Stand the Test of Time ("Overhaul" mod) - Brainstorming

[Atlas627]

The idea _____________________________________
One thing that I think is always a problem with Civ is the amount of snowball it has. I'm not talking about the balance, I'm talking about the inherent need for snowball in its game design. Civ's design checks for who is currently winning at the end of the game, and that's it. The only point of winning at any other point is if it helps you win at the end...which means you need winning early to snowball. If you make catch up mechanics strong enough to beat snowball, then the winning strategy becomes to purposely not be in first so you don't get hit by the "blue shell".

So, the purpose behind this mod is to change how the game is won, and hopefully, by doing so, we can either inherently reduce the need for snowball or at least open up the ability for further mods to rebalance the game. How do we do this?

My current plan (which is open for discussion and tweaking) is to periodically "score" each of the Civs in various categories, and the winner is determined at the end of the game by whoever had the most overall score. The periods I had in mind were the eras of gameplay. The categories I had in mind would change from era to era, thus enabling Civs that were previously "behind" to catch up and Civs that were ahead to fall behind. I currently plan to have eras defined by specific, unique conditions, which also enable interactive gameplay between the Civs (by purposely triggering an era to end early or late, they change the effectiveness of other Civs' strategies).



Example ___________________________________

Ancient Era: This gets lumped in with Classical scoring. I don't think its appropriate to force gameplay into short term goals during Ancient, since Civ already has some good goals here (exploring, expanding, improvements) and you don't even know what type of game you'll get.

Classical Era: Classical Era is scored when a Civ researches the Feudalism Civic. The Civ that researches Feudalism gets a large lump of points, each Civ receives a small amount of points per city it controls, each Civ that has produced a Great Person gets a decent lump of points, and each Civ that controls a Wonder receives a decent lump of points.

Medieval Era: Medieval Era is scored when a Civ researches the Printing Technology. The Civ that researches Printing gets a decent lump of points, each Civ that Founded a Religion gets a large lump of points, each Civ receives a decent amount of points for each Holy City it controls, and the top 50% of Civs in military strength each get some points.

Renaissance Era: Renaissance Era is scored when a Civ has met all other Civs (if this condition is never met, it will score when the next Era scores). The Civ that met all other Civs gets a large lump of points (if there is one), each Civ gets a large amount of points per Great Work they control, Founder Civs get a decent amount of points per Civ their Religion is Dominant in, and each Civ receives a decent amount of points per Great Person they've produced (ever).

Industrial Era: Industrial Era is scored when a Civ builds 3 Neighborhoods (if this condition is never met, it will score when the next Era scores). Civs score a decent amount of points per city they control over 15 Population, the top 25% of Civs in economic strength receive a large lump of points, each Civ receives a decent amount of points per Continent they are on (minus one), and the top 50% of Civs in military strength each get some points.

Modern Era: Modern Era is scored when a Civ adopts one of the 3 lategame Governments (if this condition is never met, it will score when the next Era scores). The Civ that adopts the lategame government gets a large lump of points (if there is one), each Civ scores a decent number of points per Alliance they have, Civs in the top 33% of Foreign Tourists each get a small number of points, and Civs in the top 33% of Military each get a large number of points.

Atomic Era: Atomic Era is scored when a Civ completes the Manhattan Project (if this condition is never met, it will score when the next Era scores). The Civ that completes the Manhattan Project receives a huge lump of points (if there is one), each Civ with a Spaceport gets a large lump of points, each Civ in the top 20% of Military strength each get a large number of points, and each Civ gets a decent amount of points per City-State it is Suzerain of.

Information Era: Information Era is scored when a Civ researches the Future Tech. The Civ that researches Future Tech receives a large lump of points, each Civ in the top 5% of Foreign Tourists receives a decent lump of points, each Civ in the top 5% of Military strength receives a decent lump of points, and each Civ receives a small amount of points for every Great Person they've produced (ever).

If any of the normal Victory Conditions are ever met, that Civ receives a huge lump of points. The game ends when all Eras have been scored. The Civ with the highest score (even if eliminated, if we can mod that) wins! You stood the test of time!

What this means_________________________________

Whether or not you read the specific example I put above (and that is by no means meant to be a concrete plan, just a starting point for discussion), you should be able to understand the implications.

In a normal game of Civ, a player would spend the Classical Era planning for whatever strategy will keep them ahead all game. Long term goals only. In my system, the Classical Era player *may* change their mind to pursue some short term goals: the things scored at the end of the Classical Era (in my example, these are Civics, Great People, Wonders, and Wide expansion). Some may try to already plan for the Medieval Era (in my example, they would want Technology, Religion, and Military). Some may try to plan for both simultaneously (they'll rush a Classical Era Religion that provides Culture, which will get them 2 Classical scores and 2 Medieval scores), and some may try to alternate between them (rush new cities in Classical, then start working on a Religion using those cities to plan for Medieval).

A Civ that gets ahead in something that is worth points now may not also be ahead in something that is worth points next Era (or the Era after, and so forth). In my example, small mercantile state would get points for the Classical Era, but probably nothing in Medieval. They would again get points in the Renaissance, but only if they explore, and in the Industrial, but much more if they colonize.

Where this can and can't go_________________________

It may be possible to mitigate the effectiveness of snowball with these changes alone, but it depends on the balance of Civ6.


1) We may also require re-balancing to make different things strong in different Eras (so the Mercantile state wouldnt just get more points for the Industrial, it would also be more powerful IN the Industrial). I'd like to avoid this if we can, but I don't think it would be out of scope of the mod.

2) We could make unique mechanics for each Era to make the appropriate strategies more powerful or flavorful. I think this is out of the scope of this mod, because it changes the game to be even further from Civ. I am not totally against the idea, however. This mod could certainly enable an add-on mod that does this type of thing.

