My (simple) revision on the Diplomatic Victory.

[Myzenium]

If there's any Civ3 Victory that most multiplayer gamers surely disable often, it's the Diplomatic Victory. What's the point in letting popularity determine the winner of a game with so many good features? The players could skip the many mutual sessions of Civ and just put the game to a vote. It would save time. This Victory reminds me of that "reality" TV program, Survivor, in which the most popular contestant takes the grand prize.

(I personally disliked the program after watching the first season, but I'm sure there are many Civ players who watch and enjoy Survivor.)

However, I digress. Perhaps the Diplomatic Victory can be improved. Here's my idea:

1. Scrap the Score Victory. I, at least, haven't used it much.
2. Delay the vote for the UN Secretary-General until the turn limit has been reached. A Diplomatic Victory can only be done when every one of the turns has been completed.

I confess that there's a difficulty; the idea isn't realistic. However, if the Celts built the Pyramids, triggering their Golden Age, then no one can honestly say that happened IRL. I don't see realism as a design requirement for Civ4.

 

[fractaled]

i won't go into more detail, since it's ot, but you don't if you think "the most popular contestant" wins...

 

[ManOfMiracles]

I don't equate the diplomatic victory with Survivor, but I do disable diplo as a victory because there really isn't anything fun about it.

 

[dh_epic]

A totally seperate idea -- sort of a combination of other people's suggestions -- was to reward people who served as a solid negotiator instead of war monger in times of crisis. If you enhanced the diplomacy screen, this could be accomplished by negotiating peace between nations as a third party (you guys give back the oil, and you guys get back a city, and i'll pay 50 gold to help you rebuild -- if we can all just get along).

Pulling enough of these kinds of deals off with a certain level of intensity and sustainability would make you the diplomatic victor -- assuming that you didn't get dragged into war yourself.

This would open up a new strategy, and also empower players. Diplomatic players would gain choice by giving them an alternative route to victory. For opponents of said players, they have much more power to "block" and "mess up" someone else's diplomatic victory -- something you can't say as much about the UN.

 

[Myzenium]

Fractaled said:

i won't go into more detail, since it's ot, but you don't if you think "the most popular contestant" wins...

Thanks for the troll. If you're expecting that I will now confess that I haven't ever seen an episode of Survivor, you're quite wrong. However, you're right in saying that it's off-topic.

A totally seperate idea -- sort of a combination of other people's suggestions -- was to reward people who served as a solid negotiator instead of war monger in times of crisis...

dh_epic, it may seem a nice idea at first glance, but a significant exploit could be performed in multiplayer games:

Two friends could exchange 100 gold for 100 gold every turn. Since diplomacy is done secretly and discreetly, they could continue doing this undetected, accumulating points, until the UN is built. Then one of them, maybe both, would surely win.

Nice try.

 

[Myzenium]

Oops, I forgot to mention my own reasons for this simple revision. Here it is:

The Modern Times are short enough, but since the current Diplomatic Victory renders the late Modern Times unplayed, the game is cut far too short.

There, troll me, praise me for my insight, or let your index finger trail circles around your ear while you start to read other threads. Of course, honest criticism would be welcome too.

 

[Sirian]

Diplomatic Victory is more like "Modern Age Build a Wonder Victory", which won't work well if you've attacked every civ on the map but not wiped anybody out.

I agree that there's little point for diplio victory in multiplayer. Maybe they should not bother allowing it there. Meanwhile, in single player, it would be kind of nice if Diplomatic victory had something to do with diplomacy. I know that sounds obvious, but there's not much diplomacy involved right now!


- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

Good point about the multiplayer exploit.

Still, there are ways to fix this.

I actually had an idea related to fixing the AI... The idea is to distinguish between two types of players.

Competitive Players: Human Players, or AI players with a killer instinct who are very conscious of the score
Neutral NPCs: AI players who play "realistically" without trying to win, not conscious of the score. (In RPGs, we call them Non Player Characters, like a townsperson or a shopkeeper.)

The competitive AI player would be the one who exploits little tricks and who declares war on you just for the hell of it, because he wants to win more badly than you do. God knows a human being would do the same thing. But if all the players played this way, the game would fall apart -- just look at Civ 2.

