Secondary winning conditions

drjeckyll

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
4
Hi everyone,

With some friends we're used to play multiplayer games of civ 5 but we find a bit disapointing the fact that often at half the game, some people realise that they won't be able to win and everything become suddently less interesting for them.
So I was wondering if you know some ways (a program, a mod, etc.) that could allow to insert some secondary winning conditions.
For example, somebody unable to win could try to compete with other on the production of faith in order to be first in this domain, or try to be the first to fullfill three trees of social politics, etc.

In a certain way I'm looking for something similar to settlers VII where when you're the first in a certain domain, you earn points. At the end of the game, you give a bonus to the ingame winner and you look at the points people have accumulated during the game. This allow to rank people according to their perfomances in each domain.

I hope I made myself understandable (english is not my native language). Thank you for your future answers.
 
Well, you DO have scores dont you? And under scores you can see all the different things accounting scores.

And demographics as well.

You can still compete for scores and make it more important to be numer 2/3/4 instead of just having 1 winner.
 
Back when the civplayers league was active, players had rankings, and it was based upon how they finished. For example, you might be in a 6 player game with people of equal ranking. As long as you finish in the top half your ranking will go up (even if it is a tiny amount.) But the closer you finish to last, the bigger the hit to your ranking - this motives people to stay and fight their hardest even when they know they can't win. It also motivates people not to quit, because the first quitter is in last place. It also makes the players not get mad at quitters, every quitter is a boost to your rank!
 
Back when the civplayers league was active, players had rankings, and it was based upon how they finished. For example, you might be in a 6 player game with people of equal ranking. As long as you finish in the top half your ranking will go up (even if it is a tiny amount.) But the closer you finish to last, the bigger the hit to your ranking - this motives people to stay and fight their hardest even when they know they can't win. It also motivates people not to quit, because the first quitter is in last place. It also makes the players not get mad at quitters, every quitter is a boost to your rank!

That actually sounds amazing. But I guess the league is dead now?
 
Back when the civplayers league was active, players had rankings, and it was based upon how they finished. For example, you might be in a 6 player game with people of equal ranking. As long as you finish in the top half your ranking will go up (even if it is a tiny amount.) But the closer you finish to last, the bigger the hit to your ranking - this motives people to stay and fight their hardest even when they know they can't win. It also motivates people not to quit, because the first quitter is in last place. It also makes the players not get mad at quitters, every quitter is a boost to your rank!

This seems like it was kind of silly though since the order in which you die has little to do with skill. If the first place guy kills you first, you die first or if a couple people gang up on you and kill you first it has nothing to do with your ability. FFA must have been the least accurate ranking in history.
 
Cses have rewards for most faith made in 30 turns for example or most technologies researched in 30 turns. The cses give cs ally points as a reward.
 
Back
Top Bottom