New and Improved Victory Types (ideas)

[Crazy Jerome]

I was thinking something similar last week, though not nearly as elaborate as dh_epic as presented here. Essentially, I wondered how much the big, early expansionistic, dominating empire could be handled (in Civ3 terms) simply by making that path lower the score? For example, maybe you started losing points if the expansion outstriped certain other measures (percentage happiness, literacy, etc.?) Domination would still be an effective way to win, but it certainly wouldn't be a milk strategy or a good "almost dominate" way to ensure spaceship or other victory.

A fundamental RPG design element when giving "experience" is to reward the players for the things that you want them to do. Seems like rewarding a score for harder (but not necessarily game winning in themselves) things would serve a similar purpose in Civ. You'd be handicapping yourself (in some ways) to get a higher score.

I like the "fame" idea, tool.

 

[dh_epic]

Thanks for supporting my craziness, guys.

I like the idea of environmentalists going unhappy if you start cutting down serious amounts of forest in the modern age But that's neither here nor there -- culture, even historic value to mountains has some merit. Especially if you have the "highest peak" in your territory. Maybe Civ 4, in 3D, will have topography... hmmm...

And yeah, I think the idea is to come up with victories that are much more divorced from pure expansion and growth. "Historical" is one, since it rewards you for risk taking, it rewards you for a variety of achievements, and makes it possible for an underdog to claim that victory. If we want people to do things other than expand and dominate, we ought to reward them for other behaviors. "Personal Challenge" is not reward enough. ... (Of course, domination and expansion can still be rewarding.)

 

[dylanhatesyou]

Its a tough call, because honestly, there isnt a way to "win" at life. Look at Sim City. Thats hugely popular(or at least I think it is? I dont follow computer games except Civ), and there isnt a way to win. When I play Civ, I barely care about truely winning as well. But new ways to win at Civ are interesting to think about nonetheless...

Not to offend anyone, haha, but
What about Master Race Victory?
Your Civ could eliminate and/or enslave all other members of other Culture groups but your own.

 

[dh_epic]

I think you hit a good point about the core purpose of Civ.

- At one end of the spectrum, Civ is "Risk", with nicer graphics, more micromanagement, and more time. People who claim this are right, since military expansion is always rewarded in Civ (and Risk).

- At the other end of the spectrum, Civ is a simulation, where you're not really competing against anyone. People who claim this are right, since most of the time you end up being head and shoulders ahead of the rest of the AI, with the only thing stopping you from domination being time.

- In the middle, Civ is a competition between equal players (even AI), who can do things to catch up to a winner, slow down a winner, turn the tables, and play with different strategies. People who claim this are right, since Civ is pursuing a compelling multiplayer game.

I'm the last kind of person. And sometimes I feel S-O-L.

The "Risk" people (first kind of person) claim that economics, culture, domestic issues, human rights, and political freedoms are boring... and hence you're left with a game where expansion is the only real goal, unless you want to handicap yourself and play for a cultural victory with one city.

The "Sim" people (second kind of person) claim that the AI opponents aren't really players, but part of a system to simulate your empire's interactions. They're obstacles to overcome. They try to stop you, but they don't try to win themselves.

 

[roidesfoux]

I would like to see all Civ3 victory conditions retained in some form or another.

I too would like some sort of economic victory. My particular version of this would require you to have high income, widespread trade, perhaps you would need to have a certain number/variety of/percentage of world's strateigic/luxury resources in order to enable the victory condition, and then you would need to spend a large amount of money. You would win after a certain number of turns, unless someone captures your capital, massively disrupts your economy, etc.

The other thing I would like to see modified is the technological victory condition. The "technological" victory in SMAC requires you to research all technology, then build a wonder, and then build another wonder. The "technological" victory in Civ3 requires you to research about half of the modern age tech, build a small wonder, and then build 10 starship components. I would like to see both types of tech victory.

The difference would be that the single-wonder victory would require fewer shields and no strateigic/luxury resources, but you would need to reach the end of the tech tree. On the other hand, building a starship requires less technology, but you'll need certain strateigic/luxury resources, and it will be much more costly in terms of production.