3) I am afraid of the AI being unable to use these changes. I hope that the scoring conditions I listed are simple enough (and already useful enough gameplay-wise even without them being worth points) that the AI will accomplish them, even if by accident. However, this mod might need some AI programming. I don't know how easy it will be to mod the AI, so I hope I won't have to...but I am willing to try if its necessary.

4) I think where this mod would really shine would be in multiplayer, especially if we re-balance or add special mechanics. I have played many multiplayer games where I get so far ahead that my friends have no desire to play anymore. It would at least *help* to know that even if I have the most production and tech, I might not actually win or even be winning! I hope Firaxis has actually made it easier to use mods in multiplayer. Again, I hope I won't have to mess with modpacks...but I am willing to try.


Who am I?_______________________________________

I have experience with modding other games, as well as making content with their modding tools, but I have no experience modding Civ. I studied Game Design and Programming in college, and I would like to put these skills to good use (and get in practice again). I work excellently in teams, and have managed many teams in both game production and content creation for games. I would be absolutely thrilled to work with other modders on this project, if they are interested.

Summary_________________________________________

The basic idea is that we can remove the *need* for snowball from the Civ series by making temporary power worth something in the long run without it having to translate to more temporary power. By making victory calculated from a set of scores added up over the game, we can separate winning now from winning at the finish line. By making each scoring check for different types of strength, we can also encourage different strategies to be viable at different times, and keep short term goals interesting on their own without having to also be optimal long term goals. By making each scoring occur at a player-controlled timing, we also enable strategies to interact with each other in a way that encourages reacting to your opponents (which changes every game, hopefully).

If this turns out to not be enough on its own (because of the way the game is balanced), then we will also re-balance the game to make different strategies more powerful during some eras than others. This will also help Civs that had previously been considered weak to shine through in a "Golden Age" of sorts, while previously powerful Civs may enter a period of relative weakness.

For now, I need help brainstorming appropriate conditions for scoring.

Thanks!
-Atlas

Edit: The reason why I call this an "Overhaul" mod is because its a relatively simple change (not much of an overhaul), but it will impact the entire game in a significant way.

Edit x2: Any comments or critiques on the overall idea are welcome too, of course.

Edit x3: Let's list features we can use:

• Governments and Government Legacy Bonuses (policies seem too fluid)
• Eurekas and Inspirations, Eras, Techs and Civics
• Religion, including founding, holy cities, enhancing, follower count, city count, and domination
• Sovereignty over City-States, conquering CS, sending envoys to CS
• Casus Belli, Surprise Wars, Alliances, Liberation, Peace Treaty mechanics, Declarations of Friendship, Denouncement
• Economic strength, Districts, buildings, Wonders, improvements, projects
• Size of Cities (housing), number of Cities, Amenities (luxuries)
• Discovering/settling Continents, discovering Civs/CS/Natural Wonders
• Military strength, Corps/Armies
• Great People, Great Works, Archeology, Theming Bonuses
• Trade routes, Trading Posts
• National Parks, Resorts, Appeal, Foreign Tourists, Domestic Tourists
• Spies, Espionage Actions, Diplomatic visibility
• Spaceport, Space Race

I'm sure there's more. What things am I missing? Lets brainstorm more ideas for parts of the game we can use for scoring!

 

[LastSword]

Humm, I am quite disappointed, because I lost my wall of text response.

In conclusion, new scoring system should be easy to design, I am not so sure about specific goals (AI wouldn't handle it, unless you first observe what AI prioritises). Play the game first, optimize your coding time, consider carefully what you can do.

Implementing proper rubberband mechanics is the real challenge.
Penalizing player for doing well might be not funny.

Good luck, I hope you at least try to achieve your goals.

 

[slikless]

tl;dr: I like the idea, but the way the scoring is described turns the game into a mini-achievement hunt. Instead, score each Civ individually and relativistically to all other civs after jumping into a new era.

In general I like the idea, but I am not sure if your approach (I DO realize that the examples of what is scored on what condition are just that - examples) leads to what you intend.

(If you want to read what initially went through my mind upon reading the original idea, read the spoiler. It does not contain anything relevant to my argument coming afterwards)

Spoiler :

What immediately came into my mind when reading your post are real life civilizations that are/were known for their achievements, be it technology, military strength/big kingdoms, long reigns, or something else. Today, we marvel the Babylonians for their knowledge of astronomy, Alexander for his military accomplishments, or the Fuggers for their wealth. To relate this back to your idea, these civs/leaders amassed a lot of points during their respective periods in some niche (i.e. research, size of empire/number of cities, wealthiness), but are not around anymore (at least not in the form they once were). Therefore I thought that the idea for such a mod is really nice - being able to win a game because at one point you were far ahead in terms of science or military, even if all that remains in the future are three weak, little cities (or nothing at all). So just based on the description in the OP and my immediate reactions, I felt that it totally made sense. However, I later gave it some more thought and...

I am not sure whether it (in its proposed form) translates all that well into the original Civ mechanics and their balancing, since Civ itself was made with the idea in mind that your people actually stand the test of time (and not, after being brilliant for a century two thousand years ago, vanish into the nether).

What I am afraid of is that without (re)balancing the scoring system and the original game mechanics almost perfectly (the more clever the scoring, the less re-balancing of original game mechanics will be required), one will run into the issue of separating the game into 8 or 9 mini-games (granted, I had the same impression when I first heard about the upcoming tech boosts mechanic for Civ 6, and I now think different). My biggest issue is that the cut-off point for scoring is bound to one Civ researching a certain tech or building a certain number of buildings. While this mod intends to shake up the gameplay such that the player does not only think in long term goals but also of the short term, the proposed way of scoring will most likely lead players to hunt after the most efficient way of playing each era individually, thus completely removing the need for any overall planning. This is mainly caused by scoring everyone at the same time.

