ProMeTheus112
Prince
Something I wanted to write about as a question that I am interested about for Civ VI, even if it looks like there has been absolutely no information about it so far, is how score will work and the implications that it may have on the game.
In past Civilization games, I loosely remember being quite attracted to going for a strategy that revolves around getting a good score, and only choosing a different victory type if reachable near the end of the game. I liked playing this way because going for score allows you to do a ton of different things, you have a ton of choice as to what you want to do to increase your score and maintain yourself at #1 or get there.
However, I found that usually, playing this way was easy to win without handicap, and hard or impossible to win as you go up in difficulty levels. The reason is that, with very high handicaps of high difficulty levels, there is no way you will be able to compete in score with AIs at all, unless you manage a conquest type of game which would likely lead to a domination type of victory as well, something that defeats the interest in going for a less fixed type of strategy (basically I don't want to only execute a specific strategy that I decide at the start of the game, I like to play the game more strategically depending on what happens, but I felt like the game doesn't reward me for that as it then won't allow me to win on higher difficulty modes).
Now, when the developpers talk about Civ VI, it is clear they have stated they built it for us to be able to do exactly this, play the game as it flows along, making new decisions that changes your strategy more depending on the details of the game. Which is great, that's much more interesting strategically and that's where I find the most fun in trying to play a Civ game.
So I want to ask this : is my feeling about past Civ games right at all, that you can't really go for a scoring victory on high difficulty modes which you might change to a different direction later in the game depending on the opportunities? (I'm thinking mostly about Civ IV that I played most but still interested in information about any others)
And, what do you think or what would you like score to be like in Civilization VI ?
Of course, any system or details must be thought out, designed balanced etc depending on the whole picture and every other details. Globally, what I think I want about score is this : I want to be able to have a strategy of winning by score even on Deity mode without this implying that I should play the game a specific way, such as conquering half the map essentially going for a domination victory for half the game then holding off actually winning the game that way and then mass points whatever way until year 2050. Instead, I would like to be able to get a scoring win by making many correct decisions and well thought out both short and long term on how to reduce my opponents score and increase mine, involving all the aspects of the game (culture science army war religion economy population etc), and based on all details of the particular game I'm playing that I am able to decipher and creatively use to my advantage. Additionally, I would like it best if the game allowed me to play that way for half the game or longer, and then decide to shape my strategy into a "more specific" victory type (again depending on all events and details in that specific game).
Why I think it matters is that score is particularly non specific in terms of how you should shape your strategy, and if the scoring system is well defined, it changes everything. For example, should a player ever lose points when he loses things at all? Or should points rather reflect a maximum reached at any point in the game for categories and make the sum of that? A combination of both? Of course, score should have components which are relevant into all the other victory types, perhaps exclusively, or not.
If this was well laid out, I believe this would allow players to play more strategically, because you are allowed to taylor any specific strategy for yourself at the start of the game (which may imply a score win if needed or if you so decide, even on deity), and at your chosen point you may go for a different victory type. If something goes wrong towards that victory type objective, you could still maintain a high score and deter any opponents from reaching a victory themselves of any type and gain your scoring victory again.
This is made difficult in the past because of the heavy handicaps + the design of the scoring system, I believe. But it is possible, that the scoring system is designed in such a way that it is not itself directly impacted by the handicap, or that despite this handicap playing really well means being actually able to keep up in score with your opponents without necessarily causing them to lose a lot of points by rushing to the max, even in deity mode, even in the beginning of the game.
It goes along with my wish for anything to be possible in the course of events in the game even on Deity mode, without this meaning that it isn't very hard. I would like for the game to be able to start in countless different ways, and progress countless different ways, and end countless different ways, rewarding creative and efficient strategic play, needing strong strategic skills to win on Deity. Rather than be strongly focused on a few prepared-knowledge-based paths to victory on Deity (though they still require strategic skills in the details ofc, just I feel could be better).
In past Civilization games, I loosely remember being quite attracted to going for a strategy that revolves around getting a good score, and only choosing a different victory type if reachable near the end of the game. I liked playing this way because going for score allows you to do a ton of different things, you have a ton of choice as to what you want to do to increase your score and maintain yourself at #1 or get there.
However, I found that usually, playing this way was easy to win without handicap, and hard or impossible to win as you go up in difficulty levels. The reason is that, with very high handicaps of high difficulty levels, there is no way you will be able to compete in score with AIs at all, unless you manage a conquest type of game which would likely lead to a domination type of victory as well, something that defeats the interest in going for a less fixed type of strategy (basically I don't want to only execute a specific strategy that I decide at the start of the game, I like to play the game more strategically depending on what happens, but I felt like the game doesn't reward me for that as it then won't allow me to win on higher difficulty modes).
Now, when the developpers talk about Civ VI, it is clear they have stated they built it for us to be able to do exactly this, play the game as it flows along, making new decisions that changes your strategy more depending on the details of the game. Which is great, that's much more interesting strategically and that's where I find the most fun in trying to play a Civ game.
So I want to ask this : is my feeling about past Civ games right at all, that you can't really go for a scoring victory on high difficulty modes which you might change to a different direction later in the game depending on the opportunities? (I'm thinking mostly about Civ IV that I played most but still interested in information about any others)
And, what do you think or what would you like score to be like in Civilization VI ?
Of course, any system or details must be thought out, designed balanced etc depending on the whole picture and every other details. Globally, what I think I want about score is this : I want to be able to have a strategy of winning by score even on Deity mode without this implying that I should play the game a specific way, such as conquering half the map essentially going for a domination victory for half the game then holding off actually winning the game that way and then mass points whatever way until year 2050. Instead, I would like to be able to get a scoring win by making many correct decisions and well thought out both short and long term on how to reduce my opponents score and increase mine, involving all the aspects of the game (culture science army war religion economy population etc), and based on all details of the particular game I'm playing that I am able to decipher and creatively use to my advantage. Additionally, I would like it best if the game allowed me to play that way for half the game or longer, and then decide to shape my strategy into a "more specific" victory type (again depending on all events and details in that specific game).
Why I think it matters is that score is particularly non specific in terms of how you should shape your strategy, and if the scoring system is well defined, it changes everything. For example, should a player ever lose points when he loses things at all? Or should points rather reflect a maximum reached at any point in the game for categories and make the sum of that? A combination of both? Of course, score should have components which are relevant into all the other victory types, perhaps exclusively, or not.
If this was well laid out, I believe this would allow players to play more strategically, because you are allowed to taylor any specific strategy for yourself at the start of the game (which may imply a score win if needed or if you so decide, even on deity), and at your chosen point you may go for a different victory type. If something goes wrong towards that victory type objective, you could still maintain a high score and deter any opponents from reaching a victory themselves of any type and gain your scoring victory again.
This is made difficult in the past because of the heavy handicaps + the design of the scoring system, I believe. But it is possible, that the scoring system is designed in such a way that it is not itself directly impacted by the handicap, or that despite this handicap playing really well means being actually able to keep up in score with your opponents without necessarily causing them to lose a lot of points by rushing to the max, even in deity mode, even in the beginning of the game.
It goes along with my wish for anything to be possible in the course of events in the game even on Deity mode, without this meaning that it isn't very hard. I would like for the game to be able to start in countless different ways, and progress countless different ways, and end countless different ways, rewarding creative and efficient strategic play, needing strong strategic skills to win on Deity. Rather than be strongly focused on a few prepared-knowledge-based paths to victory on Deity (though they still require strategic skills in the details ofc, just I feel could be better).
