Diplogame Rules and Victory Discussion

[deity]

If we give out just one point for a multitude of things (but not including traditional victory) we will get a better picture of the 'diplo'performance.

Other criteria could include top GNP, Mfg, power, culture etc at point of game mechanic victory but just one point each.

One point for each city taken or 0.5 point if two civs helped take a city, eg Karakorum by Inca and India.

[deity]

One point for each city too.

[deity]

But doing it more like this with one point for key things; or 3, 2, 1 points when graded...

[deity]

... is a bit more representative.

Especially if we keep adding one point criteria.

[Robert]

So, in the end the civ that launches it's spaceship first is most probably the best civ and therefor the deserved winner. You can add 100000 spreadsheets and start all kinds of calculation etc. but the end will be the same 8)

I'd say that stuff like "Holding a peace summit" shouldn't be given any points. Why? Because suddenly organising a summit is something people get points for. Therefor it may be a reason for others to let it be a failure. Or suddenly 4 parties organise a peace summit. It'll destroy the natural flow of the game with ooc (= points) arguments.

I'd love it if 25% religions get extra points, but face it, I'm already awarded with MUCH MUCH in game by having a 25%+ religion. Why award it double? It already helps me to achieve other stuff.

[OzzyKP]

The whole point of my system was to reward things you are naturally doing anyways so it doesn't change the character or gameplay. That's where Deity's system fails because it would create unnatural decisions.

For example if you get 1 point per city, then the smart player would build a lot of settlers and on the last turn just spam out another 10 cities in every spot possible for the points. Or as Cyber mentioned people would start holding peace summits just for the points. That is an unworkable system.

And Deity, things like peace summits and military victories are already covered by the voting. They are given more points overall than the list of categories I posted, so they don't need to be suplimented by set points. It is honestly too subjective a category to be given points for and would just lead to more headache as we decide what counts as taking a city, who should share the points, how it should be split up, etc. Just giving people a vote to rank players solves this.

Trying to do this after the fact for our current game is very hard. There's going to be the cry that the point structure is rigged to favor a certain play style. Achieving many of these point schemes encourages what I would call bad game play in general.

No, I don't think so. My plan was specifically designed to award people for goals they are naturally going for anyways, not to manufacture new goals that could change the character of the game.

For example, "Highest population" is can be easily skewed with a few super cities, while the next door empire, with 50 size 10 cities, has 5 times the number of squares being worked, but a lower population on the demographics screen.

Well if you prefer we could count up population points, but I think that would be tedious. If you think about it though, it does take more effort to make a size 20 city than 10 size 2 cities. You can just spam out settlers for the later. And personally I'd prefer 1 size 20 city to 10 size 2 cities. More production, more science, less maintenence, etc.

Culture, beyond a cultural victory condition, is pointless. If the city is not on the border and preserving/taking other peoples lands, then encouraging for points is pointless from a gameplay perspective.

You could focus on wonders, but if one player builds wonders, and another makes 15 tanks with the sheilds instead, and the game ends in a virtual tie, who is to say one is better than the other?

Ah that's just it, if you focus on building wonders then you will slack off in other areas that could cost you points. The whole point is balance and going for the best overall gameplay. If we give out victory for just one thing or one area then people will rush to that one objective and ignore the other valid, important parts of the game. If we give points for culture, and tech, and war, and diplomacy, and wonders, and the spaceship, and.... then it is impossible for someone to just beeline, they must play a complete game. Isn't that what we should be going for?

The UN, as it exists, can't be trusted. Otherwise we'll have global world wars just so people can get 2nd in population and pass a resolution.

Then they lose points in diplomacy. Again, you're not getting it. You can't focus on one area, you need to focus on everything. Your criticisms are invalid since you keep picking each category out individually and say "oh they'll just focus on that" they will lose then. There are too many categories.

Rewarding technology....if you're tech was so great and came first....why did'nt you build the spaceship?

We've been playing for 17 sessions now and there is like a 1 tech difference between first and last. Because of tech trading and alliances it is impossible to hold onto a permanent tech lead. Anyways, under the standard system just having tech wouldn't guarantee someone getting the spaceship because they'd have to fend off everyone's armies as they all invade to try to eliminate them.

