Civ endgames are seriously flawed!

polymths · May 9, 2001, 18:15

As a veteran player who has played various TBS games such as Civ1/Civ2/Colonization/Freeciv, I can say that the opening (sometimes middle) game is the most fun, exciting and dynamic. This is where each move could be critical and the way the game will turn out is largely unknown at that point. There is still a good deal of interaction amongst all Civs and lots of little battles and events become very crucial to that game's development.

However, the endgame is the most uninteresting, boring and tedious part of the game. In fact I almost never play Civ to the very. Unfortunately the endgame (if played out to the end) could be anywhere from 33% to 50% of the total game time!

The reasons for this are obvious to veteran expert players:

1. AI weakness: Unless the AI is significantly more powerful, the AI simply cannot challenge you in the endgame. The endgame situation is typically very complex with lots of cities, units, etc. The AI simply cannot handle this complexity competently. (Nor is this even realistically possible.)

2. Known outcome - At the beginning of the endgame, even though I have not even begun my war of conquest or spaceship building, as a veteran player it is always clear to me that the game is really over. Therefore the endgame is nothing more than a "cleanup" operation. Once I have exceeded a certain production capacity threshold it is clear I will be able to build enough units to overwhelm the opponent. (Once the threshold is achieved, it does not even matter if the AI Civs are larger than I am because at that point I
have sufficient resources and capability to carry out the endgame if I so choose. I have never experienced anything resembling pivotal events in the endgame. Not so in the opening game.)

3. Massive Micromanagement - self explanatory

4. Lack of interesting goals - In both Civ1/Civ2 there are two possible goals, either build spaceship or conquer world. But are these goals really that different? Are these goals even remotely interesting? In Civ1/Civ2 the answer is a resounding NO. To achieve either goal, all you do is achieve sufficient science, max out your production capacity (build factories, mines, RRs, offshore platforms, power plants, etc.) and just mass produce units (whether spaceship modules or military units).

5. Insufficient game concepts - Civ1/Civ2 simply do not implement sufficient game concepts to make the endgame exciting or interesting. You can't really participate in anything remotely resembling a world war with various factions. There are no end of conflict treaty negotiations such as exists in Europa Universalis. There is no "Vietnam War" type conflict you might engage in. There are no "Cold War". No trade conflicts. No "war sentiment" concept so that your population can react to huge losses. Admittedly some of these concepts are not practical but the point is that in the endgame there is absolutely nothing to look forward to and nothing interesting to do!

The bottom line is that Civ as currently implemented in Civ1/Civ2/CTP1/CTP2 is really a very shallow game especially the endgame. You build up your productive capacity, mass produce units, flood enemy cities with these masses of units, then you mass attack an enemy city and repeat until all enemy cities are taken.

Will Civ3's endgame really be any more interesting or different than what I'm already experienced in Civ1/Civ???

Cyclotron · May 9, 2001, 18:28

I empathize with your complaints, but in reality a lot of them have to do with the game have an end. Civ3, like all other similar games, must end somewhere. That can't be avoided. Making the game end earlier simply pushes back that "winning threshhold." The end of any game is often no fun and often has nothing to look forward to.

quote:

Insufficient game concepts - Civ1/Civ2 simply do not implement sufficient game concepts to make the endgame exciting or interesting. You can't really participate in anything remotely resembling a world war with various factions. There are no end of conflict treaty negotiations such as exists in Europa Universalis. There is no "Vietnam War" type conflict you might engage in. There are no "Cold War". No trade conflicts. No "war sentiment" concept so that your population can react to huge losses. Admittedly some of these concepts are not practical but the point is that in the endgame there is absolutely nothing to look forward to and nothing interesting to do!

