Real Cooperation

[boghog]

Since victory conditions are being discussed a bit currently, I wonder if there could be a plausible way for real cooperation between factions in BE. CiV introduced an element of that through ideologies but in the end it was always only one civ that won.
But here it's hard to see why one Harmony faction would try to sabotage another Harmony faction's attempts at waking up the planetary consciousness. Or why they couldn't rejoice in a jointly achieved goal.
Purity players could cooperate in trying to turn the new planet into a second earth and bringing humans through the warp portal to settle there. Unless you want to introduce an artificial conflict like: "I've spent ages terraforming everything and now he's bringing all the wrong settlers to Pandora."
Even Supremacy factions could conceivably go assimilating earth together.
I know some other games have permanent alliances or some form of real cooperation between players/AIs with common goals. Wouldn't that make sense here?

 

[Migoooy]

From how I understand it one supremacy player might be your mind mapped in a cpu, or a posatronic brain.

Another might be a Brain in a jar type. A third might be a cyborg.

The blog states that the virtues and technology theme your Supremacy vision.

Say for example the cyborg guys still feel where as the mind mapped guys don't, and the brain guys switch off that part of the brain when working, but live in a "Artificial Reality" for fun. Those three views might not get on.

 

[boghog]

I'll admit that Supremacy victories sound less compatible (although they could be under special circumstances e.g. if several players choose the same variant of supremacy). But for the others and especially Harmony opposition appears less plausible.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

This is why the game needs cultural influence. The reason that keeps separate players separate - with exclusive conditions for victory - is because you are separate civilizations, whatever that means. But insofar as the cultural identity of your civ is just handwavey (i.e. a UA, UU, and color scheme), this exclusivity and separation is unsatisfying. What the game needs is a mechanic that corresponds to your culture's cohesion , and its influence over the thought and culture of everybody else. The tourism victory has the right look, but it isn't made up of the right components.

This is a complex proposal, but hear me out. The foremost requirement of this system, would be that its implementation would not be handwavey, but will be an intuitive and readily-accepted reason that conjoining what began as two separate civilizations cannot be accomplished without specifically doing something quite monumental. If we think about it for a short time, this is a matter of the civilization's cohesion itself - the manner of thinking that makes one citizen of Korea see himself as part of the same empire as another citizen of Korea, living elsewhere. Many elements of civ games touch on this without satisfyingly being this. Happiness, social policies, revolutionary waves. Whatever it is, it must obey this idea: a weak culture disintegrates, a strong culture assimilates. Failing to advance this component of your civ runs the risk of your civilization ceasing to exist, as surely as if you were conquered, and your peoples becoming the background of another civ's history books.

More importantly to this topic, the details of setting up a co-operation victory would have to be borne out in the components of this mechanic: something that makes the peoples of two distinct empires able to co-operate as though there were no division at all. Something that allows them to overcome any dispute they've had in the past, and the expectation of any dispute they would have in the future, so that, just as the Korean people see themselves as one and the same, so too would all the peoples of a 'co-operation victory' have to see each other as the same. (This, in addition to actually achieving a specific victory of course.)

This kind of thinking, the system representing it, is very interesting, and I would think it defines Civ. So I hunger for its inclusion.

If a Civ game ever did incorporate co-operative victory , I would expect to see some kind of system whereby a player's control over his cities and military and treasury are affected by a kind of metric of empyrial cohesion. Corruption was probably closer to this than CivV's happiness. With such a system, the natural tension of being a separate civilization from another, even a friend, would be there. You have to maintain your civ's cooperation unto itself or you can't reap any rewards of anything else you do. Yet some sensible way of working towards unifying two civs would make itself obvious if that game mechanic were present.

So, I don't know how a co-operation condition would work, but I do have some idea what this cultural cohesion mechanic would be, and that's where I suggest you look first.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That is why I think civ needs a 'unification' mechanic... A very "expensive" process whereby 2 players become one.

