"snowball" effect in civ7: good or bad and how to stop it?

[SupremacyKing2]

I thought we could discuss the snowball effect as it might relate to civ7. For those who don't know, the snowball effect refers to a civ's lead growing into an even bigger lead, causing the civ to become an unstoppable power that runs away with the game.

So I have a 2 part question:

1) Is the snowball effect really bad?

I think a case could be made that a little snowballing is not necessarily bad. After all, the core premise of civ and every 4x game is that the player builds a bigger, better, stronger, civ. The game wants your civ to get better and stronger over time. And one might even make the case that snowballing is simply the result of the human (or the AI) being a really good player because they made the right decisions and leveraged their strengths to get ahead. Also, if multiple civs snowball independently, then it might lead to an exciting late game as the 2 superpowers compete for the win. Snowballing might also relate indirectly to the imbalance between civs. Each civ has different abilities that do make some civs stronger than others. This imbalance is good because it makes civs interesting to play but it can also cause the snowball effect. Lastly, snowballing can involve some luck too. For example, you might get a really good starting location that allows you to get a big head start which then grows into an even bigger lead.

I think snowballing becomes bad when you or an AI are the only superpower that is so far ahead that there is no challenge anymore. Snowballing can make the player quit because they don't want to drag the game on to the inevitable win. And if the AI snowballs, then the player might quit out of desperation since the game is hopeless.

2) If it is bad, what is the best way to stop it?

I would offer a few suggestions for preventing the bad kind of snowballing in civ:

1) Make sure that all civs get a roughly equal starting location so that nobody gets an unfair start that leads to snowballing.
At the very least, give each civ a playable starting location. That way, if a civ snowballs, it is more likely because they earned it through good playing choices. It is perfectly find to snowball because you played really well. It is not good snowballing if you got a super amazing starting location that gave you a big advantage over everyone else.

2) Make the AI better (maybe not perfect but at least half way competent) so that the player has some challenge.
I think a lot of cases of the human snowballing is because the AI offers no resistance. I know almost all of my civ6 games where I snowball, it is because I am able to take out 1-2 AIs very early causing me to have vast open territory to expand unopposed. In some cases, I take advantage of an AI that is stuck in their damaged capital because they are surrounded by barbs. I swoop and finish them off. So again, if the player snowballs because they outplayed the AI, that's great. But snowballing because you were able to easily steamroll over a passive and incompetent AI, is bad.

3) Get rid of game exploits that help snowballing.
I know there are some expert civ players that win easily because they take advantage of game exploits. I am not saying they are cheating, they are just taking advantage of a bug in the game or a loophole. If the player snowballs, it should be because of smart choices, not because they took advantage of poor game design.

4) Have some mechanisms against excessive snowballing.
Having a big empire is good. But if your empire is too big, it should fracture at some point. So I think there should be mechanisms where cities are more likely to revolt and split the further they are from the capital. The player can mitigate this by garrison military units, governors, policy cards etc... but eventually a big enough civ should split.

5) Avoid random events that punish the player.
So no natural disasters that only hit the #1 civ. Negative effects should be understandable by the player. And if the player is winning the game because of smart choices, it will seem very unfair if the game just arbitrarily punishes them for it.

6) Change victory conditions so that the game will end sooner if the player is unstoppable so that the game does not drag on too long.
I think the best way to solve this is to make victories end sooner when it is obvious that the player is going to win so the player is saved from the micro of grinding through boring turns. I find that many civ6 victories drag on too long, past the point where it is obvious who will win. The worst offender might be the science victory. Not just it has too many steps but when you get to the last step (launching the exo planet mission), there is the arbitrary 50 turn wait to actually win. Why? You've clearly won so why make the player wait another 50 turns? Yes, I know you can speed up the travel time by launching the laser stations. But why force the player to grind through launching laser stations which involves a lot of micro and waiting X turns when they have clearly already won a science victory? I would propose fewer steps and a smaller wait time. Domination victory is another example of making the player grind through the game way past the point where they have already won. Once you have conquered say 4 civs, you are likely already the clear superpower as you are probably bigger and more powerful than all of the other civs combined. Why make the player grind through conquering the other civs too? Plus, on larger maps, domination just becomes a chore as you have to move all your units over long distances and conquer civs who are clearly no match for you. Basically, snowballing may be inevitable in some games. So the game needs to know when to quit before things get boring for the player who knows winning is inevitable. So I think it is key to make victory conditions end sooner when it is obvious the player is going to win no matter what. That prevents the game from dragging on too long.

 

[_hero_]

I think your 6th point is the most important one. I think most people play these types of games with a desire to snowball. Building from nothing to an unstoppable mega-power is the fun of the whole thing. I think many people simply end the game when they reach that point, but it is a shame because seeing the victory screen is a nice dopamine hit. Once I know I've won the game, the only thing left is to see the victory screen. Everything else is wasting my time.

 

[Hyronymus]

And what are we discussing if it might no affect Civ7?