This problem could potentially be alleviated by scoring civs relative to each other after they, individually, met one (of many) cut-off point(s). So instead of scoring all Civs after one Civ researched some tech, built some buildings or hit a milestone, score Civs when they themselves reach a milestone (or, for the sake of simplicity, just a new Era according to the standard tech tree), but still relative to the other civs. At least in my mind, this allows players to focus on one or two short term periods without completely eliminating the need for long-term planning.

By "scoring relative to each other", I mean to put the achieved core (whatever it might be, science, GPT, number of cities) into the context of all the other civs. If everyone else is playing extremely tall and only has 2 cities, having 4 cities should count the same as if everyone else had 3 cities and the player had 6. Also, maybe Player A generated 500 science in 50 turns in their Renaissance Era, and Player B 500 science in 60 turns of Renaissance Era; obviously, player A should receive a higher score because they only spent 50 turns int his era (Of course, numbers and the metric of science generated are just examples to illustrate my point of what I mean by relative scoring). Consequently, you will only be able to get your exact score once all Civs were scored for a particular era (which might be some turns apart)

Sorry for this long wall of text, but I hope I, at least half-decently, could get my point(s) across.

Cheers,
slik

 

[Atlas627]

Humm, I am quite disappointed, because I lost my wall of text response.

In conclusion, new scoring system should be easy to design, I am not so sure about specific goals (AI wouldn't handle it, unless you first observe what AI prioritises). Play the game first, optimize your coding time, consider carefully what you can do.

Implementing proper rubberband mechanics is the real challenge.
Penalizing player for doing well might be not funny.

Good luck, I hope you at least try to achieve your goals.

I'm trying to avoid it feeling like it penalizes the player that is doing well. Instead of mechanics that bring back the player in the lead (blue shell), I'd like to use slingshot/rubberband mechanics for players in the back of the pack.

That's assuming we even need to implement actual mechanics at all. Perhaps the scoring system is enough.

tl;dr: I like the idea, but the way the scoring is described turns the game into a mini-achievement hunt. Instead, score each Civ individually and relativistically to all other civs after jumping into a new era.

In general I like the idea, but I am not sure if your approach (I DO realize that the examples of what is scored on what condition are just that - examples) leads to what you intend.

[snipped, responded to points]

Cheers,
slik

I think the balancing of the scores will change whether or not it feels like 8 mini-games or still one big game. I think the idea is to make it feel sometimes like the mini-game is more important, and sometimes that it isn't. That nuance should affect the gameplay. Sometimes you should play to the mini-game, and sometimes you shouldn't.

For example, a player might want to invest in Religion to accomplish some of the Classical scores (Great People), Medieval scores (Religion and Holy City), and Renaissance scores (Religious Domination). If the scores are balanced correctly (and the game mechanics already have proper opportunity cost), then that player can't also reliably grab points for early expansion, great works, and exploration.

So I'm not sure that this problem is fundamental. The balancing should affect it.

As for them trying to plan for each era optimally, they can't. In my example, I made (at least) the scoring trigger in a completely different category. The Classical player needs to build culture, but the Medieval player needs to build science, and the Renaissance player wants to use a diplomatic strategy, and so forth. I also used different categories for most of the scoring criteria.

Example:

Classical: Culture (trigger), Expansion, Great People, Wonders
Medieval: Science (trigger), Military, Religion, Holy Cities (Religion + Military)
Renaissance: Exploration (trigger) (science + production/gold, enables diplomacy), Great Works, Religion, Great People
Industrial: Infrastructure (trigger) (culture + production), Economy, Military, Expansion
Modern: Culture (trigger), Military, Diplomacy, Tourism
Atomic: Military (trigger) (science + production), Military, Science, City-states
Information: Science (trigger), Military, Tourism, Great People

So it (should) not be possible to pivot each era to play them all optimally. Sometimes you plan 2 eras ahead because by then you'll actually have accomplishments in those new areas. Sometimes you plan ahead for the whole game because you know if you focus on 1 thing (lets say science) it gets scored in several eras (Medieval trigger, part of Renaissance trigger, part of Atomic trigger and scored directly in Atomic, Information trigger, and it helps you with all of the other things in varying amounts).

Of course, balance affects all of this.

As for the idea of scoring Civs individually on their own time scales, I think that will actually cause this problem even more. Since I have full control over when my Civ is scored, I can afford to delay as long as possible to get as many points as possible. I can completely swing to adapt to each era because I can make it take as long as I need to.

Basically, in my current system, since I cannot control whether this coming Era will end soon or not, I can only afford to change my strategy if its by small degrees. If I do know that I will be the one to control this Era's scoring, I suddenly get a moment of freedom to adapt fully to the Era because I know when it will end. A golden age of sorts.

As for the idea of scoring Civs relative to each other, I'm not sure what that would do. I dont think it would change anything by itself. Currently, I'm just scoring all Civs relative to zero. Scoring them all relative to each other shouldn't actually change anything, since their scores only matter relative to each other anyway.

As for the flavor of the idea (which might help in brainstorming ideas), yes to your spoiler. Part of the point was that you are supposed to be remembered by history for your combination of achievements throughout the ages. We remember the Spanish empire for a 150-year golden age and for its impact on the world. We remember the Greeks for their culture, philosophers, mythology, and things like the Olympics. By Civ standards, have any real life civs stood the test of time? I think these are huge achievements, and whichever in-game Civ has the most should be the winner. Not whichever one launches the space ship, necessarily. That might be different from Civ's vision, but I don't think so.

I GREATLY appreciate the feedback. You might be right, but I'm not seeing it. Perhaps you could help me by elaborating more?

