tall a very viable alternative to Wide, since Tall play would avoid the worst effects of Hubris almost automatically.

It's not catastrophic but it is inconvenient and "gamey"

If all players are winning (high Hubris), then all of them slow down and this mechanic does nothing! All it does is slow the game down for no reason...

Moreover, about AI, I think you would surprised at how many games make a major comeback in terms of AI where there has been complaints in the past. That, and, in other mechanics. I'm certain that the AI of Civ7 will be much better as the AI and Diplomacy was the largest complaint of Civ6. It's been many years since Civ6, which was a very successful title. So I would imagine they would funnel a lot of money into making the AI really good if they want even more success for Civ7.
(This happened for various titles, it's not a stretch to say that this improvement could happen)

 

[BackseatTyrant]

This sounds like anti-era score. I just don't think it's a good idea. Era score is already terrible.
Moreover, I don't understand what counts as "not tending to your people" that is very vague and confusing.

Under what conditions can I build a wonder and gain no Hubris? None? Okay...
If there are conditions, it should be related to the happiness of the cities maybe?
I'm just spitballing.

Sorry for being vague about that detail. Yeah no, I was thinking of also having a set of different living standards metrics, such as Food, Water, Health, Housing etc, as I mentioned in the first post. As for 'happiness', I hope they stop using that word because of how imprecise it can be to define it; strategy games cannot seem to make their minds up if the word is meant to primarily mean leader approval or access to leisure, and I think it'd be better if the two concepts are made unambiguously distinct.

And yes, an inverse of the Era Score system was indeed what this idea started out as; punishing players for not pursuing constant, exponential growth, has always felt off to me. On top of that, the previous attempts at punishing players for over-extension (corruption, maintenance cost, global happiness etc) all felt more annoying than genuinely dreadful. Like, I don't believe the player should be given a slap on their wrists directly after each of their wrongful actions, but rather, again, dread the ketchup effect they're building up themselves, or heck, not be aware of said effect at all until it's too late, simply for being too caught up in their own desire for expansion, conquest and dominance. This is also how I feel about the global warming mechanic in GS, by the way; triggers too early, with not enough dire consequences. Rather than some coastal tiles being flooded every six power plants or so, I was expecting more of everything being fine for a century or two, before half the world suddenly turns into an inhospitable desert, almost all the crops fail, fires are everywhere, culminating with Earth basically turning into Venus, surface- and atmosphere-wise

 

[Patine]

Sorry for being vague about that detail. Yeah no, I was thinking of also having a set of different living standards metrics, such as Food, Water, Health, Housing etc, as I mentioned in the first post. As for 'happiness', I hope they stop using that word because of how imprecise it can be to define it; strategy games cannot seem to make their minds up if the word is meant to primarily mean leader approval or access to leisure, and I think it'd be better if the two concepts are made unambiguously distinct.

And yes, an inverse of the Era Score system was indeed what this idea started out as; punishing players for not pursuing constant, exponential growth, has always felt off to me. On top of that, the previous attempts at punishing players for over-extension (corruption, maintenance cost, global happiness etc) all felt more annoying than genuinely dreadful. Like, I don't believe the player should be given a slap on their wrists directly after each of their wrongful actions, but rather, again, dread the ketchup effect they're building up themselves, or heck, not be aware of said effect at all until it's too late, simply for being too caught up in their own desire for expansion, conquest and dominance. This is also how I feel about the global warming mechanic in GS, by the way; triggers too early, with not enough dire consequences. Rather than some coastal tiles being flooded every six power plants or so, I was expecting more of everything being fine for a century or two, before half the world suddenly turns into an inhospitable desert, almost all the crops fail, fires are everywhere, culminating with Earth basically turning into Venus, surface- and atmosphere-wise

Although, I do admit, I usually disagree, for various reasons of opinion and gameplay preferences (we tend to see the game in very different visions) I must strongly side with GeneralZIft here that this mechanic seems annoying, arbitrary, gamey, and counter to the spirit of a game in the Civ series.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

IMO, the reason the late game feels tedious is because nothing really happens that matters. You have finished expanding and settling new cities. It is all about building up your cities. You might complete some wonders, complete some new buildings, get some Great People. But there is nothing to shake up the status quo. The powerful civs tend to remain on top. The weak civs are hopelessly behind. Part of it is because the AI is too passive. They don't go to war with me and if they do, they are no match for me, or don't really try to do anything. When you are about to win, and there are no wars going on, no threat, you just end up clicking "end turn" a lot waiting for the official victory screen.

My issue with the hubris concept is that I fear that it would be frustrating and not fun for the player. I mean, why bother building a great empire if the game is always going to undo everything in the end?

I do think you could introduce crisis events. For example, you could have a massive barbarian invasion around the mid game, similar to the Mongol invasion in Europe. This would give the player something to do as they would need to defend their territory to avoid getting their cities plundered. In the modern era, you could have a special event that could push two civs closer to war and if civs have alliances, it could cause a world war scenario, similar to how WW1 started with an assassination. So imagine a pop up that says "an assassin has managed to kill your heir to the throne. People blame civ X". The player could choose two options: A) go to war with civ X. B) Do nothing and suffer a revolution (suffer 2 turns of anarchy and forced to change governments). These types of events with decision trees could shake things up a bit. Also, there could be crisis events like a global pandemic that causes population to drop.

I will add that I am generally not a warmonger type player but I do find that in most civ games, wars make things more interesting. It is periods of peace where you are just building stuff that tend to be boring. When another civ attacks you and you have to defend, that is when things get interesting because there are stakes (losing your cities) and you have to move units, strategize about how to defend. Or if you need to conquer some territory in order to get needed resources, planning the invasion and then moving the units and attacking, is interesting. Again, you are doing something with stakes and having to strategize. I am not saying the entire game should be about war. Civ is more than just war. Civ is about building. But like history, there should be periods of peace and periods of war. This would keep things interesting since you would need to prepare for war. You could not just click "end turn" building stuff. And wars tend to be more interesting because they shake things up. Cities might change hands. Civs that were once strong might become weak. Civs that were once weak might become strong. New techs might be discovered. Revolutions might happen as a result of the war that causes governments to change. It is why human history often focuses on wars and we have so many documentaries about wars. Of course, this sort of assumes that the AI will be good enough. As I mentioned above, you could have AIs declare war and nothing happens because the AI is too weak to fight a war. But assuming the AI is better at war, having periods of war, could shake up the game IMO and help avoid that rut.

Lastly, I would say that just having more geopolitical tension can help. I know when a neighboring civ conquers a city-state that I was trading with, that adds tension. I have to decide how to respond. Do I go to war to liberate that city-state or not? If a neighboring civ is on a conquest spree, how do I stop them from getting too powerful? I've had games where 2 neighbors are at war and I have to decide if I stay neutral or if I get involved, which one do I ally with? Maybe I have no aluminum, how do I get some? Maybe the closest aluminum is owned by another civ, do I attack them to get it? Maybe some aluminum is available on an empty small continent, and I am in a race with another civ to colonize that continent first. Maybe my neighbor just got nukes, so I am in a race to get nukes too. Those types of things can make games more interesting too, not just wars themselves.