The 4x problem of snowballing

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I have played many 4x games, you know explore, expand, exploit and exterminate. Pretty much all of them have the same problem that everything beyond the early game is boring. Why?

Because the whole concept of 4x is that each turn you invest resources into making your empire stronger and allow it to produce more resources which you when next turn invest for even bigger gains. The problem is very obvious, the stronger get stronger and the weaker get weaker also know as snowballing. This mean if you are able to get a little advantage in the early game you will quickly get an impossible advantage over your enemies.

I like the 4x concept of empire building but the experience is quickly ruined by snowballing. Thus a solution should:

1. Reduce or perhaps even remove snowballing
2. Maintain and encourage empire building across the whole game timespan

My current "best solution" is to encourage people at some point to restart as a new empire in mid game. So instead of playing one empire from turn 1 to 1000 you maybe play as 10 empires each over 100 turns.

In my concept the old empires would still exist but they would eventually be conquered by the new empires which I think would keep the game dynamic across the whole timespan. If you current empire is eliminated you would simply restart as a new one.

Now why you would abandon your old empire to restart at square one with a new empire is a good question. Maybe eventually the old empire growth corrupt or technological stagnate. Maybe the game is about getting a good score and a old empire would no longer give many points to its player. I mean you can really think out alot of reasons here.

I like this concept because it should keep the game dynamic and still be an empire building, I think it would be pretty cool even if it is far from perfect solution.

What do you think, what is your solution

 

[Ozbenno]

The Civ IV Fall From Heaven mod had an option called "High to Low". Once you were first in the game in score (after a certain amount of turns), you were then swapped to the last placed civ. Once you had taken this civ to first place you were once again swapped to the last placed civ and you could then win the game. So essentially you had to build up an empire three times to succeed (leaving the AI with two of those advanced empires). Stops the snowballing to an extent.

 

[warpus]

For the longest time I would never ever finish a single Civ4 game. I'm talking about hundreds of in-game hours and many years in the real world. It just didn't appeal to me to grind out the ending. The most interesting things happen in the early and mid game. The turns would take so long, there would be so many units, the wait times in between turns got so long, that playing the game beyond a certain year was just too much of a chore. Plus most of the time you know if you're going to be able to win or not, more or less. So what's the point of going through the motions, especially when it's not really that fun?

I don't like games feeling like a chore. So yeah, this snowballing effect applies to other genres as well. I play games to get enjoyment out of the experience, so I'll usually just play the parts that give me that enjoyment. It does feel good to finish something you started mind you, and eventually I did get in the habit of grinding it out. But in many cases it's just not worth the effort

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The most interesting things happen in the early and mid game. The turns would take so long, there would be so many units, the wait times in between turns got so long, that playing the game beyond a certain year was just too much of a chore. Plus most of the time you know if you're going to be able to win or not, more or less. So what's the point of going through the motions, especially when it's not really that fun?

This is something I very much agree on. It is not just civ IV but pretty much all 4x games I have played become boring as the game progress. As you say it turn from a game into a chore. Thus I think my idea to allow founding of new empires to remove much of the chore while keeping the empire building part fun. Your old empires would still exist on the map till somebody conquer them. But like civ you would shape the history of the world but your influence would be more universal instead of tied to a particular empire.

The new empire solution do also open up new stuff. Instead of a tech tree each empire can be given a number of random inventions and the only way to progress along technology is to found new empires. Corruption of empires can be done but instead of getting stuck at some point you can just found a new empire and the world continues on. If your empire is conquered you don't lose the game, instead you just get to found a new empire.

 

[civvver]

I only really play civ, and mostly just civ4, so can't speak to other games. But what always annoyed me about civ4 end game was for a domination victory you usually had to be ahead enough to get cavalry or rifles or cannons and start invading around that period, or risk losing to a space race. The time to go from infantry and artillery/tanks/planes to modern armor/mech/stealth is super short compare to all the other military eras and with it comes space tech and you always get one techer civ who goes for space. So it kind of puts a hard stop to your research and empire building where you have to convert to war mode or go for space victory. If you want to see a modern war where you didn't snowball way past opponents it's hard to do.