Land Area seems reasonable, but then when you consider the great disparity between starting locations and available land...

Ok, so building few cities with high population is unfair cause it gives a bonus to people who build vertically. And land area is unfair because it gives a bonus to people who build horizontally.... uh.... what else is there? Don't you see that you contradict yourself with every argument?

Religions focus on giving a bonus to anyone whose spirtual I guess. Building missonaries? Why not just count income since all missionaries can do is give you +1 gold since the religion has little to no diplomatic effect outside of war weariness, and that's only if you adopt the religion.

Religion has very little to do with being spiritual besides the first 2 religions. Capo was spiritual and he got 1 religion. Russia wasn't spiritual and got 2 religions. But again, religion is a key part of this game. It is simply one element among many that are getting points under my system. And again founding religions and building missionaries is something players should be doing anyways because it has benefits for them in the game, so including this won't unbalance the game.

If you count income, then on the last turn people will just switch their civics to whatever the highest income producing civics are. Or it will necessarily tilt to financial civs.

Awarding points for posts is like going to OT and trying to get highest post count. Plus, a diplo game isn't a history class or a novel. Beyond bringing others into the game who otherwise wouldn't experience it, and facilitating our diplomacy they shouldn't be adding or taking away from our in game civ.

Storytelling and roleplaying is and has always been a key part of diplogames. But again, if you think the storytelling is more about facilitating diplomacy and less about writing a historical novel then you are free to vote for whoever you like and give points out on your own subjective criteria.

I hate to just smash away at your idea without presenting my own yet, but its late and I dont think I can collect it all yet.

Get some sleep first and then consider what I wrote. You have been saying for years that the standard ending of spaceship launch and massive war is a problem. Hell you quit HOTW4 because of it (maybe HOTW2 too, I forget). Surely you of all people should see the wisdom in trying a new system. Of the systems proposed I think I have the most balanced and comprehensive. It can use some tweaking, sure, but I think it is the way to go.

[Robert]

May I ask why people have problems with a 'massive war'?

[OzzyKP]

Because the diplogame ceases to be a diplogame. It is just another FFA or team game you'd see in the lobby with everyone trying to wipe out everyone else. And just like lobby games people end up getting frustrated and they drop out. So the entire game collapses and people just end up mad at each other.

It has happened several times before.

[The Capo]

I'm sick and I'm about to go back to my house so I'm just going to say one thing right now. Why in the hell is everyone mentioning the way the game was meant to be?

We're playing in a Diplogame, its a different style, so what's the big deal if it ends in a different way?

[OzzyKP]

Exactly. A vote & points system is the kind of unique ending a diplogame needs.

All this time we've played this game uniquely but finished it just like every other game. After 7 years it is time we create a true diplogame ending that fits our play style. I think my & lz's proposal does that.

[Frank Johnson]

Well if you prefer we could count up population points, but I think that would be tedious. If you think about it though, it does take more effort to make a size 20 city than 10 size 2 cities. You can just spam out settlers for the later. And personally I'd prefer 1 size 20 city to 10 size 2 cities. More production, more science, less maintenence, etc.

But at the same time, the bigger city invariably starts to work less effective squares than the 2 cities who have access to twice as many resources/rivers/good terrain features.

Ah that's just it, if you focus on building wonders then you will slack off in other areas that could cost you points.

Where are these "other ponits" you speak of? I didn't see any plan or that or any mention at all of military game aspects.

Ok, so building few cities with high population is unfair cause it gives a bonus to people who build vertically. And land area is unfair because it gives a bonus to people who build horizontally.... uh.... what else is there? Don't you see that you contradict yourself with every argument?

No. What I mean about the super cities is, say you have a town with 21 grassland squares and a river. Game Mechanics say, cottage spam it. Your system says, irrigate the whole damn thing and get highest pop.

Also there's other troubles with it. Sea squares that can be worked by cities aren't included in the demographics figure or the score chart.

If you count income, then on the last turn people will just switch their civics to whatever the highest income producing civics are. Or it will necessarily tilt to financial civs.

But is there really anything more fundamental to characterize a civ than considering its total income/tech?