 

[vorlon_mi]

I'm less excited about your point 4) about splitting. I would need to see more thought into the implementation. I've conquered the original capitals of (say) 4 civs on a standard map, along with many of their smaller ciites, and now suddenly my empire splits and a new AI player appears, with 40-50% of my land & cities & resources? And I have to beat them as well, if I want to pursue the original domination victory condition? Doesn't have much appeal.

I agree strongly with your points 1) and 5). Regarding improvements in the "CPU players", point 2), I think that part of this is linked to timing. I've played Civ2 through Civ6, including Beyond Earth, and have observed that the CPU players do successfully progress towards a victory that requires building something. Building up diplo victory points, building up culture (for the culture victories in Civ3 and Civ4), building up spaceship parts. Most human players are quick to attack and disrupt these plans. The CPU players in Civ6 are much less aggressive than the ones in Civ4; I've seen significant AI snowballing in Civ3, especially on continents maps. If left alone, the big (or the fertile start) will prey on the weak. I would like the Civ7 CPU players to be as aggressive as the Civ3 or Civ4 CPU players.

 

[Nikolai II]

And what are we discussing if it might no affect Civ7?

This. We know next to nothing about the game so far.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

And what are we discussing if it might no affect Civ7?

I don't know. Isn't it still fun to talk about stuff?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I'm less excited about your point 4) about splitting. I would need to see more thought into the implementation. I've conquered the original capitals of (say) 4 civs on a standard map, along with many of their smaller ciites, and now suddenly my empire splits and a new AI player appears, with 40-50% of my land & cities & resources? And I have to beat them as well, if I want to pursue the original domination victory condition? Doesn't have much appeal.

Yes, implementation would be key. I am not suggesting anything as drastic as half your empire splits out of the blue. I am thinking more like increased unhappiness in distant cities that could cause distant cities to riot. If you ignore the riots, maybe 1-2 cities flip and become rebel cities. You would really need to be incompetent to allow half your empire to flip. And no, you would not have to beat them as well. You might make peace with the rebel cities and just conquer another civ's capital to reach your total of X conquered capitals needed to get a domination victory.

 

[dagriggstar]

Honestly the best way to stop snowballing is to make co-operation the best way to win. Because whenever one faction starts getting ahead, the others stop co-operating with them, they get dragged back to the pack.

So that would mean stuff like trade, alliances etc to have a big impact on the game.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

It seems like Friaxis is hesitant to put many non-linear game elements - non linear meaning having 2 is not twice as good as 1. Wonders are non-linear in the sense you can't make two of the same wonder in different cites, but wonders are really necessary to win and it can be argued the production put in to wonder is better used for more cities. Powered buildings feel like they were intended to be something that something you would be only building in some cities but they too don't seem quite necessary enough to win.

 

[InsidiousMage]

1) Make sure that all civs get a roughly equal starting location so that nobody gets an unfair start that leads to snowballing.

The problem with this is that "equal" is kind of meaningless. Aside from having production and food, what you are going to want is going to vary from game to game. If you are going for a religion then you are going to want a natural wonder near your starting location and some mountains but a military victory doesn't necessarily care about getting a religion so a natural wonder isn't necessarily going to be something you want nearby.

2) Make the AI better (maybe not perfect but at least half way competent) so that the player has some challenge.

Why do people keep acting like this is something the devs just don't do and not something that is hard to actually implement? Could the Civ6 AI have been better? Sure, but that's true for most games which is kind of the point, good AI is hard, which is ignoring what even constitutes "good AI" to begin with and the fact that different people are going to have different ideas of what "good" is in this context. For example, there are lot of people who don't the primary goal of the AI should be to challenge the player but to creating interesting situations for the player to deal with.

3) Get rid of game exploits that help snowballing.

This is basically a game of whack-a-mole and not something you can actually do. The worst exploits should obviously be patched but you can never fix everything and then you have the issue does stuff like chopping and settling on strategic/luxury resources count as exploits. (Yes, in my opinion)

4) Have some mechanisms against excessive snowballing.

These kinds of mechanics are never fun or interesting and is probably why they have mostly stopped showing up in game. Punishing people for succeeding is never going to go over well with players.

6) Change victory conditions so that the game will end sooner if the player is unstoppable so that the game does not drag on too long.

Of the many things Old World got right, this is the biggest success in my opinion. The game needs to end before it wares out its welcome and while the last turns of the game are always going to be a bit of a drag, it really shouldn't be more than four or five turns but its way more than in Civ6. The game should also avoid stuff like the Culture Victory where its actually kind of hard to tell when you are going to win and can actually take a lot longer if a player unlocks a certain policy or something.

 

[DeckerdJames]

I would be interested in the idea of additional unique civilization and/or leader bonuses that kick in during dark ages and golden ages.

Couple that with the idea of the computer calculates where the world, as a whole, is in terms of scientific and civic progress. (Thinking in civ 6 terms)

For example, it could be a simple calculation like adding up the total science points earned by each player since game start and dividing that number by the number of players. That would be the average science earned. If a player gets far enough ahead of the average, that player goes into a golden age and it lasts as long as the player stays ahead. So that player may begin to snow ball.