I think another civ solution is remove wonders. In civ4 a wonder like pyramids doesn't seem to bad in the early game but has huge ramifications an era or two later. Part of the problem with not getting it yourself is an ai will have it. If it's removed everyone's on more even turf. Wonders just promote snowballing.

 

[shmily_dana]

I liked the concept in Master of Orion II that when an AI was losing a war, it would surrender. But it did not always surrender to the player it was at war with. It would surrender to another player. I also remember is Space Empires IV, once you were 10 time stronger then an AI you could get it to surrender to you. So once I got the last place race to surrender, I would repeat the next turn on the next lowest AI. In a few turns I could wrap the game up, versus the tedium of conquering each race.

I note that in Civilization, etc even when I don't go for the pure conquest victory, I still end up conquering most of the AI. So the AI ends up watching my technological victory from their last remaining planet/city.

 

[civvver]

Huh? In civ4 AIs can capitulate which is surrender. The thing is you usually end up with a domination victory before they have all capitulated, unless you play like Pangaea map rome and conquer everyone by 1AD or something.

And sometimes they will capitulate to other players if the other player doesn't like you and is stronger on the graph and not afraid to take you on.

 

[Fish Man]

If you want to circumvent snowball boredom play on deity. On that difficulty even if you have like 20 cities the remaining AI can and will put up a worthy fight because of their ridiculous bonuses, keeping a game tough until the end. For real nailbiters try deity iso where you’re basically horribly behind for the first half of the game and fight tooth and nail to gain parity, much less win, and prevent AIs close to winning from achieving culture or a launch. In an iso Pacal map willem was 20 turns from a culture win when I declared and took his 3 legendary cities, grinding through harrowing megastacks of artillery and bombers. Then I had to do the same to wang who was about to space. There was very little “snowball” or at least any that guaranteed a win and it was close until the end.

 

[coanda]

On Civ4 Deity I've had a couple nail-biters like you've described where I was behind most or all of the game and clutched out a last-minute victory, although those are the exception rather than the rule. But it does tend to be true that if I'm actually more powerful than a bot, there's not the slightest chance that it will win. It's much harder to achieve parity or near-parity in size and tech with the bots, given their strong starting advantages, than it is to transform that parity into outright victory.

 

[sherbz]

I think this is why Stellaris has the concept of fallen empires and late game crisis events. Fallen empires will be beyond your tech level the whole game and you can only really challenge them at the very end game. And the late game crisis is simply that - a late game crisis.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Snowballing is a core premise of the 4x concept.

The solution isn't to remove the disparity created by someone outplaying competition. The solution is to end the game when it's over, rather than having it continue beyond a point where the outcome is in doubt.

There are games that managed this in the 1990s. Pdox and Firaxis need to learn from SSG how to make a UI and how to handle snowballing.

 

[sherbz]

Snowballing is a core premise of the 4x concept.

The solution isn't to remove the disparity created by someone outplaying competition. The solution is to end the game when it's over, rather than having it continue beyond a point where the outcome is in doubt.

There are games that managed this in the 1990s. Pdox and Firaxis need to learn from SSG how to make a UI and how to handle snowballing.

I actually think the route to "solving" this problem is to sort of create an environment where you have mini games within games. To explain, ill demonstrate, with a familiar concept - like civ:

- you are in the cradle of civilization - you expand aggressively and conquer a whole load of "stuff"
- as populations become more affluent, they start to rebel against your 1 man dynasty
- your empire splinters, and you have a multitude of new threats that were actually your own making (this also happens to other AI's)
- Medieval period ensues - you vassalize your rivals, and become a localised power once more - culminating in the renaissance period
- Industrialisation hits, and turns your feudal world into a different beast
- nationalism spreads, and unheard of nation states start to yearn for independence
- Some may break away, some may stay - meanwhile, the real power lays in empire - as there is no self determination in empire
- as the empire becomes more affluent, they start to demand independence too. Meanwhile, imperial politics starts to get a bit heated - especially for newly discovered/established nation states (i.e. germany)
- conflicts between empires becomes too much, and the old order crashes in a fiery furnace. Empires collapse and a new world of "X" emerges (X being the one you have been aiming for whole game).

