Overwhelming power gets boring

[Bad Player]

When you are on a knife's edge it's interesting but when you get so powerful that you KNOW you will win and it's just a matter of time, then it gets boring. You know that you just have to keep on slowly dragging your army around the map and capturing/razing all your enemies cities.

But what if there was some slight chance that something random could happen at any time and that if you don't hurry up and finish them off (as opposed to spending time building up an unstoppable force before moving in to destroy ppl), the sky could fall in...

At least this would encourage a bit more risk taking instead of waiting until you have the ULTIMATE STACK OF DOOM.

 

[Horatius]

When you are on a knife's edge it's interesting but when you get so powerful that you KNOW you will win and it's just a matter of time, then it gets boring. You know that you just have to keep on slowly dragging your army around the map and capturing/razing all your enemies cities.

It is pretty much like that in most turn-based strategy games. This is mainly a management game so if you have the best economy/production, that's it. In consequence, the late game can feel stale indeed.

But what if there was some slight chance that something random could happen at any time and that if you don't hurry up and finish them off (as opposed to spending time building up an unstoppable force before moving in to destroy ppl), the sky could fall in...

Well there's a thing called Armageddon.

It's funny that you want random stuff to happen. If you go to the Civ4 forums most people dislike doing games with huts and events on and may not resist reloading or using the world builder if they don't get their 95% GP, etc.

I remember that in civilization 1 the tech tree was supposed to be random so that every game would be different. But that would be annoying to most people. There would not be the feel of control.

If game designers introduce random stuff to screw up a player that is ahead, the player will just reload with an annoyed face...

 

[Bad Player]

One way you can encourage ppl to hurry up and have a go at finishing the game instead of keep building up an unstoppable (but boring army) is to have a time limit. Not a great solution IMO, but a solution.

 

[Cerberus™]

Another solution could be calling a disaster (as in Sim City) and increasing your score by surviving or beating the disaster. Each next disaster would be even worse than the last.

You could choose to challenge Hyborem's Sire, who is twice as powerful and starts at war with you. He will arise from the underworld at a random location at the edge of your empire, but with a decent civilization with several cities. In so far as he arises in your territory, all cities in the way would become his. The terrain on his new land would become hellish. You could avert it by building 5 huge shrines (lots of work) at the places indicated by a heavenly sign and defeating a certain devilish hero that would appear. The added score you will get must be worth it, of course.

The next disaster could be a rise in sea level, causing everything within two squares of seas and river to be flooded; but it could be averted by sending an expedition through an Elven Portal to free the Spirit of Earth from the Spirit of Water, who happened to be enraged with Earth and had captured him. The expedition would be transported to a new, small map with lots of challenges. The player would get a nice score bonus. If he fails, the score bonus isn't worth having all his port cities destroyed, obviously.

Etc.

 

[BvBPL]

I highly recommend the High / Low challenge for FFH2 if you're getting bored w/ ultimate power.

 

[ExMachina]

I prefer methods of allowing the weaker civs to catch up. Stuff like tech diffusion, revolts in empires that get too large, maybe some heroes that join up with the under-dogs, etc. Ways of keeping the game challenging and making it harder for one player to get too far ahead.

 

[Worm4life]

This problem is also known as "building Chalid".

 

[Bad Player]

I think the issue is that once you are that powerful you may as well just finish off the game quickly rather than dragging it out.

The other issue is that you perhaps you shouldn't have enough time to get that powerful - there should be a reason to attack ASAP rather than keep on building a bigger army.

 

[Emptiness]

Is that problem that there isn't a reason to finish a game off quickly, or that there isn't a reason to drag it out? You seem to be saying it both ways, but maybe I'm misreading your two posts here.

Personally, when I'm certain of victory and start to get bored I don't drag my armies around in a dull and lengthy slog to the victory screen. I just declare myself the winner and start a new game.

 

[ClasuSiosa]

Personally, when I'm certain of victory and start to get bored I don't drag my armies around in a dull and lengthy slog to the victory screen. I just declare myself the winner and start a new game.

That's what happens to me too.