This isn't really a problem with the endgame. This is just limited options and less depth, which I hope Civ3 will go closer to fixing. Hopefully Firaxis got our message that we want more options and strategic/diplomatic/economic depth.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

SerapisIV · May 9, 2001, 18:47

quote:

1. AI weakness

I think this is the largest problem, however one that has been progressively been addressed with each Civ iteration, as SMAC did a pretty good job of making the computer smarter and harder, something that should at the very least, if nothing else is new, be the reason for Civ3

quote:

2. Known outcome

This is mainly due to the poor AI, if the AI was stronger, or was able to tell you were getting stronger and attacked earlier or with the involvement of stronger trade in Civ3, embargoes you into stagnation, then having the strongest economy doesn't always mean you win, because now you could be dependent on the AI for some of the tools of your production/war machine

quote:

3. Massive Micromanagement - self explanatory

I'm wierd, I kinda enjoy this part, to a certain point, having a production queue (ala SMAC) and stacked armies (ala CTP2, in concept only, not as Activision implemented) would go a long way to helping this out.

quote:

4. Lack of interesting goals

Being addressed, with various win conditions and especially with the inclusion of culture, not just politics and economics, now society means something.

quote:

5. Insufficient game concepts

I can't think of a way to implement a really strong Cold War or Vietnam capability in the game (a city is the size of Vietnam in Civ) without making the game more of a political/diplomatic game like Europe Universalis then Civ, which at its very core philosophy is more simplicity as over 6000 years of history are covered.

quote:

Will Civ3's endgame really be any more interesting or different than what I'm already experienced in Civ1/Civ???

I really hope so. But I think the deciding factor here is the AI, the AI, and the AI. The concepts could be great, the goals amazing, but if the AI sucks (like CTP), why bother. I'm a confident one. Even if Sid is handoff like some reports say, even if Brian Reynolds is gone, a game isn't made by two people, the core game makers from SMAC and few from even earlier are still making this game. So unlike a lot of people recently (not yourself polymths), I'm not so pessimistic about Civ3, even with civ-specific units, even with only 7 civs, even if half of the ramblings in this forum never come into the game, even a game thats only an iteration of SMAC (which at its core is only an iteration of CivII) would be pretty damn good.

BUT NOT IF THEY DON'T BRING ELVIS BACK IN CIV3, WITHOUT THE KING THERE CAN BE NO GAME !!!

(

)
------------------

BRING BACK ELVIS IN CIV III !!!!
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited May 09, 2001).]

polymths · May 9, 2001, 20:12

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-09-2001 06:28 PM
I empathize with your complaints, but in reality a lot of them have to do with the game have an end. Civ3, like all other similar games, must end somewhere. That can't be avoided. Making the game end earlier simply pushes back that "winning threshhold." The end of any game is often no fun and often has nothing to look forward to.

Perhaps you misunderstood what I said. What I mean is that the actual "endgame" is very boring and predictable and that the game is effectively over perhaps 200 turns before the game would actual end if one chose to play the game out to the very end. In other words, there is very little reason to play the endgame because nothing unpredictable or interesting is going to happen.

For definition purposes, the beginning of the "endgame" is when you have crossed the threshold of sufficient productive capability that you can now begin to plan the conquest of the world or begin to build the spaceship.

Bereta_Eder · May 9, 2001, 20:55

quote:

Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-09-2001 06:47 PM

BUT NOT IF THEY DON'T BRING ELVIS BACK IN CIV3, WITHOUT THE KING THERE CAN BE NO GAME !!!

(

)

YEAH! You tell'em Serapis!

Make sure you sand an e-mail to firaxis about that. I will do that too.

Cyclotron · May 9, 2001, 21:51

quote:

For definition purposes, the beginning of the "endgame" is when you have crossed the threshold of sufficient productive capability that you can now begin to plan the conquest of the world or begin to build the spaceship.

Exactly. Like I said, most all games are like this. Consider a novel: it has rising action, a climax, and falling action. You enjoy the difficulty of the rising action in civ, but once you are on top you become bored and don't care about the resolution and falling action.