I think both historically and from a game play perspective its a bit ridiculous that you can conquer almost the whole world without some severe negative impact later in the game. History is littered with such examples - the roman empire the mongol empire etc. Similarly, i think challenges should be placed at each new epoch - ive chosen the feudal age, the industrial age, and the modern age, but variants could also be permissible. It would also mean that a nerfed start wouldnt actually condemn you to a life or game of mediocrity. Start isolated? Not so bad! Deal with barbs and have a largely homogeneous empire thats a bit technologically backwards but "united" for when nationalism rears its ugly head (case in point - japan).

I think paradox have done a lot to advance such ideas. I dont think they have quite hit upon the winning formula yet though. As a turn based addict, i think their real time obsession might be one of the causes (i just think its easier to program a game that has turns). But i might be wrong.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I think this is why Stellaris has the concept of fallen empires and late game crisis events. Fallen empires will be beyond your tech level the whole game and you can only really challenge them at the very end game. And the late game crisis is simply that - a late game crisis.

Stellaris also has a difficulty option that increases AI bonuses over time. It doesn't feel as unfair as the bonus Setllers civ gives to the AI on higher difficulties, but makes it harder for a human player to stay on top.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I actually think the route to "solving" this problem is to sort of create an environment where you have mini games within games. To explain, ill demonstrate, with a familiar concept - like civ:

- you are in the cradle of civilization - you expand aggressively and conquer a whole load of "stuff"
- as populations become more affluent, they start to rebel against your 1 man dynasty
- your empire splinters, and you have a multitude of new threats that were actually your own making (this also happens to other AI's)
- Medieval period ensues - you vassalize your rivals, and become a localised power once more - culminating in the renaissance period
- Industrialisation hits, and turns your feudal world into a different beast
- nationalism spreads, and unheard of nation states start to yearn for independence
- Some may break away, some may stay - meanwhile, the real power lays in empire - as there is no self determination in empire
- as the empire becomes more affluent, they start to demand independence too. Meanwhile, imperial politics starts to get a bit heated - especially for newly discovered/established nation states (i.e. germany)
- conflicts between empires becomes too much, and the old order crashes in a fiery furnace. Empires collapse and a new world of "X" emerges (X being the one you have been aiming for whole game).

I think both historically and from a game play perspective its a bit ridiculous that you can conquer almost the whole world without some severe negative impact later in the game. History is littered with such examples - the roman empire the mongol empire etc. Similarly, i think challenges should be placed at each new epoch - ive chosen the feudal age, the industrial age, and the modern age, but variants could also be permissible. It would also mean that a nerfed start wouldnt actually condemn you to a life or game of mediocrity. Start isolated? Not so bad! Deal with barbs and have a largely homogeneous empire thats a bit technologically backwards but "united" for when nationalism rears its ugly head (case in point - japan).

I think paradox have done a lot to advance such ideas. I dont think they have quite hit upon the winning formula yet though. As a turn based addict, i think their real time obsession might be one of the causes (i just think its easier to program a game that has turns). But i might be wrong.

From a game play perspective, you need a way that someone making better decisions is consistently doing much better than someone who doesn't for every one of those bullet points.

Without that, "historical fracturing" is disingenuous to argue and degenerate in gameplay terms. No nation in existence has had a single decision maker optimizing for it rather than self (since self isn't in that world) for 6000 years. I'm not buying that a historical empire with such a supernatural leader necessarily fails, but we have no way of knowing either way.

What we do know is that making the outcome of these events not strongly contingent on player actions is a perversion of what the "S" stands for in TBS, a move that actively undermines any design concept where player choices matter.

Events like "Dutch independence" in EU 4 are hot garbage and should be held in disdain. It's reasonable when it fires in its historical context, and a complete joke when it fires on a contiguous nation with Dutch as a promoted culture + same religion. I've seen people trying to assert the event is nevertheless historical despite that such an assertion is objectively incoherent.