---------

Another way to handle the situation is, from the begining, roleplay the civ. Dont make winning your main purpose, make enjoying the game the focus. Large worlds with many civs is harder than a higher difficulty with fewer civs. And adds more RP opprotunities.

Alternately make a goal. Like summon the Murcreans, or putting a handycap on yourself (self imposed), or using a religion/spell-sphere/civ that you arnt fammiliar with.

 

[Fafnir13]

Are you only playing the base game? Try out some mods. The new features will make it interesting simply from a, "I've got to try that out!" kind of way.
I would highly recommend the Naval AI mod too. The comps will do some surprising stuff. It's still a work in progress, but it is much more challenging then the base game.

This problem is also known as "building Chalid".

lol

 

[tribble]

Victory taking too darn long is more a flaw in Civ's structure as a game than it is with this mod. Play barbarian civs on a harder difficulty, every moment you dominate will be oh, so very WORTH it.
edit: lol and amen to the chalid thing. It gets even more hillarious when you build some luridii.

 

[Bad Player]

Is that problem that there isn't a reason to finish a game off quickly, or that there isn't a reason to drag it out? You seem to be saying it both ways, but maybe I'm misreading your two posts here.

Personally, when I'm certain of victory and start to get bored I don't drag my armies around in a dull and lengthy slog to the victory screen. I just declare myself the winner and start a new game.

The problem I refer to is that there isn't a reason to finish a game quickly (when it might be risky).

The other problem is that when victory is certain, I don't want to just quit and declare myself the winner. I want the game to tell me that I officially won!

 

[JonathanStrange]

It would be really cool if we could have as a Game Option (which one could set on/off), the ability to have the AIs recognize resistance is useless (when certain pre-set conditions are met as determined by the player pre-game), acknowledge their defeat with a cutscene, and surrender when their situation is clearly lost. The current method isn't great.

I don't just mean having AI surrender to another AI empire either - who absorbs their forces and becomes another rival - but one where we could get a version of the Victory cutscenes and go on. Perhaps even having multiple empires recognizing your dominance at the same time could end the end the game.

There could be some nuances to the AI's algorithm where it factors in whether its leaders are fanatical and willing to sacrifice its people in a fruitless resistance or whether it recognizes that surrender is tantamount to extermination and one might as well fight on. And of course, there could be the usual temporary peace treaties with tribute and border changes.

Civilization's endgames are notorious for their (at times) dreariness and I would welcome a Game Option where (for example) I, having crushed the Svartalfar's, am taken to a cutscene where the Svartalfars' surrender when their leaders and a cadre of loyal followers escape via Magic Portal to another world. Vowing vengeance next time.

'Cause right now, if I'm clearly winning, I usually get bored too with the prospect of riding down every last enemy horsemen, extinguishing every pyre zombie and blasting every wizard. That's the feeling whether I'm playing Deity level or not. I'll try and set some weird rules to liven things up - like razing every city I capture, but I like having an official "Let us up, we've had enough!" Victory cutscene.

 

[arcticnightwolf]

It would be really cool if we could have as a Game Option (which one could set on/off), the ability to have the AIs recognize resistance is useless (when certain pre-set conditions are met as determined by the player pre-game), acknowledge their defeat with a cutscene, and surrender when their situation is clearly lost. The current method isn't great.

I don't just mean having AI surrender to another AI empire either - who absorbs their forces and becomes another rival - but one where we could get a version of the Victory cutscenes and go on. Perhaps even having multiple empires recognizing your dominance at the same time could end the end the game.

There could be some nuances to the AI's algorithm where it factors in whether its leaders are fanatical and willing to sacrifice its people in a fruitless resistance or whether it recognizes that surrender is tantamount to extermination and one might as well fight on. And of course, there could be the usual temporary peace treaties with tribute and border changes.

Civilization's endgames are notorious for their (at times) dreariness and I would welcome a Game Option where (for example) I, having crushed the Svartalfar's, am taken to a cutscene where the Svartalfars' surrender when their leaders and a cadre of loyal followers escape via Magic Portal to another world. Vowing vengeance next time.