Edit: I just realized what you were suggesting with individual but relative scoring. If I delay my scoring, it will be worth progressively less and less because my opponents will catch up and surpass it?

Hmm. I'm not sure if that will cause people to change their gameplay at all. It might be closer to my stated goal of separating the game from the inherent need for snowball, but it would definitely require further change to encourage people to do things other than snowball. I think your suggestion is just scoring the best people at all times for everything, which still encourages snowballing all game because its the best you can be at all times?

 

[qwerty25]

I love this idea.

Ive been thinking if there should be a stronger focus on one or two yields for each era.

Like
Classical: culture/faith
Medieval: faith/production
Renaissance: science/gold
Industrial: production/culture
Atomic: gold/science
Information: science

Anyways im not really sure how to categorize it. But like a fading or resurgence of a yield would be pretty cool. Like science slowly over time becoming more important. Or faith slowly becoming less important (but you could make it have a comeback at the end)

About the triggers:
Exploration is a bad idea for a trigger. Its time span is hard to control and no way for enemies to stop it. And its still dependent on the navigation tech (which ever one lets ships cross oceans)

Plus i think the triggers could be way more ambitious. Like currently theyre basically whoever reaches X tech first mostly. Triggers that involve clashing with each other are way more fun.

For instance.
The renaissance could have the main theme of science. While industrial era might be production. Science focused players would want to stay in the renaissance as long as possible, while production (this is a generalization) would want to move on to the industrial era.

During the renaissannce itll be similar to your system. Acquiring points for great persons, universities, great works etc...

The end trigger could be building railroads/ coal mines/ factories heradling the end of the renaissance. However the science players (or culture or whatever theme) could try to delay it. Perhaps they can build guild banning mass production in cities. Or destroy coal mines. Or not build factories in their cities.

The longer the delay. The more points in the era theyll receive.

Of course they cant delay too much, or else their economy will fall behind.

Additionally, while the era hasnt started, learning new techs and cultural policies should take longer if in an era not yet started.





Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[slikless]

I'm trying to avoid it feeling like it penalizes the player that is doing well. Instead of mechanics that bring back the player in the lead (blue shell), I'd like to use slingshot/rubberband mechanics for players in the back of the pack.

That's assuming we even need to implement actual mechanics at all. Perhaps the scoring system is enough.

I am not sure whether scoring alone can achieve this - but this is one of the aspects that in my opinion just need to be tested. The reason I am not sure is because Civ itself (i.e. research/building costs) does not provide enough tools to do that. Sure, you can save up GP, or start stealing a lot of techs with Autocracy, but there are no catch up mechanics per se - or am I missing something? Anyway, because Civ is rather snowball-y you came up with the idea in the first place. Not sure if scoring alone can circumvent this.

As for them trying to plan for each era optimally, they can't. In my example, I made (at least) the scoring trigger in a completely different category.

I did not intend to imply that "optimally" means to always score highest, just that, it will become easier to, theoretically, find an optimal path.

Sometimes you plan 2 eras ahead because by then you'll actually have accomplishments in those new areas. Sometimes you plan ahead for the whole game because you know if you focus on 1 thing (lets say science) it gets scored in several eras (Medieval trigger, part of Renaissance trigger, part of Atomic trigger and scored directly in Atomic, Information trigger, and it helps you with all of the other things in varying amounts).

This sounds like the vision of how the mod should feel and play in the end, and it sounds good!

As for the idea of scoring Civs individually on their own time scales, I think that will actually cause this problem even more. Since I have full control over when my Civ is scored, I can afford to delay as long as possible to get as many points as possible. I can completely swing to adapt to each era because I can make it take as long as I need to.

Basically, in my current system, since I cannot control whether this coming Era will end soon or not, I can only afford to change my strategy if its by small degrees. If I do know that I will be the one to control this Era's scoring, I suddenly get a moment of freedom to adapt fully to the Era because I know when it will end. A golden age of sorts.

At least in my mind, being able to control (one can delay it, but not long enough) when one is scored allows you to fully set up and execute your "golden age" of science, wonders, city sprawl, whatever. It also more closely resemebles what happened historically (which of course does NOT mean that, gameplay-wise, it is a better approach).

Now having said that, after reading your reply I, too, have some concerns. On the one hand, I feel like that scoring would have to work a bit different if Civs can "determine" when they end each era. Basically one would have to guarantee that if a Civ really focused on, say, production, it cannot elongate the next era enough to suddenly become decent or even good in science or great people. However, you probably risk getting thrown out of the game completely, hence risking not scoring enough points in later eras, if you try to stay too long in your era and not have enough or modern enough military.

As for the idea of scoring Civs relative to each other, I'm not sure what that would do. I dont think it would change anything by itself. Currently, I'm just scoring all Civs relative to zero. Scoring them all relative to each other shouldn't actually change anything, since their scores only matter relative to each other anyway. [...] If I delay my scoring, it will be worth progressively less and less because my opponents will catch up and surpass it?

Oh I just meant that instead of giving a fixed number of points, e.g. 1000 points to the player leading in science and 750 to the second player, to consider the number of turns it took them to achieve this. So either score science per turn itself, or put the number of technologies research into the context of number of turns players were in the Era.

No, it won't constantly decrease in score. The delayed scoring is only necessary because for some measures you simply need to wait how long a player spent in the Era. Taking your example, if you were to score number of cities, player A might settle 3 additional cities and ends the era after 50 turns, while player B settles 5 additional cities and ends the era after 70 turns. Only after player B leaves the era (i.e. after 70 turns), I know how good player A did with his 3 after 50 turns. To avoid senseless city spamming in the last turns of the era, one could only consider cities with at least X population for instance. But those are details.

