Will Civ ever conquer its late-game malaise?

[acluewithout]

OP: Well, all the peices are there to fix it.

Here are some low hanging fruit.

War. Ancient and classical wars through to wars out of the Great Game etc. were wars between one or two civilisations and another. Civ already does that well. But later in wars became conflicts between groups of Civs based around shared interests, up to an including WW1 and 2. Alliances and Emergencies could do this, but they need to get more ‘regional’ than they are.

More war. After WWII wars have been mostly fought around proxies. eg America and Russia don’t fight each other; they fight over eg afghanistan. You could have the same thing if in later eras you had more free cities that formed their own groupings, and controlling those groupings had some game impact. Having a vassal system which could be used from free cities would also help. So, you might have a blob of five free cities, and America and Russia would fight to control those, either by invading and defending them, or exerting influence.

Influence. In the later game, there needs to be more ways to wage cold wars. More ways to shift loyalty, causing enemy cities to flip wihout actually sending in units.

Great projects. What Is really like to see is a new victory condition which isn’t just “achieve x” in the last few rounds (chop space projects, or spam sea side resorts). Instead, I’d like to see something you have to build steadily over time. Like maybe a ‘Utopia’ project. In each era you have to achieve certain objectives (eg build a special library on each continent - once built, you’d maybe not have to actually continue holding that city), until at the end you pull everything together to overcome some great challenge. Succeeding at the objectives in each era could maybe trigger special emergencies which make life harder. These objectives by era would fit well with the current golden age system. And maybe this victory condition would work a little like a religious victory. Only certain players who recruited one of a limited number of great people or built some particular wonder would have this option open to them, with everyone else then trying to stop them.

The last suggestion would give you a pretty ace title for the next expansion:

Civilization: Utopia

 

[Crenickator]

Great projects. What Is really like to see is a new victory condition which isn’t just “achieve x” in the last few rounds (chop space projects, or spam sea side resorts). Instead, I’d like to see something you have to build steadily over time. Like maybe a ‘Utopia’ project. In each era you have to achieve certain objectives (eg build a special library on each continent - once built, you’d maybe not have to actually continue holding that city), until at the end you pull everything together to overcome some great challenge. Succeeding at the objectives in each era could maybe trigger special emergencies which make life harder. These objectives by era would fit well with the current golden age system. And maybe this victory condition would work a little like a religious victory. Only certain players who recruited one of a limited number of great people or built some particular wonder would have this option open to them, with everyone else then trying to stop them.

I like this. But I think that the culture and science victories can be retooled to follow this thinking.
For Science, rather than just the space projects, you can have a number of different projects, beginning in the ancient era with increasing amounts of projects in subsequent eras, to be the first to find certain techologies or applications of technology. Sort of like the Era score buffs for certain technologies "You know the Classical Age truly began when Greece invented Sailing.", with like, Domesticating Horses and Metalworking the scientific milestones for the Ancient Era, for example, or the Printing Press and Gunpowder for the Renaissance. The idea being that the founders of these technologies aren't just the first to discover it, but the ones who influence the underpinnings of all the subsequent discoveries that stem from it. This requires not just discovering something, but putting it into practice by building. By time of the modern era, there are space projects, undersea projects, robotics/AI projects, internet/information sharing and a true science victor would be at the forefront of enough of these to influence the direction of the world's technology entirely, so that even if someone else builds the rocket first, all of the technology aboard still came from the Science victor. This would make great people and Eurekas much more important for getting ahead in tech, since being ahead now is just as, if not more, important than being ahead later.

Culture can work the same way, just with civics being the way such milestones are determined, such that Classical Greek republics are still believed to be the underpinnings of most of Western systems of government. The forerunners get an achievement that can't be taken away from them, such that a civ only truly dominated the classical era can still win a culture victory because its early accomplishments became so ubiquitous to civilizations that followed.

So in short, tech and civic milestones should count towards Science and Culture victories, be available in every era, and earlier eras would have fewer milestones with larger impacts. The Zulu can't win the space race just because they can chop faster, if the rocket they're building was only made possible by Rome's scientific achievements.