'Cause right now, if I'm clearly winning, I usually get bored too with the prospect of riding down every last enemy horsemen, extinguishing every pyre zombie and blasting every wizard. That's the feeling whether I'm playing Deity level or not. I'll try and set some weird rules to liven things up - like razing every city I capture, but I like having an official "Let us up, we've had enough!" Victory cutscene.

Well, it would be hard for ai to determine, when it's time to surrender, since the power graph is quite useless for any logical deciding. ( And as I've learned in multiplayer, it's bad idea to base you decisions on that graph )

And as for surrendering, I believe Firaxis solved it by adding "vassal states" ... or at least I supposed so.

 

[JonathanStrange]

I don't know; one method might be a simple aggregation of known units, territory, casualties, loss of important cities, sites - things that might be given a numerical value and assessed. The point is especially for those times when this civ or that civ has two or three cities left and still won't surrender.

It could be workable; it's doesn't call for some fancy AI programming to calculate the enemy has ten times its strength, four cities have fallen in four turns, sixty/seventy units destroyed in the last few turns. The option to not employ it would still be there.

It's just a speculative idea I was throwing out there thinking it might stick. The Firaxis solution was a start and better than nothing, but doesn't really resolve those times when you're winning big time and it's extremely unlikely there's going to be an enemy come from behind victory.

Right now, most of the times, in these cases, I think people just say, "Ahhh, I'm the winner. Ho-humm. Maybe playing as the Amurites next game would be interesting..."

 

[Valkrionn]

I don't see any FfH mod doing that, for at the very least one simple reason; Those videos you suggest would need to be created.

Beyond that, what anw said. In that situation, we already have vassals. Same principle, it just doesn't remove the rival civ... But nothing would entirely remove the rival civ, it's not just going to magically vanish.

 

[Breunor]

When the game gets to that point, I usually just declare myself the winner. I don't need to play another 6 - 10 hours just to see a cutscene saying I've won! Once I've actually won the game and enjoyed it, I just start another one.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[JonathanStrange]

We've all done that!

Just thought it be a cool tweak to a solid game. It wasn't just about having a victory cutscene to acknowledge a de facto victory but also about a sort of random "sudden death" style chance of victory: like an enemy capitulating from the sudden shock of losing half its army in a turn or two or situations like I've previously mentioned.

Ehhh, we may as well continue declaring victory and not bothering to stomp every last resister.

 

[Midgard Eagle]

That's what happens to me too.

Another way to handle the situation is, from the begining, roleplay the civ. Dont make winning your main purpose, make enjoying the game the focus. Large worlds with many civs is harder than a higher difficulty with fewer civs. And adds more RP opprotunities.

My playstyle exactly, against the computer, at least. Adds much to the game. Civ and FFH I don't really play to win, to the point where I'm often irritated when someone wins and I have to end the game.

I prefer methods of allowing the weaker civs to catch up. Stuff like tech diffusion, revolts in empires that get too large, maybe some heroes that join up with the under-dogs, etc. Ways of keeping the game challenging and making it harder for one player to get too far ahead.

Indeed. I like the Revolution DCM for its Stability mechanic, where fractions of your empire could break off from your control and start fighting for independence and whatnot. I'd love it if having a huge empire or very powerful army carried with it as many difficulties as rewards. The current penalties (culture, maintenance, and so on) just don't really do it. Of course, a big empire that's swallowed up four civs should be more powerful than a single civ, but there should be more opportunities for "comebacks". not sure what they would be, though.

It would be really cool if we could have as a Game Option (which one could set on/off), the ability to have the AIs recognize resistance is useless (when certain pre-set conditions are met as determined by the player pre-game), acknowledge their defeat with a cutscene, and surrender when their situation is clearly lost. The current method isn't great.

I really wonder why Civ doesn't have this. Seems most games do, in the RTS genre at least. The AI will realize you're superior and that they don't stand a chance and either just surrender outright (Age of Empires II-style) or give you a dialogue box where you can choose to accept victory or play on. Civ4/FFH only has the option to resign or quit, which don't record your game as a victory in the Hall of Fame.