Well there's 2 ways to play this. Either embrace the fact that there may very well be a world war at the end just to stop spaceships, and set up a point system for influence/hegemony influence or figure out something completely different.

I think Deity pointed out the flaw of what you have listed initially. In a voting process I might even say "India has achieved more than China." But I'd never say "India is ten times better than China." Which is what your point structure suggests. Deity's system has flaws, but I think we can reasonably curb abuse with something simple like, "cities over size 8" or something like that. Sure you could spam cities earlier in the game but that will really hurt your civ.


I think the solution is for every player in a near end game situation is to file a "end game objective" and send it still sealed to a neutral party. Its just an objective. Depending on how ambitous the objective is, then everyone votes as to how well it played out, or how near to the objective was completed etc.

For example, the Inca could file, "Help England launch a space ship." They'd get less points than "Launch my own spaceship." but if the england's space ship indeed launches then they collect some score.

Its like an olympic driving competition. You work through the whole game then you get to a certain point. You look at yourself, you look at your allies, and you think "What's the most I can get away with?"

Is it a space launch? Can you win a world war and prevent a launch? Or can all you really do is maximize your civ in a field, or become a specialist, or aide someone else's victory? Once it is all over, we look things over and see how we did.

[deity]

I don't think we have to decide on a final system yet.

What I'm saying is let's tot up the points based on a few ideas, namely my system and ozzy/lz's.

Both need tweaking of course but I'm trying to separate out the 3 types of winners:

1) Game mechanics
2) Civ points winner
3) Diplogame winner

The first two will happen anyway if we allow a finish and people stay in the game.

Let ozzy finalise his system with all our feedback and see what the result is. Don't have to make it official, save that for HOTW7.

Ditto with my system. We do both just to trial it out.

[Frank Johnson]

My proposal based in part on Ozzy's and Deity's suggestions. 3 parts. Metrics, Achievements and Voting. It kind of rides on the idea that you can continue an MP after a spaceship launch, and continue to make your own spaceship. If not, hopefully if you are close you can produce a reasonable estimate of the turns left to finish. (like if you are 5 turns away from finishing the engine when some else launches etc.)

The game ends 50 turns after a spaceship victory. Under the unlikely condition that the game ends in a domination, cultural, or diplomatic victory, the game immediately ends and the scores are considered.


Metrics 1/3rd: Metrics are worth 300 points total. Being 1st gives you 100 points in a catigory. Each following player gets a number of points proportional to their figures when compared to the #1 in a catigory. (Ex America's production is half of india, who is #1, thus america gets 50 points for production)

Total Production (This in effect considers, population, many types of improvements, resources, hapiness from relgions, etc) (1/9th overall)

Total Tax Income/Tech beakers on the last turn on any setting that gives a positive cash flow. (This considers, population, improvements, specialists, city management, cash from religions) (1/9th overall)

Power Chart (Considers units, technology, nukes, and gold for upgrades) (1/9th overall)

Achievements 1/3rd. Achievements are worth the listed number of points. You can only take 1 achievement, and you take whichever one has the highest point value.

1 Legendary City 50 points.
2 Legendary Cities 100 points.
3 Legendary Cities. 300 points.

First to Launch Spaceship 300 points.
Within 10 turns after. 200 points.
Within 20 turns after. 150 points.
Within 30 turns after. 100 points.
Within 40 turns after. 50 points.
Within 50 turns after. 25 points.

Domination Conditions Fullfilled: 300 points.
Vassal to Domination Victor: 100 points.

Diplomatic Victory: 300 points.
Voted for Diplomatic Victor: 100 points.

1st in Civscore at 2050 300 points.
All others: proportional points when compared to #1.

Voting: 1/3rd 300 points.
Each player votes for #1,#2, and #3 in Tactics/WarFighting/Military, and Diplomacy/Story telling.
A first is worth 3, a second 2, and a third 1. Most points in each catigory gets 150 added to their score. All others get points proportional to their scores.

Everyone who is still alive at the end gets 100 points.

Max score is out of 1000.

[deity]

Actually sounds quite interesting!

Don't the Civ points stop when a victory condition is met via the game mechanics? ie SS launch.

[deity]

Time to do another speadsheet

[Hope Cyber isn't watching!!]