Ideally, it would be balanced in such a way that if you had a lot of research and some industry, it would be easier to do the single-wonder victory, but if you're not so good on research, but can produce a lot, you could build the starship much more readily. You would have to take a look at your civilization when you reached the modern age to decide which would work out better.

-RdF

 

[dh_epic]

Can't believe I ignored a good scientific victory. That's definitely a valid one.

I think the idea is to have multiple goals in the game that are more exclusive, so you don't have someone monopolizing everything (e.g.: i'm the biggest empire who wins the most wars, and has the strongest economy, and keeps building cultural wonders, and makes all his people happy).

This is the essence of making a good multiplayer game. Saying "aha, I know that guy is shooting for THIS goal... so I'm going to chase THAT, and get there faster. And make THIS harder to get."

This or that.

 

[jimkirk]

get rid of the current diplomatic victory condition its cheesy to winb a game because you or your enemy got the majority of the votes in the u.n.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, honestly, diplomatic victory is actually pretty easy to get, and not particularly rewarding. You just stay on everyone's good side by never negotiating deals, and never declaring war. It's rewarding people for not doing anything, for not pursuing anything.

I'm pushing for a game that rewards you for pursuing any one thing, so long as you do it well, with focus and determination.

 

[Diogenes183]

You know what would be fun? Just for "ha has"? An expensive, high tech unit that will blow up the entire planet (the Dr. Strangelove device?). The AI will be programmed to never build the device. At the begining there can be an option to exclude the device from the game entirely, like for multiplayer games. When you use the device, it starts a cut scene of your people activating the device and then cuts to a view from space of the earth being blown apart or perhaps imploding into a black hole. Then the game ends, it counts as a loss. You could shoot for it if you have absolutely no chance of winning the game (while expensive, its much less expensive then the spacecraft).

I know it sounds corny, but it has a moral and is not entirely impossible.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is my view on the Historical Victory. Rome is considered to have a great historical impact because the entirty of Western law, culture, language(except English), architecture, etc. are derived from Roman roots. You gain historical points for influencing other societies, and part of that is by ruling them. You may eventually lose control, but your legacy lives on. Also, if your culture is reverred and your products desirable, then you are impacting the fundamental roots of other societies. Historical Victory means you were considered a great nation, whether it was becasue of fear or reverence.

 

[dh_epic]

I like the Dr Strangelove device, if only being a fan of the movie But in the long run, it could be a nice little feature to turn on / off. If you've ever played a chess match, seen things take a turn for the worse, and tried to trick someone into getting into a stalemate... you'd appreciate this strategy.

As for Sir Schwick's idea of a historical victory. That's pretty different from the whole "rewarding for just having a cool history of big risks and interesting twists"... a little bit more like a cultural victory. In fact, I think cultural victory should move more in the direction you're talking about. American television and movies is exported all over the place, and we're still experiencing the effects of Greek philosophy -- the historical impact they make is "cultural". Or in your words, having a huge impact with the foundations of law, language, architechture... But whether you call this a cultural victory, or a historical victory, you'll find me agreeing that the game MUST include this kind of measuring stick.

(And just as a note, correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't most of English does start with Latin, with German being second?)

 

[sir_schwick]

I'm no linguist, but from what I understand English is a funny mix of Latin basea and Germanic base. I'm not sure which is primary, and I should wait for a real expert to answer.

 

[troytheface]

i like that end of world bomb idea too, the Soviets actually drew up plans for such a device..an oil tanker size ship with a bomb just as large inside...the idea was to detonate it and the wave and hole in the ocean would be sufficent to wipe out the planet..(saw it on the history channel i think) ..the idea was- better nothing than to live under Capitalism - it was never constructed by the way...
But i disagree about the Diplomatic Victory..its not always easy, especially if there are
several powers close in size and points...(if its just two, then yes, two turns before u built the un u just start giving away tech and luxery or whatever and then try to get everyone to declare war on ur opposition and then the vote comes...but sometimes it is nice to have this as an option when there is no way to catch up in points..(i don't play space race victory only because it doesn't make sense to me...i mean, a space ship? Maybe if it was a space ship coupled with an end of the world bomb...