I agree with your point, and it seems to me the best way to eliminate the "resolution phase" is to make the game challenging until the end, that is, make it so you never truly get on top (and if you do, it is not predicted and something you had to work very hard for). And in turn, the way to achieve this is through better AI.

So what it seems to boil down to is a question of intelligence. Like Serapis, I think that AI is improving through the Civ games and it will hopefully be a lot better in Civ3. Maybe your prayers will be answered!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

Grumbold · May 10, 2001, 13:16

The rumour mill is hinting that the world may be a smaller place in Civ 3 so that might make the endgame tighter - or just bring the critical mass point further forward. Only time will tell. Another way is the suggestion of lots of different difficulty sliders for custom games. If your personal critical mass point is focused on aquisition of certain technologies, start a game where you have a permanent 40% tech disadvantage or something.

May 10, 2001, 13:59

In SMAC when you make that last discovery every faction can go for Transcendenty. Maybe that is needed in Civ 3 also. You can be way out front but you could loose the game because every Civ could go for the big one, what every it is.

------------------

lord of the mark · May 10, 2001, 19:10

quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-09-2001 09:51 PM
Exactly. Like I said, most all games are like this. Consider a novel: it has rising action, a climax, and falling action. You enjoy the difficulty of the rising action in civ, but once you are on top you become bored and don't care about the resolution and falling action.

I agree with your point, and it seems to me the best way to eliminate the "resolution phase" is to make the game challenging until the end, that is, make it so you never truly get on top (and if you do, it is not predicted and something you had to work very hard for). And in turn, the way to achieve this is through better AI.

So what it seems to boil down to is a question of intelligence. Like Serapis, I think that AI is improving through the Civ games and it will hopefully be a lot better in Civ3. Maybe your prayers will be answered!

But didnt aristotle in the poetics say that the best paly saves the climaxe till very near the end? Isnt that the case with the best plays, novels, and movies? So that you're in suspense except for the last few pages which wrap up.

Im not sure if there are any PC games like that, but I think it must be possible. I wouldnt mind if the last few turns were anti-climatic. Its just that after a certain point one side production advantage is overwhelming, yet it still takes many turns till the final city is mopped up.

LOTM

polymths · May 10, 2001, 19:52

quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark on 05-10-2001 07:10 PM
But didnt aristotle in the poetics say that the best paly saves the climaxe till very near the end? Isnt that the case with the best plays, novels, and movies? So that you're in suspense except for the last few pages which wrap up.

Im not sure if there are any PC games like that, but I think it must be possible. I wouldnt mind if the last few turns were anti-climatic. Its just that after a certain point one side production advantage is overwhelming, yet it still takes many turns till the final city is mopped up.

LOTM

Exactly! In many games, it is clear that with only half of the total possible turns used up that my productive capability has crossed a threshold such that I simply cannot be challenged by any AI. We're talking about even before I have started the war of world conquest. You just know that with, say 12 cities, most of them close to maxed out in production, and with sufficient tech, you will be able to create the units you need to overwhelm any AI you choose to fight.

Using the novel analogy, it is as though I've read only half the novel yet know everything there is to know and have no reason to read the other half.

To_Serve_Man · May 10, 2001, 19:56

quote:

Originally posted by polymths on 05-09-2001 06:15 PM
As a veteran player who has played various TBS games such as Civ1/Civ2/Colonization/Freeciv, I can say that the opening (sometimes middle) game is the most fun, exciting and dynamic. This is where each move could be critical and the way the game will turn out is largely unknown at that point. There is still a good deal of interaction amongst all Civs and lots of little battles and events become very crucial to that game's development.

However, the endgame is the most uninteresting, boring and tedious part of the game. In fact I almost never play Civ to the very. Unfortunately the endgame (if played out to the end) could be anywhere from 33% to 50% of the total game time!

