Should there be ways of bouncing back?

insaneweasel

Prince
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
329
So, as most of you know, at higher levels an AI civ can have tons of cities not long after turn 100. They may have 5-7 cities of their own, plus another 5-7 captured cities from more inept AI.

Happiness doesn't slow them down, and if you aren't close enough to stop them, they become so rich, wealthy and scientifically advanced that you couldn't possibly compete.
By the time you start researching gunpowder, they might have rifles and cannons.

It becomes moot to continue, because they will curb stomp you as soon as they attack (and they will attack).

In real life, a powerful civ one era could be weakened and crushed in another through bad decisions.
So I'm asking if there should be a way for these huge monstrosities to fall somehow. Maybe internal rebellions caused by spies? Forced loss of science? How should a savvy player be able to deal with a runaway and squeak out a win?
 
Over 200 looks and not ONE idea???

Come on people, if the devs see this they might make it part of another patch :p
 
What difficulty are we talking about here? If it's Deity, then you're getting what you signed up for by playing that level. If it's Immortal or lower, then there is almost always a way to beat the runaway. And if the runaway is so big that you can't win, then it's probably your fault for letting them grow like that.
 
I get what you're saying, but I don't think it's something easily fixed. The happiness mechanic is theoretically in place to stop that kind of thing, but since the AI has zero problems with happiness they just keep expanding. BNW looks like it will help stop it a bit, the new ideology and tourism systems show massive unhappiness hits to the AI's!
 
if this happens then I go culture. and send a couple attack squads to slow his science win, while putting a heavy emphasis on units over faith and wonders

there aren't that many options, but a couple attack squads can change the game. send 4 units to mess with a base, and all of a sudden they redirect.
 
This is actually a good point. It goes both ways, though: the player who has gone ahead early should also still fear losing, otherwise the rest of the game is too boring. I have quite some games when it became clear I was winning and I didn't want to slog through 100 more turns to find out.

It's a hard thing to do well, unfortunately. Players understandably don't like to be punished for playing well, so how can you implement it in a way that is understandable, makes sense and is not frustrating?

I CiV, diplomacy is used towards this effect, with others becoming more hostile if you are doing too well. In BNW, the World Congress will give them a tool to punish you for your success if they hate you, so this effect may be becoming stronger.

I'm not the biggest fan of how it works in CiV. On the one hand, it's not very powerful. On the other, it can be still frustrating to be locked out of much of the diplomatic game because you are doing too well. See? It's complicated.

Most boardgames have features that do this more mechanically, but it helps them that they are usually score-based, so they can work on how your success affects your score.
 
Worth reading:

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/166

http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/mm/168

Civ has most of these but the catch up mechanics are lacking. This is especially true with the "race for x, if you get it you gain a lot, if you don't you lose everything" situations, such as building wonders, getting religions etcetera.

There are many possible fixes but most require severe game overhauls, let's first see what BNW brings !
 
So, as most of you know, at higher levels an AI civ can have tons of cities not long after turn 100. They may have 5-7 cities of their own, plus another 5-7 captured cities from more inept AI.

Happiness doesn't slow them down, and if you aren't close enough to stop them, they become so rich, wealthy and scientifically advanced that you couldn't possibly compete.
By the time you start researching gunpowder, they might have rifles and cannons.

It becomes moot to continue, because they will curb stomp you as soon as they attack (and they will attack).

In real life, a powerful civ one era could be weakened and crushed in another through bad decisions.
So I'm asking if there should be a way for these huge monstrosities to fall somehow. Maybe internal rebellions caused by spies? Forced loss of science? How should a savvy player be able to deal with a runaway and squeak out a win?

It's very simple why this isn't a feature. It's completely unfun. You don't punish the player for doing well. If I lost a multiplayer game because my empire decided to revolt for the lolz I'd be pissed.
 
It's very simple why this isn't a feature. It's completely unfun. You don't punish the player for doing well. If I lost a multiplayer game because my empire decided to revolt for the lolz I'd be pissed.

Random, empire-destroying events would indeed be terrible. Whatever system would be used, it should be a consistent one with understandable rules and (if any) a controllable amount of randomness.

I've actually remembered that CiV does have a few other small features that help catching up, though not by much. For instance the spies in G&K: if you are ahead, you can't steal techs from the others and they can steal from you, giving them a chance to catch up. I think there's also a research discount on techs that have been already researched.

What I think could be done further would be to make larger empires HARDER to defend, rather than easier, as it is now. This is in keeping with history and at the same time it would be controllable by the player. I'd do this by making the size of the army that a nation can maintain increase with the number of cities, but not linearly. As the largest empire, you would have the largest army, but not proportionally so and you'd have a very large area to defend, making you sensitive to attacks from multiple sides. Think about how the Roman Empire was eroded by attacks from all sides - barbarians coming from East Asia, Persians pushing at their middle-eastern borders, Germans and Celts making the Northern European area always need armies.