 

[acluewithout]

Thinking about this more. I think what really kills Civ in the late game, is that Civ is a game about territory not people.

What I mean is, the focus of the early and mid game is about capturing and holding territory. More territory is nearly always good early on - every city provides at least some production and per pop culture and science. And each new city allows for more districts. That focus on territory fits really well with the board game approach and with tactical combat.

But later on the game needs to shift to a game about people. More cities offer diminishing returns and can’t pay back their investment cost. And continued warmongering gets expensive and hurts you diplomatically unless you’re going for Dom.

It’s also not very historical. Powerful countries don’t really fight with each other any more - instead, the compete for influence over other small countries (and their resources) and compete economically. Or, if they do fight, they fight over satellite states. Free Cities sort of represents that (in that you can freely invade free cities), but it doesn’t quite capture it because no free city is truly free - they all originally started as someone else’s city.

I’m not sure how well Civ could ever capture that shift. The game would need to become a lot more ‘sim city’ than ‘board game’. I think having another layer of NPC between Civs and City States would help - basically Free Cities that spawn by themselves, fill in gaps on the map and who you can influence (without necessarily flipping). Having Vassals would also help, so you have an option other than directly capturing cities and expanding your territory. Also, we need more ways to influence loyalty. Having multi-party and regional alliances might help too.

But I think it’s a tall order to really make something work. My guess is Firaxis will just give us more things to do in the late game, rather than really make the late game matter. In other words, things to keep you distracted while you hit next turn. Hopefully I’ll be proven wrong.

[edit: clarity, typos]

 

[Gedemo]

The only civ game that made me play in late-game was "call to power II": the future part allowed us to build cities under the see and in space, it was so cool.

 

[moors]

There's a saying that power corrupts and I think it has usually been true througout the history, so why not apply it on an individual level.

The game can make us live and make a story. For example you may be making decisions for the personal life of the ruler which may have consequences. You may be making political decisions about the country in a storied style. You may be making some decisions about other important people for the country.

If we are too good, we may be more likely to face more bad behaviour in the country and in that story, which may change the flow of the game. We may also be curious how that story will continue...

There is a successful game built on a similar idea alone:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.devolver.reigns&hl=en

 

[SupremacyKing2]

To shake things up etc them emergencies have to happen against the human player and really work. But human players tend to be cunning enough to not let that happen. They'll more like use it to complete their domination

Considering that the AI can be too passive to present a legit threat to the player, I think in order for emergencies to truly "happen against the human player", they need to be independent events, rather than AI actions. For example, I am thinking of emergencies as things like climate change where if the total production output of all the civs reaches a certain number, the player gets a pop up saying that in X turns, they will start to suffer from climate change where they lose farms or some tiles turn to desert (extreme case). The player would need to reduce their production output to slow climate change down but ultimately research some late game techs to solve the problem. And there could be buildings like "solar plant" that grants extra production without causing climate change. This would enable the player to boost production again without suffering the penalties of climate change.

 

[agonistes]

I'm with the guys who think emergencies have potential. I wouldn't mind seeing 'world wars' occur, maybe once per age starting with, oh, industrial or something (I feel like I already said this... sorry if I did). Say, 3-4 civs per side. And of course quite a few diplomacy options would help too.

The 'malaise' for me is that exploration and expansion are done with, and suddenly you are in a zone where you are just waiting for cities to finish building things. Normally, in other versions, I would thoroughly enjoy the next phase, which I play as a diplomacy game. But right now, there really isn't a diplomacy game. At best, you are putting out a few fires - defending small civs or liberating some cities.

The idea to cut tech costs as the world era advances was a good one, as part of the problem was that you would be so far ahead no other civ could challenge you. But it wasn't enough of a boost. For this reason, I suggest that Peter's trade route ability should be a global norm (or just allow tech trading again). Or maybe you get a further tech reduction for any techs your neighbor has already researched. Whatever.

