A new way to determine a Winner

[Ben Kenobi]

Why not have a non-player set up a scenario with event triggers?

That could account for most of your victory conditions.

Capture a specific barbarian city would be easy to do.

With the non-player doing the scenario, no one person would have an advantage.

We could stick all the good wonders in other barbarian cities as well.

[Ming]

Nice thinking... but that would be a lot of work... we would need multiple new scenarios every week.

I like the "objective" approach... but still think it would be better to establish a list of 10 or so "equal" objectives, and let the people decide which one they will go for based on the situation they get dealt with.

[Caesar the Great]

if you're willing to make half a dozen scenarios each week that would be great, but no one really has that additional much time to put into civ (after all i'd rather play a game for an hour than spend that time to make a scenario for someone else to play)

objectives idea sounds the best so far

[deity]

Why don't you try something new and play proper civ right to the end to determine the winner

[Ming]

That would be nice... however, that requires the same people to be available at the same time... on a regular basis. While you guys might be able to do that... there are nights when many of want to play where the past group isn't available. We just get tons of games with different people...

So we are looking for an idea that might make the 4 hour one nite stand more interesting.

[Cobra]

In the past we tried this kind of game: winner is the player with the most costs of city improvements. Everyone has to decide, if he builds wonders or not, if he builds a strong army to conquer enemys cities or to be a scientist. It´s funny.
Most cities size 5 or bigger is better than only most cities.

[DrSpike]

I think very simple themed games would be best. If you work out points for everything it would take many weeks to balance properly, and you'd spend half of each week working out who'd won.

I'd forget those complex points structures - a simple metric with a clear winner is more desirable. This thread should be redirected into finding those 'simple' conditions, albiet ones where the 'best' way to win is far from obvious.

[deity]

What's wrong with using the Civ Score?

[Ming]

The current system is frankly a joke. It really has nothing to do with who is actually winning the game.
Basically, if you are ahead in population, you win.

Since we are only playing a 4 to 6 hour game, we need a better way to determine a clear cut winner. The power graph doesn't really include many of the important factors.

[rah]

BUT, (example) last weeks game, I had HG so I celebrated and kicked butt in the PG, but when I reviewed the game, everyone had about the same number of cities, techs, units, gold etc. I concluded that we all were very close and no one really won. Three way tie. It didn't take 20 minutes to calculate, I didn't have to compare goals. It was pretty obvious. In fact, if i didn't get math in the next couple of turns, you could have taken it to a couple of my cities in that river basin.

SO let's not overthink this.

[Ming]

In terms of developing a point system... I would agree with you. A complicated point system isn't really answer. While it might prove to better than the current power graph... anything that requires tons of calculations at the end of the game isn't what I think War or I had in mind.

But what I do want to over think is various victory conditions that might be developed, and how to use them in a 4 to 6 hour game. So I would be agreement with Dr. Spikes last post.

Two real things I think we need to narrow down.

What are the various victory conditions that can be used

And how do we use those to create a balanced and fair game that can be played in 4 to 6 hours and actually bring our games to a solid ending with victory being a very clear cut outcome.

[atawa]

If you want a game with a clear winner in 4-6 hours on your size maps just play 2x moves.

[Caesar the Great]

stealth bombers, tanks and battleships...... therein lies your answer

[War4ever]

The more i think about it, the more i don't like the point scoring system. Playing for points is completely different than playing for supremacy, which in reality is what this game is all about.

You can make the same arguement about predetermined victory conditions too..

i think the idea of missions as a way to win, is a great idea, but if you are clearly kicking butt, that should suffice too....

what we really need is a way not to have such unbalanced games after one session so people will be more apt to continue.

i am not really in favor of a point system.......i think adding specific victory conditions could add some spice to the game on top current conditions.

how to implement this is anyones guess

[Caesar the Great]

counting the points would only make games longer and we don't want to have any recounts... determining the winner shouldn't take more than a couple of seconds

i think most people agree missions are a good idea, maybe we could start making suggestions what kind of missions would be equally difficult to accomplish?

like blue conquer yellow's and green's capital
or build newton's, shakespeare's and darwin's
grow any city to size 30