If a player falls far enough behind the average, that player falls into a dark age. Then the dark age bonuses will kick in which are unique for every leader and/or civilization.

The calculation could be a little more complicated. If a civilization gets a bit too far ahead of the average, even if the other players are not yet far enough behind the average to trigger a dark age individually, since a civilization is getting much farther ahead, it could trigger a world wide dark age for the other civilizations.

The same mechanic could apply to the civic tree. Each tree could trigger its own type of golden or dark age. Scientific or cultural both could occur or they could be mutually exclusive.

Then era score could be removed or used for something else while golden and dark ages could be linked to advancements. Or, science could be linked to advances while cultural ages could be linked to high cultural yields or wonders building.

 

[Josephias]

4) and 5) are kind of opposite. I'd say, as others have comented against 4) that having a "fixed" event that punishes you for doing well is not fun, and having it being random (under certain probability)... well, it's 5.

But I was thinking that it might be interesting to have some sort of mechanic that makes these "rubberbanding" events be optionals, as "extra" challenges the player may opt-in or opt-out. ¿And what would be the benefit of taking them? I'd make it a gameplay-related but not specific game-related feature: Score (and maybe achievements)
This is, you'll get score benefits if you take the challenge, or score penalties if you don't. As with many games, once you are good enough to get a granted win, the challenge is to make this win the most perfect, improving the score you get. Some examples on how you could introduce these mechanics in a flavourful way in the gameplay:

Civil War (actually, what you propose at 4 -city revolt/split):
"You empire is so big that some local leaders are bragging about their share on your merits. They insinuate that you are a mere mortal that, without them, would not be capable to manage such a big empire. And it is true they ease your work but, is this worth supporting such vile statements?"
What would you do?
> Let them talk, their flimsy tweets barely scratch your power. (Any new score gain is reduced by 15%).
> Finish them! How they dare challenge you (X cities will revolt / defect / form a new civiliztion)

Rival coalition (2nd and 3rd civ merge into a single civ capable of challenging you - and that will declare war or pursue a victory condition they got ahead of you)
"Time has proven you and your people are unstoppable. Your empire flourishes and dominates the world. Yet, filled of envy, there are some that will rennounce their individuality just to deny your rightful place in the world. A counter-nature pact is forging between ____ and ____, and a obscure leader is raising with the sole objective of preventing your dominance. We are still at time to avoid this situation"
What would you do?
> Even if it makes you look weak, the alliance will not forge if it is against the world opinion. Complain about this leader objectives (alliance does not form, lose XXXX score)
> Use your tresaury to bribe and finance propaganda against this new lider (alliance does not form, lose XXXX gold)
> We buid diplomatinc influence in world forums just to be prepared for these cases (allieance does not form, lose XXXX diplo capital).
> This puny attempt to challenge you will actually be fun to crush and will demonstrate your power (alliance forms, any score out of actins against the new civ is doubled).

New, but farther Eden (e.g. to delay a Science Victory, some additional challenges may be added).
"As your space colonists were reaching its destination, the scanning instruments abroad your spaceship detected a new planet, probably most suitable for human life, just a few lightyears distance of the initial destination. Unfortunately, the supplies in their ship will not allow it to reach the new planet on this trip, and a new expedition will need to be assembled. Your current expedition will remain midway to ensure a correct location of the new Eden, but as this would be a temporary settlement, you will need as well to support it along building the new expedition"
What would you do?
> is not that planet we are next to arrive good enough? Space is infinite, others will come and undertake this new task. (Science victory score / modifier reduced to 75%)
> we will get the best for our people, let's head for this new planet... (Science victory score / modifier increased to 150% but:
- a new expedition needs to be launched and a new "travel" counter will need to be fulfilled
- from now on, permanently, at least one spaceport city should be running the "supply midway station" project. Enemy civs may take as an objective to disrupt this project attacking (or sabotaging with spies) the cities that are running it. If the project is disrupted (no city running it at the begining of a new turn) you will need to start the "original" space race with a 75% score reduction.
- (maybe) additional resources/techs should be acquire in order to ensure the new expedition launch and/or the supply project.

(you can imagine several more of these events could be coded for other victory conditions or for general variabilty of outcomes (i.e. not always hitting the same challenge in the same conditions).
As I'm writting this, this reminds me and could be handled somewat similar to Warhammer Total War Immortal Empires "World's end" scenarios, that can be picked from a pool to determine wich are the possible ones to face and wich ones will not launch. The difference is you will still have in-game, the possibility of activating the event for extra score or making it go unnoticed.

Also these scenarios could be easily inverted as a "help / soft cheat" possibility for players that are enjoying a challenging or underdog game but face an imminent victory or agresive steamroll by a snowballing AI: ¿want to keep the game running?: force a civil war in the agressive AI, or "magically" merge with your neighbour for added punch. At the cost, of course, of the score you would receive in the end.