Anyways, there needs to projects to work on once expansion/exploration are done. Projects that don't involve bucket filling. Diplomacy. World Wars. Hmmm. Maybe a new continent is suddenly discovered in the Renaissance or something. Or is that silly?

Another option would be to have a timer go off that would cause the ai civs to start certain actions with great vigor. Mass settling an area. Ganging up on someone. A jihad. A cold war. I don't know.

Emergencies, I think, are the tip of the iceberg for most of these ideas, but they didn't take them far enough. Hopefully we see some oomph added to them down the road.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't mind seeing 'world wars' occur, maybe once per age starting with, oh, industrial or something

I mean, you could justify going even further back. The Napoleonic War was hardly the world's first large-scale conflict. The religious wars of the Renaissance encompassed most of Europe, and some of the Crusades were pretty major and international, as well.

 

[agonistes]

I mean, you could justify going even further back. The Napoleonic War was hardly the world's first large-scale conflict. The religious wars of the Renaissance encompassed most of Europe, and some of the Crusades were pretty major and international, as well.

I'd try to seperate holy wars. More things to do the better.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd try to seperate holy wars. More things to do the better.

Honestly, the whole religion aspect of Civ needs an overhaul, maybe by someone actually familiar with how religion, politics, and history have interacted (and some understanding of theology and religious practice might be a nice bonus). Many civs have been very religious, but most of them didn't found their own religion. Religion has been a major factor in both unifying and dividing civs. I'd like to see a much more robust religious system, ideally one that works on a meta level where religions aren't bound to civs (i.e., the founding of a religion is outside the players' control) but where civs may declare state religions, crusades, schisms, inquisitions, persecutions, religious missions, monastic reforms, investiture conflicts, etc.

 

[Abaxial]

There is actually a sort of tension in the late game, not as to whether you will win, but how you will win. It's not always what you intended. Often I will decide, say, early on that I'll go for a science win, and then just as I start getting my rocket bases on line, I find I have won through culture. Or I aim for domination and end up with a religious victory.

 

[sonicmyst]

There is actually a sort of tension in the late game, not as to whether you will win, but how you will win. It's not always what you intended. Often I will decide, say, early on that I'll go for a science win, and then just as I start getting my rocket bases on line, I find I have won through culture. Or I aim for domination and end up with a religious victory.

This happened to me in my latest game. I played as Poland, planned to do religious victory. But I got a nasty fractal map that all civs with religions are far away that it became impractical to fight the opposing religions. I ended up winning via Domination instead.

 

[KayAU]

The problem is, as I see it, that in the beginning you are doing fewer, but far more significant things, while in the late game, you are doing a massive amount of relatively unimportant busywork. It was a bit better in Civ 5, as I would typically have only a few cities, and I could spend most of my time focusing on ideologies and special projects. There was still a lot of clicking "End Turn" repeatedly until I won, but at least the turns were much quicker.

I'm sure there are many ways to address this.

One very basic one would be to improve the user interface and optimize the game to speed up turn times. Just adding in a production queue would save a lot of time in the late game.

Another possibility would be to make dominant players win more quickly. Emergencies do a bit of that, but only to a small degree. One idea could be to let science and culture go towards victory conditions once you reach the ends of the trees. For example, "Future tech" could lead to "improved production methods", boosting your yields. It could also let you spawn generic great scientists or engineers which could boost space race projects. Culture already has a repeatable benefit now, since it gives you governor titles, but perhaps it could be put towards tourism as well.

A third way would be to reduce the busywork, and give the player something else to do instead. This might involve taking away direct control of some of the things you were in control of in the beginning, like what each and every city is producing, and how each tile is improved. It does make some sense, as the size of your empire increases and the world gets more complicated, that you have to delegate some responsibilities to others.

 

[Abaxial]

Another possibility would be to make dominant players win more quickly. Emergencies do a bit of that, but only to a small degree. One idea could be to let science and culture go towards victory conditions once you reach the ends of the trees. For example, "Future tech" could lead to "improved production methods", boosting your yields. It could also let you spawn generic great scientists or engineers which could boost space race projects. Culture already has a repeatable benefit now, since it gives you governor titles, but perhaps it could be put towards tourism as well..