Which is why you have the Neutral NPCs who play just for realism. These are the guys who exist simply to give the competitive players various goals and settings to make their victory. For example, you could get a neutral NPC to surrender, while getting a competitive AI to surrender would be next to impossible (as with a human).

Tying it back to the idea for diplomatic victory, the competitive players wouldn't be allowed to gain points from good negotiations with one another. The diplomatic victory would be based on how you interacted with the neutral NPCs.

Just throwing that out there, food for thought.

 

[fractaled]

Thanks for the troll.

you're welcome, i try not to feed them, but you conned me

survivor history for the curious...

i like dh_epic's idea (once the exploits are prevented)

 

[slothman]

I liked a recent game I played. I was the Russians and nice to everyone. I didn't have any war at all, traded ridiculously and accepted many deals. In the end I one all but 1 vote, the second highest. Basically diplo victory allows me to play the way I think is fun and still win. Others like to attack or other things. Now diplos victory in Civ3 is nothing like real life. But I don't play civ3 only for that reason. I like playing without war. Sometimes it can be fun but I am of the group, "Don't declare war ever. If he attacks then he automatically declares and you can fight to his death. If he doesn't then he gets lots-o-trade from you."

 

[dh_epic]

I like that diplomatic victory exists. But it feels more like a challenge to not play with war, rather than a real choice.

In the real world, a lot of people try to avert war, especially in the modern age. "We could nuke each other to bits, Mr Gorbachev, but we should probably hold it together."

Civ needs to reward this behavior genuinely. Not necessarily with more realism, but by making peace profitable -- even just in some kind of score measure. (Although in reality, peace really is economically profitable. If you're not trading with anyone, your country goes right down the crapper.)

 

[Myzenium]

dh_epic said:

Competitive Players: Human Players, or AI players with a killer instinct who are very conscious of the score
Neutral NPCs: AI players who play "realistically" without trying to win, not conscious of the score. (In RPGs, we call them Non Player Characters, like a townsperson or a shopkeeper.)

...

Tying it back to the idea for diplomatic victory, the competitive players wouldn't be allowed to gain points from good negotiations with one another. The diplomatic victory would be based on how you interacted with the neutral NPCs.

The most rewarding diplomacy that can be done in Civ3 is done among equals. Imagine a game where your Civ has a rival that is nearly as powerful as yours. If you exchange your spare oil for your rival's spare rubber, then that is a transaction worth remembering. It's a Kodak moment.

Now imagine a game where all the other Civs individually cannot compare with your might, culture, science, and resources. To gain favor in their eyes, you bestow largess in the form of free gifts on them. You never give up your entire advantage. That game is only memorable because your Civ was so much stronger than the others. The diplomacy was lackluster, only a series of buy-offs. It reminds me of the world situation today, BTW. (I'm not saying the USA should make free gifts to gain stature; that's a waste of effort. Why should the USA please nations that will hate it in reciprocation?)

I never said that popularity contests make bad gameplay. That's why my revision of the Diplomatic Victory left that aspect intact. I simply think the vote for Secretary-General should be delayed until the Modern Times have had a decent chance at being completed.

 

[dh_epic]

Well, I guess the suggestion I'm making is to actually force the game to maintain relative equality until the end. Improve the AI so it runs neck at neck with the player. Keep other civs around with a different kind of AI that only plays for realism instead of victory (since, realistically, many civilizations have no chance at any kind of victory).

Improving the AI and balancing the gameplay could actually make a compelling diplomatic victory possible. Otherwise, diplomatic victory is the way that the AI beats a dominating player in annoying fashion, or diplomatic victory is what you try after domination becomes too easy.

 

[Myzenium]

Yes, I agree that the AI and gameplay must be improved for Civ4.

BTW, is there anyone beside Slothman who likes the current Diplomatic Victory at all? Speak up!

 

[slothman]

...
BTW, is there anyone beside Slothman who likes the current Diplomatic Victory at all? Speak up!

[mumbles under his hand] Yes I agree. [sort of like another poster but exactly the same voice, er font] So do I. I think there should be many types of victories. Current ones are good but others should be added without removing the current ones. I never like when someone removes something good just because it is not perfect.