I think your suggestion is just scoring the best people at all times for everything, which still encourages snowballing all game because its the best you can be at all times?

No, not necessarily. Or, even if that were the case, one could of course assign weights to certain aspects in different eras, but to always score all aspects is not what I intended.

I GREATLY appreciate the feedback. You might be right, but I'm not seeing it.

You're welcome, and by no means do I think I am right, I am just offering a different point of view and some thoughts

Cheers,
slik

 

[Atlas627]

I love this idea.

Ive been thinking if there should be a stronger focus on one or two yields for each era.

Like
Classical: culture/faith
Medieval: faith/production
Renaissance: science/gold
Industrial: production/culture
Atomic: gold/science
Information: science

What I currently had was 4 scoring conditions per era, with some of them being more important than others, some scaling better with how much you do it than others, and some eras having more overlap and thus focus than others.

I am afraid that if I make the eras "too" focused, you will more often either all-in the era's goal or completely ignore it. Of course, we can't know what is too focused until we see the balance of the game! So I have no idea if your suggestion is too focused or if mine is not focused enough. I'm just talking about the general trend

Anyways im not really sure how to categorize it. But like a fading or resurgence of a yield would be pretty cool. Like science slowly over time becoming more important. Or faith slowly becoming less important (but you could make it have a comeback at the end)

Yeah, I tried to pick things that were thematic while also being different from the previous era. Fortunately, we define the eras of history by the fact that they are so different from each other! If they were the same, we would lump them into the same era

So, for example, I have a general trend of needing to be in the more exclusive top % as the game goes on, since steady globalization makes things stick out less. I have a trend of requiring military strength as the game goes on, to help encourage an arms race even if diplomacy keeps everyone in a cold war.

I'm less happy about some of the other scoring criteria trends. Religion fades quickly, and I don't know if Religion will convert to other yields in-game at a strong enough ratio to make investing in Religion worthwhile if you're not in it for the score. The idea is to make people change their plan for scoring only some of the time. I don't want to completely override the base game's long term strategies, nor do I want to just have people play the base game but get scored over time rather than have victory conditions. The mod would already be different by removing the victory conditions, so it might as well create different gameplay patterns somewhere.

About the triggers:
Exploration is a bad idea for a trigger. Its time span is hard to control and no way for enemies to stop it. And its still dependent on the navigation tech (which ever one lets ships cross oceans)

I agree, this one is tough. Its thematic, but as soon as I had to start worrying about the fact that a condition could never occur, I had issues. However, it does still depend on a tech, which has to be researched and should occur at roughly the same time every game...I'd hope. No idea before we see the balance.

Plus i think the triggers could be way more ambitious. Like currently theyre basically whoever reaches X tech first mostly. Triggers that involve clashing with each other are way more fun.

I would love suggestions to make the triggers more ambitious. One of the problems I had when trying to come up with examples was that we only know so much about the game, and we certainly know nothing about pacing. The only pacing I could rely on was the tech/civic trees, because I at least know which things have to come before which others, and I can guess some sort of relationship with them.

Same goes for what to score. Espionage? City-states/Alliances? National Parks? What exactly determines Foreign/Domestic tourists anyway? How many Great Works will people have?

For instance.
The renaissance could have the main theme of science. While industrial era might be production. Science focused players would want to stay in the renaissance as long as possible, while production (this is a generalization) would want to move on to the industrial era.

During the renaissannce itll be similar to your system. Acquiring points for great persons, universities, great works etc...

The end trigger could be building railroads/ coal mines/ factories heradling the end of the renaissance. However the science players (or culture or whatever theme) could try to delay it. Perhaps they can build guild banning mass production in cities. Or destroy coal mines. Or not build factories in their cities.

The longer the delay. The more points in the era theyll receive.

Of course they cant delay too much, or else their economy will fall behind.

Ah, you're suggesting that the next era (production) should be heralded by a related trigger (production+science), while the current era (science) wants to avoid it, creating a conflict?

I felt that having the same type of dynamic (like this proposed conflict) occur so consistently would be a problem. If every era transition lines up like this, then I will always be able to swing my strategy to match the era (or never, if the balance is off in the other direction). If every transition is the same, it will either always work or always not. No nuance.

So I thoroughly agree that having conflict is good, but I think we should have variety in the type of conflicts we have.

Using my example, a cultural civ will have the most control over when the Classical will end. Despite having the ability to end it early, they will probably want to take the time to purposely end it late because they know they have the time to also grab a Wonder (which synergizes with culture) and a Great Person. Furthermore, as long as nobody else takes the trigger from them, they can start pivoting to the Medieval requirements early so that they don't fall too far behind people who ignored Classical and went straight for Medieval.

In contrast, another player might be preparing for Medieval and realize that 1) Classical is dragging on and they aren't getting points for it and 2) they have already done some of the non-scaling Medieval things and don't want to let everybody catch up...so they rush the Classical trigger and try to rush the Medieval trigger. This is a different type of conflict.

Additionally, while the era hasnt started, learning new techs and cultural policies should take longer if in an era not yet started.

Having just constructed the example I gave for conflict, you made me realize that there is nothing stopping someone from happily sitting around and building up score for an era that they are in no rush to reach. So for example, the Medieval player I mentioned could also just let Classical drag on while they ignore it and build up Medieval points. I'm not sure if this is a good thing.

In contrast to that, they also may think its worthwhile to rush through the era they were building up for. So this Medieval player has already acquired all the Medieval points, but in the Classical era. Now, instead of happily dragging on the Medieval Era and having the freedom to get all the points like in a Golden Age, they rush through Medieval. That seems odd to me.

Your suggestion here might help both cases. Its a simple mechanic change, but it might help a lot.