Similar to getting conquered militarily, but the "conquered player" gets included as a winner.

 

[Migoooy]

Wasn't there something like that in civilization 2? That you basically absorbed another empire?

It has been literally years since I've played it so I could be wrong.

 

[boghog]

More importantly to this topic, the details of setting up a co-operation victory would have to be borne out in the components of this mechanic: something that makes the peoples of two distinct empires able to co-operate as though there were no division at all.

I don't think this kind of complete cultural cohesion is really necessary at all. It's hard to find RL examples because there is no "winning" in RL. But international cooperation is something that works in many areas where different states have the same goals. Take the LHC for example or the EU. Even the US are an example of culturally distinctive separate states working together to the point where they are willing to give up their shot at being sovereign states in their own rights - given a very specific historic situation of course.

If I believe the awakening of the planet's consciousness is the main goal for all of mankind, I don't think I would sabotage another power's attempts at doing just that. I might offer my help, even if I'm not completely in agreement with the kinds of things they show on telly over there.

 

[altayrneto]

It's a good idea, but only with this kind of gameplay in mind... In real world, for example, the things don't work like this. The Greeks, even with a common culture and a shared hatred against the Persians, could have joined together to rid the world of Achaemenid scum. They even did the League of Delphi... But no, "My city has to be more powerful than the others.", and becouse this, they continue making wars against themselves, until they become so weak to the point of the distant Macedonia conquer them, and only then, Persia . This cooperative aliances only works in short periods of time (like a century, or less), don't in the entire history (as we wanted when play CiV...). If the text have some grammar error, please tell me!

 

[boghog]

It's a good idea, but only with this kind of gameplay in mind... In real world, for example, the things don't work like this. The Greeks, even with a common culture and a shared hatred against the Persians, could have joined together to rid the world of Achaemenid scum. They even did the League of Delphi... But no, "My city has to be more powerful than the others.", and becouse this, they continue making wars against themselves, until they become so weak to the point of the distant Macedonia conquer them, and only then, Persia . This cooperative aliances only works in short periods of time (like a century, or less), don't in the entire history (as we wanted when play CiV...). If the text have some grammar error, please tell me!

Sure, it didn't work for Greece - but it did work for the US (for 240 years now).
As I said, in real life there is no winning and so sooner or later everything put together will fall apart.
Imagine this as an example: After some cataclysmic event the earth has lost almost all of its water. The only solution to the problem is to send ships to Saturn and mine water from Titan. Would one country really try to foil another country's attempts at building the necessary ships and whatnot? I think that's a good analogy for Harmony's VC.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Sure, it didn't work for Greece - but it did work for the US (for 240 years now).
As I said, in real life there is no winning and so sooner or later everything put together will fall apart.
Imagine this as an example: After some cataclysmic event the earth has lost almost all of its water. The only solution to the problem is to send ships to Saturn and mine water from Titan. Would one country really try to foil another country's attempts at building the necessary ships and whatnot? I think that's a good analogy for Harmony's VC.

One country would attempt to foil another, if they thought
1. I can succeed without their help
2. I don't like what they'd do with that power
3. If they get it first, they could get a monopoly on it.

Imagine we believed there was some secret formula to make humans super strong, healthy and smart forever.

Now imagine its 1940.

Would you blow up Nazi research facilities and set the research back 50 years or tolerate the rule of literal aryan supermen.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Even though there are lots of reasons to explain why same affinity guys wouldn't work together, an option to do so STILL needs to be. It gives more possibilities and interesting gameplay, rather than always being you against all. If I build up a good relationship with a faction, I don't want to throw it away, I want it being awarding, especially if we happen to have same goals.

Joint victory would be awesome. If there's is two factions that share the goal (of bringing humans from earth), in an otherwise hostile environment (other affinities), it makes perfect sense to unite in that goal in order to increase their chances and removing more serious threats to that goal. Other theoretical differences that might arise afterwards should be of no concern at that point.

