The Fountainhead of Late Game Tedium

[Libertarian]

For the life of me, I just cannot fathom the argument that states basically, "Well, it's no different than it was five years ago, so it's okay."

[Ironikinit]

Unless you're already playing at Diety, you should crank up the difficulty or experiment with the size of the map. I find a small map on emperor almost too much of a challenge right now. If you're already on diety and running away with it, tough luck cos you're too good for the game.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Libertarian
For the life of me, I just cannot fathom the argument that states basically, "Well, it's no different than it was five years ago, so it's okay."

Well I didn't say it was OK, in fact quite often I found the game boring and repetitive at that point. I just don't understand why suddenly it's a major issue. Maybe it's because the current rules prevents the player from achieving a foregone conclusion, as in the past versions. People can't handle the idea that they may actually lose badly once in awhile. Granted Firaxis could have dealt with it better, but at least it addresses one of the issues that the previous versions had, and I feel that their approach has potential for the future. It just needs some refinement. Quite often, what looks good in theory doesn't work at all in reality, but with continued tinkering a compromise can be reached.

[Captain]

the tedium comes because we don't have any more intelligent decisions to make.

once you reach that critical "mass" of cities (hence production & gold), you can't lose - barring any apocaylptic events.

so, the game is only fun while you're below that point. otherwise it's a foregone conclusion and continuing on is pointless.

I find that in any game, as long as your rivals are a challenge, it's fun. And Civ 3 is fun, for the beginning.
Admittedly I haven't finished many games, but by midgame, i know whether i can win by military or whether it's going to be a simple culture/histograph win and I just sit back.

In any game, you want a decent challenge. The excitement comes from a CLOSE game where the outcome is in doubt right up til the finish.

A simple solution is multiplayer. Humans are devious rivals.
But since we don't have that, maybe that SMAC gang up idea is what's needed.
You should always be a bit on edge as to whether you can win or not.

[GePap]

Playstyles

I agree with the nacesnt consensus that late game tedium is due to the fact that there are not enough things to do and few decisions to make (Korns original idea was to postpone the era of decisions later in the game instead of during the middle of the game.) I have to interject that getting to late game tedium is really a matter of playing styles. I play slow- I don't have the killer insticnt, I don't care about getting the highest score possible, and winning in deity has no charm for me. Thus, i have to get oretty late in the game before tedium comes up. Still, it does come up, as it sort of does in most TBS games (there is a point with little left to do)
I have already suggested having disaster in the game, which would perhaps serve korn's function of delaying the inevitable by forcing playes to worry about those things that may happen, like earthquakes, floods, plagues, so forth. Perahsp giving us more techs with more divergent paths, or governments with more nuance. I thnk the best general solution to boredom in a game like civ3 would be to include an active domestic side. By that I mean internal politics, which is were most world leaders spend 90% of their time, just trying to keep their heads. Unfortunitelly, i don't think such a thing could be moded into civ3 as is.

[Captain]

Great analysis GePap!

But here's a relatively simple way we could do something about domestic/internal politics without having to revamp the whole entire game. A little events scripter (a la Civ 2), could easily allow this.

1. If there is ever civil disorder in more than 40% of your cities, your capital will have civil disorder (there is some realism to this). This way, you must keep everyone happy, not just capital city.

2. If your capital is ever in civil disorder there is a small chance you will be deposed.

3. A leader type unit will be created representing you near your borders. This unit has high movement and defense (representing your loyal but fanatical followers) and bombard (representing your powers of "persuasion").

4. The AI takes over your civ.

5. Your leader unit is visible only to the AI controlling your civ. The AI will treat you the way it treats barbarians - you may not be seen as a threat but if you are, you get killed (then that's game over.)

6. Your leader must get back to the capital where you have a chance of recovering your "throne". Each turn you're there you get another chance until you succeed, run away, or are killed.

7. Or you could try to take over just one city and start over from there, if you don't think you can get to the capital.

The chance of deposition should be higher for democratic or republican governments, given the nature of them. But under these governments, your unit is immune/invisible/immortal because these governments allow opposition governments.

The chance for deposition is higher in late game (b/c of avail of gov, higher pops being more unruly, and larger empires being more corrupt -> so relieves more late game tedium)

(*of course, this whole thing should be a checkable option so demagogues can play out their desires without worrying about it.)


what do you folks think?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Captain
Great analysis GePap!

But here's a relatively simple way we could do something about domestic/internal politics without having to revamp the whole entire game. A little events scripter (a la Civ 2), could easily allow this.

1. If there is ever civil disorder in more than 40% of your cities, your capital will have civil disorder (there is some realism to this). This way, you must keep everyone happy, not just capital city.

2. If your capital is ever in civil disorder there is a small chance you will be deposed.

3. A leader type unit will be created representing you near your borders. This unit has high movement and defense (representing your loyal but fanatical followers) and bombard (representing your powers of "persuasion").

4. The AI takes over your civ.

5. Your leader unit is visible only to the AI controlling your civ. The AI will treat you the way it treats barbarians - you may not be seen as a threat but if you are, you get killed (then that's game over.)

6. Your leader must get back to the capital where you have a chance of recovering your "throne". Each turn you're there you get another chance until you succeed, run away, or are killed.

7. Or you could try to take over just one city and start over from there, if you don't think you can get to the capital.

The chance of deposition should be higher for democratic or republican governments, given the nature of them. But under these governments, your unit is immune/invisible/immortal because these governments allow opposition governments.

The chance for deposition is higher in late game (b/c of avail of gov, higher pops being more unruly, and larger empires being more corrupt -> so relieves more late game tedium)

(*of course, this whole thing should be a checkable option so demagogues can play out their desires without worrying about it.)


what do you folks think?

I like it. It would make it especially interesting if you had to raise a force with the help of a few loyal cities and wage an all out civil war against your "pretender". Meanwhile the other Civs are taking advantage of the civil disorder and taking a few of your cities if they can, so if you do regain the throne, your empire is somewhat smaller than it was before.

[korn469]

Willem, Captain and GePap

check out the idea presented in the civil war thread, they might interest you