I'd also make small nations that are close to a massive empire prone to ally with each other when one is attacked. A diplomatic option that tells another civ to stop a war or you are going to ally yourself with their enemy would also be nice for this purpose.

This is all theoretical, of course :).
 
Large civs already naturally have a larger border for a clever civ to exploit, they're expensive as hell to get up and running both in terms of happiness and infrastructure, and that's just to start. Civ 5 punishes the biggest, most powerful civ like no other before it, and you want to make it worse? Play an easier difficulty if you want to be able to catch up easier.
 
I think you are misreading me.

The issue remains the same if I am the one that's way ahead. In fact it's worse, in my opinion. It's normal to be behind for most of the game if you chose the difficulty level properly, to challenge. I like that. What I find terrible is that, when I get ahead, I know I can't lose anymore.
 
I think you are misreading me.

The issue remains the same if I am the one that's way ahead. In fact it's worse, in my opinion. It's normal to be behind for most of the game if you chose the difficulty level properly, to challenge. I like that. What I find terrible is that, when I get ahead, I know I can't lose anymore.

That's a problem with the AI more than anything. Against similarly skilled people, the problem is greatly diminished. You don't add in a mechanic that completely screws up someone's hard work though, that's terrible game design.
 
What difficulty are we talking about here? If it's Deity, then you're getting what you signed up for by playing that level. If it's Immortal or lower, then there is almost always a way to beat the runaway. And if the runaway is so big that you can't win, then it's probably your fault for letting them grow like that.

I play at the highest three difficulties, depending on the experience I want. However, stopping a runaway isn't always easy. What happens if you start close to a warmonger who attacks on turn 50 with a large army, while another warmonger on the other side of the continent steamrolls Ghandi and Washington and has no real threats to stop their expansion?

On continent games its even worse. Sending an invasion force takes tons of clicking, and they've got easy reinforcements. Even if they never touch you, they could be building rockets in the 10th century. How is it your fault for not being able to stop the unstoppable?

Civ 5 punishes the biggest, most powerful civ like no other before it, and you want to make it worse? Play an easier difficulty if you want to be able to catch up easier.

That's only if you're a HUMAN-led civ. The AI doesn't care about happiness, so they can expand like a juggernaut, with each new puppet bringing them more science and wealth. A human can't compete with the insane early expansion and the benefits it provides.


That's a problem with the AI more than anything. Against similarly skilled people, the problem is greatly diminished. You don't add in a mechanic that completely screws up someone's hard work though, that's terrible game design.

I would disagree with you from personal experience. I happen to know a bit about the game described in the linked article by Vohbo. In that game, a lucky turn by an opponent can destroy your board position and make you go from winning in a turn to losing just as quickly. This doesn't make the game unfun, because if you've planned accordingly and held onto the right resources, you could turn the game around again and win. Such a situation makes the game MORE fun, not less. If, however, you weren't careful with your resources, your unexpected loss is more deserved.
 
That's only if you're a HUMAN-led civ. The AI doesn't care about happiness, so they can expand like a juggernaut, with each new puppet bringing them more science and wealth. A human can't compete with the insane early expansion and the benefits it provides.

Except the AI is stupid enough to give you a chance of winning (the size of which depends on your skill) no matter what difficulty you play on.

I would disagree with you from personal experience. I happen to know a bit about the game described in the linked article by Vohbo. In that game, a lucky turn by an opponent can destroy your board position and make you go from winning in a turn to losing just as quickly. This doesn't make the game unfun, because if you've planned accordingly and held onto the right resources, you could turn the game around again and win. Such a situation makes the game MORE fun, not less. If, however, you weren't careful with your resources, your unexpected loss is more deserved.

That can be fun too, but Civ is not a game where that is a suitable mechanic. If you fall behind playing chess, you don't get a free queen to catch up. If you want the possibility of a significant shifting your chances of winning or losing because of a lucky or unlucky roll of the dice, you're playing the wrong game.
 
I play at the highest three difficulties, depending on the experience I want. However, stopping a runaway isn't always easy. What happens if you start close to a warmonger who attacks on turn 50 with a large army, while another warmonger on the other side of the continent steamrolls Ghandi and Washington and has no real threats to stop their expansion?

On continent games its even worse. Sending an invasion force takes tons of clicking, and they've got easy reinforcements. Even if they never touch you, they could be building rockets in the 10th century. How is it your fault for not being able to stop the unstoppable?

If you start next to a warmonger, you do a turn 60 CB rush and take him over. Then you'll be a runaway. After that, assuming you don't have a completely horrible start, you can still beat a runaway on a different continent through diplomacy or science. Stopping or slowing runaways does not always have to be done through conquest. There are a few diplomatic things you can do to slow them.
 
Top Bottom