Interesting insights from end-of-game graphs

[Abaxial]

I always like to run though the graphs you get at the end of a game, and sometimes they are quite revealing. For instance, when one Civ that never did especially well is shown to have had the most combats. You then understand that, while they were hidden by fog-of-war, they were struggling desperately to fend off attacks from barbarians. All that drama behind the scenes.

 

[Basajaun]

True...Due to my profesional background, I find myself staring too long at these graphs too. I love studying race telemetry and finding out what happened in turn 3 lap14, when engine temp started gradually going up (hole in the radiator!).
But it makes me a bit sad watching progress graphs spike right after grabbing some cities after a war, opposed to peaceful plays that result in much more discrete lines hidden between the rest.
Some general conclussions from my games (epic speed, king difficulty)

The overtake point is usually around the 120-160 turn area, regardless of peaceful or warmonger game.
Once I start having a high amount of gpt, I forget to keep purchasing regularly and mostly do bulk buys.
I am slow to settle, but by midgame (around T200) I start having more settled cities, and end up having between 5 and 15 cities more than the AI, which slows my race to the endgame significantly
My games end up being a bit too long because I spread and overdevelop too much, so my first half of a game is mostly flat progress, and the last 20 turns are supersteep, because I go from spreading resources and trade routes to focusing all in my most poweful city (usually chasing SV)

Still trying to improve my play, but I admit I have an obsessive need to make the best out of every city, and I end with 20-30 cities on standard sized maps around 10-15 pop the smallest 5, rest in the range of 20-25 and a capital with 25-35pop. Which I believe translates to super expensive districts and projects that could be avoided with a smaller sized empire and less ambitious cities.

About watching barbs on graphs. True aswell...Funny watching the first 100 turns there, where 9 out of 10 I havent been to any wars yet (or ever) yet the graphs show ridiculous spikes, only to settle gradually into a mostly flat, barely noticeable curve from T200 onwards.

 

[WiserFanatic]

Interesting to find out who was attacked the most. The ones that were not attacked are at an advantage.

 

[Finvola]

I just finished a game and looked at all the graphs after. I was playing as Gilgamesh and Cyrus was trying ever so hard at something,but it was like he couldn't settle on a victory type and accomplished a lot and nothing at the same time.

 

[MaxNacemit]

I just finished a game and looked at all the graphs after. I was playing as Gilgamesh and Cyrus was trying ever so hard at something,but it was like he couldn't settle on a victory type and accomplished a lot and nothing at the same time.

Probably it's because something in his programming prevented him from going for an SV, but that's the only victory by which the AIs won in my experience. Apart from that, I remember 1 religious victory(on a small map) and 1 cultural victory by Roosvelt in the base game. The AIs spam rock bands, but they aren't a threat to me normally even if I go for an SV or RV.

 

[kaspergm]

I like them too, but I still can't believe that after more than 3 years of being active, we still have to select every single graph from a pull-down menu instead of just having an option to click "next" to browse through them.

I mean seriously, is it rocket science that having to choose how many, close to 20?, different graphs from a pull-down menu is horrible interface design?

 

[Victoria]

What I find a little disturbing is the general linear nature of the AI’s progression.
Something to ponder over

 

[Depravo]

In all Civ games there's been that inflection point when the human player starts to snowball. Here you might as well quit because you can't lose. Exactly when that falls varies, but in score I tend to go from the bottom rank to #1 very fast and improve that lead to the end of the game.

 

[jshelr]

Depravo Siring Bastards
Joined:
Sep 28, 2005
Messages:
1,238
Location:
England
New
"In all Civ games there's been that inflection point when the human player starts to snowball. Here you might as well quit because you can't lose. Exactly when that falls varies, but in score I tend to go from the bottom rank to #1 very fast and improve that lead to the end of the game."

Exactly. For many years, I guess now for decades, I have wished for a way to "tip over the king" like they do in chess. You get to the point where the AI can't win, but you can't ask them to give up. There should be a way to record a victory without playing out the game for hours on end.

IMO, this is somewhat more important in CivVI. The AI doesn't seem to keep up after the mid game. I've only played to emperor level, however. Maybe it's ok after that.

 

[Abaxial]

Exactly. For many years, I guess now for decades, I have wished for a way to "tip over the king" like they do in chess. You get to the point where the AI can't win, but you can't ask them to give up. There should be a way to record a victory without playing out the game for hours on end.

I feel the same about professional snooker!

All games of the so-called 4X type have the same problem of falling into four phases, the nature of which is obscured by the silly obsession of making them all X-words.

Phase 1 - RECON -you are exploring your initial position.
Phase 2 - CONTACT - you have now met some enemy powers. You are competing on more or less equal terms and this is the crisis of the game. You can lose in this phase. If you make it through this phase, victory is more or less assured.
Phase 3 - CONQUEST - you are now asserting your dominance. There can be some interesting wars, but you have all the advantages.
Phase 4 - MOP-UP - the enemies are now feeble and it's just a case of actually getting to the technical finish line. Most of your empire management is boring because it really doesn't matter.

This has been true since the days of the old Empire game ()remember that?). One would really like to end the game after Phase 3.

 

[Depravo]

All games of the so-called 4X type have the same problem of falling into four phases, the nature of which is obscured by the silly obsession of making them all X-words.

Phase 1 - RECON -you are exploring your initial position.
Phase 2 - CONTACT - you have now met some enemy powers. You are competing on more or less equal terms and this is the crisis of the game. You can lose in this phase. If you make it through this phase, victory is more or less assured.
Phase 3 - CONQUEST - you are now asserting your dominance. There can be some interesting wars, but you have all the advantages.
Phase 4 - MOP-UP - the enemies are now feeble and it's just a case of actually getting to the technical finish line. Most of your empire management is boring because it really doesn't matter.

So goddamn true. And no 4X I've ever played has managed to present friction within a large empire in a satisfactory way.