I must disagree with you Polymths. For me personaly, the start and pre-industrial revolutionary times are the least fun. What much entertianment can I get from pressing the Enter button over and over and over and over, waiting for that new settler to be built or some new building to be finished.
Combat is difficult with a small number of units that are incredably weak and take forever to create. This may or may not represent the Human culture of real Earth at that time, but regardless, the porpouse of a 'Game' is firstly Entertianment, then if it is needed, realistic aspects.

You do state some problems that plaque the end game. The computer simply cannot handle all its territory. Micromanagement CAN get very long.

The AI problem can be solved by playing Multi-Player...
Also the lack of tension in the late game gives me a Love-Hate feeling. With Nuclear Weapons, Paratroops, military units with high attack power, and large cities that can create these units quickly can create what you discribed. Examples are, a Vietnam, a Cold War, Demand/Give in War Diplomacy(EU). However these can happen, and by playing multi-player, they increase the chance.

I don't what the answer to your question is... I personally would like to ask, Can we give the end game more options, and make the 'Pre' Industrail Revolution gameplay anymore interesting?

[This message has been edited by To_Serve_Man (edited May 10, 2001).]

Adm.Naismith · May 14, 2001, 11:07

Months ago, on a end game related post, I suggested:

quote:

When a game is already on the route to inevitable victory, I find boring to drag it until the formal winning conditions are met. I liked open end games like Sim City, but to a point.

If "Raise and Fall of civilization" will be somewhat implemented the game will be kept interesting until late turns. A stronger A.I. can do the same, but I suppose that is an hopeless aim with current affordable game tech

Score mean something, but to me not so much to add some % if someone keep playing endless the same game: we are buying a software that can start a new game, why keep to use that button only once?

So far, nothing new. Then came my "dark endgame" proposal...

quote:

OTOH, if one of the available end game will be to survive as long as possible to an Armageddon magnitude disaster (total nuke exchange, unstoppable pollution and climate change, earth hit by asteroid, invasion by an alien force - using same alien race of SMACX, etc.) a later end of game will have the taste of an hopeless fight for all mankind survival.

It can be what happens after the launch of Starship Unity to Alpha Centauri (optional, for players who hate SF ending). While the starship is your seed of hope for the future (mankind will come back, at the end of SMAC 2

), you boldly face the flood till the game over. Move your cities, raise up your defence, mutate and adapt... your dead will be sure, but how greatness to the end!

Then, collect your ego bit by bit and start a new Civ game...

Some films and games play with bad, dark end, with plenty of success. A friend of mine think "Fallout" sad end is one of the best in game history (and some game magazines ranked it the same)
As an optional ending, don't you feel the challenge to push far some turn more an inevitable "game over"?
Looking at some President about "unnedeed limiting to global warming" misure it seems to me a dark end is the most likely in Civ history

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

SerapisIV · May 14, 2001, 11:16

If nukes are pre-targeted or allow for MAD as a mag preview has suggested, I'd really like to see a "you tried to conquer a planet and instead destroyed everything" ending. That is if significant enough numbers of nukes were exchanged. It would be a brutal, but realistic way to end Civ and also keep not only the player, but AI also from getting too trigger happy.

Grumbold · May 15, 2001, 00:09

I would suggest the chance of using nukes should be inversely proportional to the number in existence unless your enemy and his allies owned none of them. Then a country being pushed too far in conventional warfare could threaten to 'go nuclear' if peace was not immediately declared by the opponents.

Theben · May 15, 2001, 00:33

Firaxis has already stated that the nuclear age is something to "survive and get through", or some such.

I agree with a lot of the sentiments here. It seems like the early years go by too quickly, with minimal interest (except rushing to get that particular tech, settlement, or wonder; or just exploring), while after that's said and done you know you'll win in the end.

The 1st part is related to the minimal output of early empires (remember that the rich histories of the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks are just a few turns in civ and would be only 4-5 cities) and lack of any in-depth communication & diplomacy, while the latter holds the AI accountable for it's inability to handle a human player. Hopefully both of these issues are being addressed.