Thanks for the feedback! It helps a lot. I'd like to brainstorm better triggers and scoring if we can, but I know its also hard to without knowing all the game mechanics, balance, and pacing.

I am not sure whether scoring alone can achieve this - but this is one of the aspects that in my opinion just need to be tested. The reason I am not sure is because Civ itself (i.e. research/building costs) does not provide enough tools to do that. Sure, you can save up GP, or start stealing a lot of techs with Autocracy, but there are no catch up mechanics per se - or am I missing something? Anyway, because Civ is rather snowball-y you came up with the idea in the first place. Not sure if scoring alone can circumvent this.

It does depend on the game's base mechanics and how much stronger snowball is than catch-up. Maybe I'm just wrong and the scoring cannot be enough on its own no matter the balance (assuming snowball is already stronger than catch-up).

However, there were some catch-up mechanics in 5. Research agreements were catch up. I don't remember if it was a mod, but I think there was a tech cost reduction per player that had already researched a tech.

I did not intend to imply that "optimally" means to always score highest, just that, it will become easier to, theoretically, find an optimal path.

I do want the system to be clear, as well. If it is consistent and obvious what the scoring is, you are correct that you should be able to find an optimal path. But if the balance is right, that path should still be different each game, because Civ6 seems to be inherently changing the best path each game just by re-rolling the map. We'll see when we get there.

This sounds like the vision of how the mod should feel and play in the end, and it sounds good!

Thanks! I really appreciate the feedback. Just because I know my goal and we agree its a good goal doesnt mean I have the right method of achieving it. This discussion is helpful.

At least in my mind, being able to control (one can delay it, but not long enough) when one is scored allows you to fully set up and execute your "golden age" of science, wonders, city sprawl, whatever. It also more closely resemebles what happened historically (which of course does NOT mean that, gameplay-wise, it is a better approach).

If we made a bunch of different triggers per era, as you suggested, it may be possible to not let someone delay by too much. We wouldn't score all those triggers, though.

However, then I think it is less clear when and why the scoring occurred. More things to juggle. For example, you still have to research Feudalism for the points even if you triggered the scoring by building 5 cities, or something. If we make enough triggers to not let people delay too much, then we also make all eras somewhat similar.

Now having said that, after reading your reply I, too, have some concerns. On the one hand, I feel like that scoring would have to work a bit different if Civs can "determine" when they end each era. Basically one would have to guarantee that if a Civ really focused on, say, production, it cannot elongate the next era enough to suddenly become decent or even good in science or great people. However, you probably risk getting thrown out of the game completely, hence risking not scoring enough points in later eras, if you try to stay too long in your era and not have enough or modern enough military.

Risking falling behind in the overall game is a big gameplay element, yeah. I think enabling that possibility while making it look like a positive thing is just going to make people feel terrible and give them false choices. If the era moves on without them, they're reminded "hey, you're behind! These are the new goals, and if you can't meet them then try for the goals after that, because this era might move on without you too!"

Making the era move on for everyone should also feel satisfying for the player causing the trigger. I know I just forced everyone else to get fewer points, as opposed to the unclear effects of "well I build another city, but I don't know if my opponents are still in Medieval and this will reduce their score when they score Medieval". And at the same time, building cities isn't even my current goal...so it just feels meh. I think.

Oh I just meant that instead of giving a fixed number of points, e.g. 1000 points to the player leading in science and 750 to the second player, to consider the number of turns it took them to achieve this. So either score science per turn itself, or put the number of technologies research into the context of number of turns players were in the Era.

Oh. I didn't know how easy this would be to mod in, so I didn't want to assume that I could. Wouldn't this cause a player to rush through the era theyre good in? That seems appropriate gameplay-wise (I'm good at these requirements so that I don't need to test them for as long), but inappropriate flavor-wise (this is my golden age, lets end it asap). Also, I feel like the interaction between other Civs trying to end your golden age era early is a good dynamic.

No, it won't constantly decrease in score. The delayed scoring is only necessary because for some measures you simply need to wait how long a player spent in the Era. Taking your example, if you were to score number of cities, player A might settle 3 additional cities and ends the era after 50 turns, while player B settles 5 additional cities and ends the era after 70 turns. Only after player B leaves the era (i.e. after 70 turns), I know how good player A did with his 3 after 50 turns. To avoid senseless city spamming in the last turns of the era, one could only consider cities with at least X population for instance. But those are details.

If I settle 3 cities in 50 turns, and another player settles 4 in 60, then the average ratio is 19/300. Now player C settles 7 in 70. That average ratio goes up, increasing the value of everyone's cities.

Now I'm confused. What does that do for gameplay?

No, not necessarily. Or, even if that were the case, one could of course assign weights to certain aspects in different eras, but to always score all aspects is not what I intended.

Sure, but you'd need to create enough triggers to cover enough forms of advancement...hmm.

You're welcome, and by no means do I think I am right, I am just offering a different point of view and some thoughts

Cheers,
slik

Thanks a lot

 

[qwerty25]

Hi atlas. I was also wondering about the problem of the transitiosn either being too against or too supportive of a civ with no options.

Thats why i was kinda trying to put two yields for each era. So a civ would always have multiple options to fight for something.

Though in any case i also think military would need an overhaul so it doesnt rely solely on production.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[Atlas627]

Hi atlas. I was also wondering about the problem of the transitiosn either being too against or too supportive of a civ with no options.

Thats why i was kinda trying to put two yields for each era. So a civ would always have multiple options to fight for something.