 

[kaoruchan]

I'm not an expert, but linguistics has always been an interest of mine. Basically, the original English language, Old English, was an essentially Germanic language derived primarily from Anglo-Saxon. Then, William of Normandy conquered Britain, and for a long while the nobles spoke Norman French, and few, if any spoke English. So, of course, the commoner's language evolved, and adopted many French words, becoming more Latin in flavor. Eventually, this developed into Middle English.

After a few centuries, the English nobles began hating the French (Hundred Years War) and stopped speaking their language. English continued to evolve, and in by Shakespeare's day, it was essentially the same as it is today, in grammer if not in syntax. Incedentally, Modern English and Old English are so drastically different that a Modern English speaker would find it almost completely unintelligable (and vice versa), though Middle English could be understood with some difficulty. If you can understand Shakespeare and you took one year of high school french, you shouldn't have too much difficulty with Middle English.

Modern English also developed in the past few centuries (15th-20th) by adopting more Latin and Greek suffixes and prefixes, and many scientific words from both as well.

All that basically means is that English was originally Germanic, but since has changed so drastically that today it is more like Modern French than it is like Modern German. Hope that settles any arguements.

I also really like the idea of Historical/Cultural Victories.

 

[dh_epic]

Thanks a lot, kaoruchan. I've been reading a lot of history books lately (I made a new years resolution to read 5 new books related to history, and I'm on my fourth). I'm appreciative of little tidbits like that.

Also glad that people are into a historical victory.

As for diplomatic victory... my complaint isn't necessarily that it should be taken out, or that it needs to have the difficulty modified... just that it doesn't feel satisfying. Maybe that's subjective, but there's something really great when you conquer that last city to achieve domination, or see that great city become a cultural mecca.

I'd be all for ideas to improve it.

In the meantime, I thought ideas like economic victory and utopian victory would offer a new way to play and even a "last resort" for nations who didn't win the expansionist sweepstakes. (Which is what diplomatic victory was supposed to be for.)

 

[kaoruchan]

I think the diplomatic victory would make more sense if you had to get an alliance with every other civ, and make sure that none of the other civs are at war. This would require a new diplomatic system, one that could allow you to broker peace between two(or more) other civs.

Thanks a lot, kaoruchan. I've been reading a lot of history books lately (I made a new years resolution to read 5 new books related to history, and I'm on my fourth). I'm appreciative of little tidbits like that.

Good for you! I've always believed that, without a past, there can't be any future. It's important to study history. Keep reading those historical books. And you are very welcome. I enjoy teaching people, it always feels good to spread knowledge.

 

[sir_schwick]

My problem with the current sec-general victory, besides that Koffi Annan isn't the world dictator, is that it stops with the vote. In SMAC when you were elected Humanities Ruler, everyone still had a choice on whether to submit to your rule or try to take you down. I think they shoudl change the name to "World Government", still keep a UN that actually does soemthing. Whenever you are elected World Leader, everyone who isn't with you is against you. People can still fight against each other, but risk you declaring war on them. This would also make for an interesting use of Dr. Strangelove devices.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm all for the UN having a different function than ending the game.

But then what becomes of diplomatic victory? I think kaoruchan has some pretty good ideas: promoting world peace. Of course, this would necessitate more complex diplomatic relations. But then a master of these relations would surely be deserving of victory -- it could be very satisfying to negotiate that last deal for peace.

 

[jimkirk]

winning by diplomacy is utter cheese its way too cheeeseeyyy.. i hate it

 

[sir_schwick]

What about this:

Two Diplomatic victory types.

(1) There are no tribute demands, tribute payments, peace payments, or armed conflicts for 100 years. This means you have to manage to keep countries from fighitng each other for a long time(powerful AIs should do the same, if they ahve trade interest). It also means that sense they can't fihgt, they will try espionage, which can easily lead to war.
(2) Everyone supports you as the head of the world government. This may mean removing or coercing those who don't support your rule at first.