Taking the game to the (il)logical conclusion

[phunny pharmer]

What should the ultimate research-build ending be. In Civ2, it was sending the ship to AC. In SMAC, it was the transcendence sequence. Should the spaceship still be used as the victory? Or should there be some form of 'transcendence' for those left on earth?

Also, what other victory conditions should there be? In Civ2, there were 2. SMAC had 4 (but only 3 were used). How many should Civ3 have? And how can they be balanced?

[TheLimey]

Tech and build: Get to the end of the tech tree and build the expensive relic at the end...
World conquest: Eliminate all opposition
Religious: 'Convert' all cities to your religion
Resource quantity: Aquire X number of cities, gold, or whatever
Diplo: Hold and maintain a diplomatic alliegance for a percentage of time (like 70% of the total game time)
Social: Attain Happiness level X
Power Level: Through a combination of indicators (units, cities, techs etc.), achieve a massive superiority over your nearest rival (like 5x or something)

[Napoleon I]

The general trend of ideas here is very nice, but we would need to do much more thinking about the details.

TheLimey:

Very nice summary but some of the details will have to be worked out.

Power Level: I disagree with this one. The Mongol empire at its peak was infinitely more powerful than any other country and within a few generations it crumbled. In 1815 the British Empire stood supreme, but lost it by the time Germany unified. I think that if the AI can be improved to battle ICS almost any civ will have a chance to rise again.

Social: Perhaps, but you would be required to hold it for a good number of turns to win.

Religious: ditto

Resource quantity: ICS will become an even bigger problem with this.

The rest are really good, and I'll back up any one of them.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'll be waiting eagerly for more great ideas in this thread.


------------------
Napoleon I

[phunny pharmer]

I'm liking that power level option! However, in a way, it just seems like an easy conquest victory...the only way you will get a power level that much higher than your closest opponent(s) would be by taking their cities.

Also, what's the difference between SMAC's rarely-used economic victory and the proposed religion victory. It sounds like both will require a lot of gold (which is unfeasible, considering the market crashes) and will also not be practical on large maps.

Also, as a side note, when should the last game turn be? In civ2, I think it was 2000AD (with a grace period of a few turns more)? Should civ3 continue into the future?

[TheLimey]

Whatever the default game end point is... for scenarios, it should be able to extend way further, and allow for a bigger tech tree and more units (etc.) to go with the techs.

[Adm.Naismith]

Hmmm, reading a lot of Science Fiction books I wonder if CIV III can add to the game the interesting concept of "enhance animal intelligence to human level" as the Elevation series of David Brin books.
I know animal are not reproduced at all inside the game, if not as "resources" or ecological related. May be Firaxis can subsitute this concept in abstract way as the SMAC Ascent to transcendence

For a not green civ, the same concept can be translated into "develop a robotic race with -turing complained- artificial intelligence".

Hmmm, more suggestions will follow in a few days. Stay tuned

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Napoleon I]

Admiral Naismith:

I think that the pathway to victory that you described is what most people mean by a tech and build victory, i.e. discover some very advanced technology, (positronic nanorobotics, for example) and build a really expensive wonder such as a "Positronic Brain".

Personally, I think that its a good idea to have something like this so that when you are tired of actual combat there is still a way to win.

------------------
Napoleon I

[UltraSonix]

Just wanted to mention that the "power level" way of winning above isn't so great 'cause if you were 5x powerful then you'll just be able to conquer everyone anyway.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Hasdrubal]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 07-16-2000 06:32 AM Just wanted to mention that the "power level" way of winning above isn't so great 'cause if you were 5x powerful then you'll just be able to conquer everyone anyway.

Actually, this is precisely why I like the idea. It saves you the tedious end bit where you're really only mobbing up your last standing opponents. It can make the game drag on for to long. So I'm in favour of adding a power level end. A lot of players end the game anyway when it is totally obvious that they've won. They don't feel like micromanaging 100+ cities for those last pointless turns. But they (at least I) regret not getting a proper end (and a rewarding video sequence).
Maybe they ought to make the overpowering ending optional, letting the player decide when the moment is there whether he wants to take this win or annihilate his last enemies.



------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.

You'dhave to be careful with your definition of power- Look at japan, or 19th century Britain: very little military power, masses of industrial and commercial might. Ther'd have to be some way of measuring trade.

[Napoleon I]

I still can't bring myself to agree that power level should be an automatic victory condition. After all, a lot of suggestions that are on this forum deal with the fact that maybe in Civ3 huge empires should not be all powerful, and even the grandest power might still tumble down in a few turns.

Perhaps this option should be enabled as an option that could be switched off, but I would have doubts even so. After all, this could only encourage ICS, because players would strive rapidly to become vastly powerful than their neighbors, neglecting proper management, and then win using this option.

------------------
Napoleon I

[phunny pharmer]

However, if the amount of power difference was prohibitively high, then the power difference idea might work. I didn't realize that all the power difference meant was that you don't have to mop up your opponents! (Hey, if I play SMAC again, I don't think I'll ever have another conquest victory) That's a good point.

However, there should be a score bonus for finding and killing the last opposition. The power difference score bonus should be only 80% of the bonus of complete conquest. However, if you can keep a power difference for, say, 10 game turns, then mop up would probably be inevitable.

One last idea is that the power difference should require both military strength, production (shield and trade) strength, and wonder strength. This would mean that the empire would need internal infrastructure, in order to upkeep their power status.

[Christantine The Great]

I think the World Conquest way of wining is not too good because remember when you conquer a country you are just ridding the world of a government, not a people, a civilization. (i.e. Partitioning of Poland, Ottoman conquest of Byzantine Empire...ect)

------------------
"Adorare Christantine!!!"
Republican Decree #1