Though in any case i also think military would need an overhaul so it doesnt rely solely on production.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

This was my example:

Classical: Culture (trigger), Expansion, Great People, Wonders
Medieval: Science (trigger), Military, Religion, Holy Cities (Religion + Military)
Renaissance: Exploration (trigger) (science + production/gold, enables diplomacy), Great Works, Religion, Great People
Industrial: Infrastructure (trigger) (culture + production), Economy, Military, Expansion
Modern: Culture (trigger), Military, Diplomacy, Tourism
Atomic: Military (trigger) (science + production), Military, Science, City-states
Information: Science (trigger), Military, Tourism, Great People

So some eras are more varied than others, which I think is a good thing.

I believe military strength is calculated by a combination of science (tech of units changes strength), culture (I would hope the game recognizes policies as buffs, or the AI is going to declare war on a lot of "weak" civs), production (constructing units), and gold (buying units, gold comes from trade). It can also come from faith, war experience, expansion, and Great People (generals/admirals).

So I think military is an acceptable measurement, assuming that the game can recognize strength of units, including policies.

 

[qwerty25]

This was my example:

Classical: Culture (trigger), Expansion, Great People, Wonders
Medieval: Science (trigger), Military, Religion, Holy Cities (Religion + Military)
Renaissance: Exploration (trigger) (science + production/gold, enables diplomacy), Great Works, Religion, Great People
Industrial: Infrastructure (trigger) (culture + production), Economy, Military, Expansion
Modern: Culture (trigger), Military, Diplomacy, Tourism
Atomic: Military (trigger) (science + production), Military, Science, City-states
Information: Science (trigger), Military, Tourism, Great People

So some eras are more varied than others, which I think is a good thing.

I believe military strength is calculated by a combination of science (tech of units changes strength), culture (I would hope the game recognizes policies as buffs, or the AI is going to declare war on a lot of "weak" civs), production (constructing units), and gold (buying units, gold comes from trade). It can also come from faith, war experience, expansion, and Great People (generals/admirals).

So I think military is an acceptable measurement, assuming that the game can recognize strength of units, including policies.

Sorry i meant more like how military is produced should be overhauled and not solely rely on production. Like have units require population.

Or a certain number of units to require culture/faith.

 

[Atlas627]

Sorry i meant more like how military is produced should be overhauled and not solely rely on production. Like have units require population.

Or a certain number of units to require culture/faith.

Unless that specifically helps with game balance to the point of enabling different strategies in different eras or removing snowball, I think it falls out of scope for this project.

 

[Atlas627]

Again, we don't know game balance, and its so far in advance that all we can really discuss are theories about how the mod should work, and brainstorming which game mechanics we can turn into scoring conditions and triggers. So I'd like to brainstorm more ideas, since some of mine are certainly lame.

Let's list features we can use:

• Governments and Government Legacy Bonuses (policies seem too fluid)
• Eurekas and Inspirations, Eras, Techs and Civics
• Religion, including founding, holy cities, enhancing, and domination
• Sovereignty over City-States, conquering CS, sending envoys to CS
• Casus Belli, Surprise Wars, Alliances, Liberation, Peace Treaty mechanics, Declarations of Friendship, Denouncement
• Economic strength, Districts, buildings, Wonders, improvements, projects
• Size of Cities (housing), number of Cities, Amenities (luxuries)
• Discovering/settling Continents, discovering Civs/CS/Natural Wonders
• Military strength, Corps/Armies
• Great People, Great Works, Archeology, Theming Bonuses
• Trade routes, Trading Posts
• National Parks, Resorts, Appeal, Foreign Tourists, Domestic Tourists
• Spies, Espionage Actions, Diplomatic visibility
• Spaceport, Space Race

I'm sure there's more. What things am I missing? Lets brainstorm more ideas for parts of the game we can use for scoring!

 

[Browd]

Perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding your goal here, but isn't this only relevant for folks who want to play 500 turns? Would your mod automatically disable all victory conditions other than time/score victory, and then revamp the score system to measure score progress era by era? Or would, e.g., achieving the religious victory conditions on, say, turn 210 just mean you get bonus points for that era, but haven't "won" the game until you see how you stood (cumulatively) in 2050 AD? (Personally, I've never played a Civ V game for 500 turns and have never looked at my score, so maybe I am missing the point.)

 

[Atlas627]

Perhaps I'm completely misunderstanding your goal here, but isn't this only relevant for folks who want to play 500 turns? Would your mod automatically disable all victory conditions other than time/score victory, and then revamp the score system to measure score progress era by era? Or would, e.g., achieving the religious victory conditions on, say, turn 210 just mean you get bonus points for that era, but haven't "won" the game until you see how you stood (cumulatively) in 2050 AD? (Personally, I've never played a Civ V game for 500 turns and have never looked at my score, so maybe I am missing the point.)

Neither! When the scoring condition for the final "era" of the game is completed, the game ends. That will be roughly the same timing as any of the normal "endgame" conditions (Science, Tourism), but not the same as the "early victories" (domination, religion).

And yes, completing one of the normal victory conditions will be worth a LOT of points.

So this has nothing to do with Civ's Score victory, nor their scoring system. That system is more about overall strength of your Civ than anything else. One of the goals is to have different eras value different things, so that some Civs that were considered "behind" before are now in the limelight.

 

[mjhousto]

I like this idea, but I feel like if each era has a static set of metrics that players are graded on at the end of the era then players will be forced into a play style of focusing all effort onto those specific metrics in that era in a hopes to win.

Your idea has given me a though on how to create a rubber rubber band/slingshot mechanism and still reward players for performing well.

All vanilla victory conditions apply and end the game once complete. At the end of each era, players are scored/ranked in each category (culture, science, gold, production, food, faith, & military strength).