This is something I suggested in another thread. "Future tech" should be something amazingly powerful, whereas it is valueless since it does nothing except up your score. I would suggest something like each level of future tech giving your units +5 combat strength, and each level of future civ increasing all your production by 5%. That ought to speed up the end of the game.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

This is something I suggested in another thread. "Future tech" should be something amazingly powerful, whereas it is valueless since it does nothing except up your score. I would suggest something like each level of future tech giving your units +5 combat strength, and each level of future civ increasing all your production by 5%. That ought to speed up the end of the game.

Absolutely love this idea. It needs to happen now. But maybe future civic could give you extra tourism to speed up a culture victory?

I would suggest the following:

Each future tech gives you:
+10 combat strength to all military units
+10% production in all cities

Each future civic gives you:
+10 tourists
+1 extra wild card slot in your government

Firaxis also needs an auto research future tech or future civ when you've already researched everything. What's the point of the game asking the player what they want to research next when future tech/civic is the only available option left?

 

[cvb]

possibility would be to make dominant players win more quickly. Emergencies do a bit of that, but only to a small degree.

I'd give the AI players participating in Emergencies a couple of FREE appropriate units (offensive or defensive depending on their role against the human).

This might involve taking away direct control of some of the things you were in control of in the beginning, like what each and every city is producing, and how each tile is improved. It does make some sense, as the size of your empire increases and the world gets more complicated, that you have to delegate some responsibilities to others.

I see only 1 reason not to implement Vassal States as in civ4 ... the quota 1/3 same, 1/3 modified, 1/3 new ...
Still there is hope - the 2nd expansion features maybe supra-national elements ("UN")...

 

[Chibisuke]

I would also like to see the concept of world wars implemented. Also, city states should start to expand at some point. They are too static right now and are basically just there to feed whoever is closest to them by being absorbed into an empire. It would be nice if they became harder for the AI to Suzerain them as time goes on and they should become a bigger threat by building or capturing cities.

Like what if clearing a barb camp caused a city state to form an outpost that they defend, and after X turns it changes to a city.

 

[shaglio]

World Wars wouldn't even be that hard to implement. Just take the current Emergency system and change it from "Civ A did something. Would you like to join together to stop them or sit out?" to "Civ A did something. Would you like to join together to stop them, join together with them, or sit out?"

Of course, you'd then have to get rid of the typical rewards that come from an Emergency. The rewards would instead be the militaristic gains you were able to achieve and the building of stronger diplomatic relations with the civs you banded together with.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

World Wars wouldn't even be that hard to implement. Just take the current Emergency system and change it from "Civ A did something. Would you like to join together to stop them or sit out?" to "Civ A did something. Would you like to join together to stop them, join together with them, or sit out?"

Of course, you'd then have to get rid of the typical rewards that come from an Emergency. The rewards would instead be the militaristic gains you were able to achieve and the building of stronger diplomatic relations with the civs you banded together with.

I think World Wars a must for the late game. But it really does hinge on the AI being able to put up a strong fight. There is no point in having a World War if the AI is going to just sit there for 10 turns and then sue for peace.

 

[shaglio]

I think World Wars a must for the late game. But it really does hinge on the AI being able to put up a strong fight. There is no point in having a World War if the AI is going to just sit there for 10 turns and then sue for peace.

That's true, but that wouldn't be a fault of the mechanic itself, but the AI as a whole.

The expand on my earlier musings, there could be a chance for a World War to start once a civ selects a Tier 3 government. There could be a % chance every turn equal to the percentage of civs that have a Tier 3 government divided by 2 (So in an 8 civ game, if 3 civs have a Tier 3 government, there's a 18.75% chance each turn that a World War "emergency" could pop up).

Right now, all emergencies are everyone that joins ganging up on one civ. But the World War would obviously allow civs to pick a side (or stay neutral like Switzerland). If you remain neutral, you could be drawn into a World War. If a civ on Side A declares war on you, you are now at war with all of Side A, so you would then be given the choice to join Side B or go it alone.