 

[Migoooy]

As far as it can be understood is the way that your affinity is geared. Imagine 3 great empires all Harmony, all yearning to awaken the planet but why ?

One is no longer recognisable as human they look different they smell different, they have more limbs and seem more like the beetles that swarmed the planet when they first arrived. They see themselves as an extension of the planet's whim and think of the awakening as the creation of a new mother a new leader for tomorrow.

The second look human mostly they have odd coloured eyes to adapt to the new sun and their hair is more like quills than what you or me would recognize but mostly they are human. They see the awakening as you would see a child being born they want an equal a friend a colleague.

The third empire is spoken of in hushed tones nobody's spoken too them for over 500 years and they ignore all contact aggressively. They look pale wormlike, they have no lower limbs just a thin pink body, no visible eyes, or mouth just two slits. They loathe the others thinking that the only true form is that of the great Siege Worms, the true masters of the planet. They seek to awaken the planet as a weapon so it will spawn endless worm after worm killing everything until they become one with it. Consumed by it so their minds merge in the great devouring.

Sorry if it doesn't sound okay but that's what I think Harmony might be like ideology speaking.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Yes, all these explanations are fine and dandy, and I agree about all the possible ways same affinity may differ, but it still does not exclude cooperation and there's no reason why it absolutely shouldn't be there as an option, as I said before.

 

[Migoooy]

Yes, all these explanations are fine and dandy, and I agree about all the possible ways same affinity may differ, but it still does not exclude cooperation and there's no reason why it absolutely shouldn't be there as an option, as I said before.

It's true but in MP would you really want to give in too somebody who has the same affinity?

In SP fine but MP I don't think it would work. Unless it's a VC

 

[Mustakrakish]

I specifically stated "joint victory", so yes, indeed I would want that in MP. Besides it doesn't have to be active in MP, so I don't see any problems.

 

[Migoooy]

I guess so. Who knows what things Firaxis has not revealed yet.

I'm not sure it be something I personally would care for. I'm sure that there was something similar in earlier games, and it does sound /feel like a cultural victory so there's that I suppose.

 

[beetle]

Sorry if it doesn't sound okay but that's what I think Harmony might be like ideology speaking.

I think you are spot on. Harmony factions could easily hate other harmony factions. IRL Christians kill Christians and Muslims kill Muslims. IRL hate can more intense towards similar denominations than complete outsiders.

 

[Migoooy]

I think you are spot on. Harmony factions could easily hate other harmony factions. IRL Christians kill Christians and Muslims kill Muslims. IRL hate can more intense towards similar denominations than complete outsiders.

Tell me about it. Where I grew up there were obvious barriers between two versions of Christianity. The violence was and still is awful, I don't live there anymore and I'm not sure if ill ever go back.

Anyway back too the game.

 

[Kid R]

Cooperation already helps cooperating players, as in all multiplayer games, hence it's against the rules in some - e.g. poker. Also as in life, where it's positively encouraged, oddly

I guess the idea of a cooperation victory would be that 2 or more civs would in some way cooperate so much it hampered their progress towards other victory conditions? And in a way which had lots of actions and decisions to make and was fun to pursue? Spreading religions around kind of fits that I guess

 

[boghog]

I have to agree with SikFak that the possibility of a joint victory sounds interesting.

But: It shouldn't be automatic. Since there will necessarily be factions who join the same affinity, every game could potentially turn into a team battle between the three affinities. Worse if going for a team victory turned out to generally be the best strategy.
Worse still if it turned out that the team with the biggest number of members generally won.
That would kill the fun stone dead. Everybody just hovering in the center of the web waiting to join the largest/strongest group emerging. Terrible gameplay.

Thinking about it it could be quite hard to balance the option to go for a joint victory without making it OP and without making the largest team the strongest.

I think we're not going to see it.