At the start of the next era:

• All AI players get an automatic boost to increase the AI competitiveness as the game progresses. Boosts to the AI could come in many forms.
• Human players who rank 1st in at least one category receive boosts to each category depending on their ranking in those categories in the previous era (1st place gets largest boost, 2nd gets slightly less, last place gets none). These boosts would apply to each category, so the player with the highest science output would get the largest boost in science, but might get a smaller boost to culture than another player who was more culture focused for example.
• Human players who do not rank 1st in any categories will receive blanket boosts to all categories (similar to the AI) based on their highest category ranking. Lower ranked players will receive larger boosts, so a player who's highest ranking is 2nd will get a flat rate of boost to each of their outputs, but it will be a smaller boost rate than a player who's highest ranking is 3rd.

The rate of boost for AI and human players would be such that:

• A player in 1st in a given category will remain in 1st in that category.
• AI and human players who don't rank 1st in any categories will get closer to the 1st ranking player in that category, but wont quite catch up; they may or may not surpass that player in different categories.
• Human players who rank 1st in a different category, will fall further behind in that category, but will remain 1st in their leading category.

A quick example: Player 1 ranks 1st in science and 2nd in culture; they get a large science boost and a moderate culture boost. Player 2 ranks 1st in culture and 2nd in science; they get a large culture boost and a moderate science boost, which extends Player 1's science lead over Player 2 and also extends Player 2's culture lead over Player 1. Player 3 ranks 3rd in science and 3rd in culture; they get a large boost to science and culture which has a chance to put them over the culture output of Player 1 and/or the science output of Player 2 (depending on how far behind they were), but will not put them into 1st place for either culture or science output.

Obviously this system will require extensive balancing, but I think it has potential to keep all players competitive into the late game while still rewarding players who are on top.

 

[Atlas627]

I like this idea, but I feel like if each era has a static set of metrics that players are graded on at the end of the era then players will be forced into a play style of focusing all effort onto those specific metrics in that era in a hopes to win.

If balanced properly, you will sometimes want to switch your strategy era-by-era, but not always. Sometimes it will be better to pick a strategy that hits 2 sets of criteria on its own, or to switch strategies while skipping an era, giving you enough time to actually switch strategies.

Your idea has given me a though on how to create a rubber rubber band/slingshot mechanism and still reward players for performing well.

All vanilla victory conditions apply and end the game once complete. At the end of each era, players are scored/ranked in each category (culture, science, gold, production, food, faith, & military strength).

At the start of the next era:

• All AI players get an automatic boost to increase the AI competitiveness as the game progresses. Boosts to the AI could come in many forms.
• Human players who rank 1st in at least one category receive boosts to each category depending on their ranking in those categories in the previous era (1st place gets largest boost, 2nd gets slightly less, last place gets none). These boosts would apply to each category, so the player with the highest science output would get the largest boost in science, but might get a smaller boost to culture than another player who was more culture focused for example.
• Human players who do not rank 1st in any categories will receive blanket boosts to all categories (similar to the AI) based on their highest category ranking. Lower ranked players will receive larger boosts, so a player who's highest ranking is 2nd will get a flat rate of boost to each of their outputs, but it will be a smaller boost rate than a player who's highest ranking is 3rd.

The rate of boost for AI and human players would be such that:

• A player in 1st in a given category will remain in 1st in that category.
• AI and human players who don't rank 1st in any categories will get closer to the 1st ranking player in that category, but wont quite catch up; they may or may not surpass that player in different categories.
• Human players who rank 1st in a different category, will fall further behind in that category, but will remain 1st in their leading category.

A quick example: Player 1 ranks 1st in science and 2nd in culture; they get a large science boost and a moderate culture boost. Player 2 ranks 1st in culture and 2nd in science; they get a large culture boost and a moderate science boost, which extends Player 1's science lead over Player 2 and also extends Player 2's culture lead over Player 1. Player 3 ranks 3rd in science and 3rd in culture; they get a large boost to science and culture which has a chance to put them over the culture output of Player 1 and/or the science output of Player 2 (depending on how far behind they were), but will not put them into 1st place for either culture or science output.

Obviously this system will require extensive balancing, but I think it has potential to keep all players competitive into the late game while still rewarding players who are on top.

The system you suggest only has 1 minor issue: there is no point in giving a boost to a player in the category they are winning in. You might as well decrease all the boosts by the amount you were going to boost them, because that will numerically result in the same thing. (unless I am totally misunderstanding you)

 

[RandyG]

The title of the post made me think this would be an overhaul mod inspired by Civ II: Test of Time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_II:_Test_of_Time

 

[mjhousto]

The system you suggest only has 1 minor issue: there is no point in giving a boost to a player in the category they are winning in. You might as well decrease all the boosts by the amount you were going to boost them, because that will numerically result in the same thing. (unless I am totally misunderstanding you)

The reason for boosting the category a player is winning at is to prevent another player from being catapulted into first place due to being boosted.

 

[Atlas627]

The reason for boosting the category a player is winning at is to prevent another player from being catapulted into first place due to being boosted.

Why not just boost everyone else by that much less? If you boost everyone all the time, you're going to also end up speeding up the game by accident.

The title of the post made me think this would be an overhaul mod inspired by Civ II: Test of Time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_II:_Test_of_Time

Oops! I hope I didn't disappoint you.

 

[mjhousto]

Why not just boost everyone else by that much less? If you boost everyone all the time, you're going to also end up speeding up the game by accident.

As I mentioned, the system I proposed would require balancing, which includes adjusting science/culture/production/gold/faith requirements for building/research in order to keep the game at the target pace.

If you do not boost the person who ranks 1st then there are 2 issues:

1. You are being punished for winning, which is one thing I am trying to avoid, since everyone else will receive a boost.
2. If there is a very close second, even a small boost could potentially put them in first place unless the person in 1st also gets a boost.

The goal of the system I proposed is not to upend the leader board at the end of each era, but to keep those who have fallen behind competitive until the end of the game and prevent snowballing for those in the lead.