I'm back baby- but the end game is still boring

[Dis]

I think civ3 is really two different games. I just can't see much use for the industrial or modern ages except for scenarios.

I just can't stand such long games.

I just started playing again last night. As the aztecs I have conquered my continent. I think it is in the early A.D. years.

There really is no reason to play on because my game is already won.

This is and has always been a major weakness in civ games. Once you realize you are way ahead and will run away with a win its no fun. I love it most when you are head to head or behind other civs.

Yeah I suppose I could play a higher difficulty level, but I usually get demolished on those. I'm still trying to find the right difficulty level for me.


but the industrial and modern ages offer many opportunites for scenarios.

So are there any good scenarios out there yet?

P.S. I promise not to troll civ3 general anymore. Not that I would admit to it in the past, but to some moderators it appeared so.

[Inverse Icarus]

yea. the game gets old later on. especially if you're an "ancient civ", with an uberpowerful offensive unit (jag warrior, mounted warrior, immortal)

i'm hoping MP will turn that around.

[Dis]

I'm trying to decide the fastest way to end my game

any suggestions?

I hate leaving unfinished games. Although near the end of my civ2 playing days I had several unfinished games.

[Wormwood]

Nuke everyone and everything. Turn the world into a wasteland, and see how hard that makes things!

[Dis]

I'm in the middle ages. I'm a bit far from nukes

[notyoueither]

The industrial and modern ages are being left up to us to mod. Or so they have said.

Yes, they need it. I would really like to see it. I might even do it, but I am waiting for them to be done and stop changing things.

As for ending your game, nope. Just settle in and blitz your way to the UN. Build it and bribe a lot of the civs on your way. You should win, but it is a few hours of playing away.

[Grumbold]

No computer game of this type I have played has yet managed to crack the power/growth problem. If Civ made it impossible to take over the world many fans would hate it. Even in EU where many additional obstacles are put in your path, eventually you can become a world spanning juggernaut. The only things I can think of to stop this are variations on themes built up in the old Civ boardgame and EU.

EU: Every area of the map has a culture and a religion. In civ terms these would be from the original barbarian encampments, not just which player planted the city (so razing won't eradicate them, only long term assimilation and religious conversion). The more religions and cultures within your empire boundaries, the more fragile your happiness and the weaker your economy. Bigger is still better but if things go wrong revolts can break out fast and its preferable to assimilate one or two minority factions before swallowing more. Random events can cause popularity swings leading to potential revolts at any time, so even the most stable country is not totally immune.

If that is all a little too complex, the old Civ boardgame had a simpler idea. Periodically there was a civil war threat. It only took effect if your empire was over a certain size and certain techs modified its severity.

For any of this to be popular, people have got to want to think of holding together a large empire as an achievement in itself. Back when I first started playing computer games this was not uncommon, with all sorts of games rating high scores on length of survival or average power level, where total domination of the game was impossible. Heck, even the first games like Pong and Space Invaders were based on that principle. These days all the FPS, RTS and TBS make shooting every opponent or conquering the whole map practically obligatory.

[Alex]

In order for the game to become more interesting, we would need some obstacles in the path that leads to grandeur. I agree with this idea, and a civil war threat seems adequate to do it. If your empire grows too large, you'd then be running the risk of a bloody revolt in your cities.

On the other hand, this "obstacle" would possibly turn the game from a "conquer the world" type of game into a "keep your population in line" type of game. And there is not much fun in this, I fear.

[jordie]

Perhaps if you could turn it on and off in the game setup. If a city goes into revolt and the surrounding cities are sympathetic they should form together as another country, a "new" country, but off course when they do so you can ether let them have their independence (peaceful) or force them back into your country through a civil war... they may even take over you...

[TheStinger]

I fyou play lazy and forget to optomize your workers and production and trade etc, the game remains much more competitive.

Of course that is sort of defeating the point

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Alexnm
On the other hand, this "obstacle" would possibly turn the game from a "conquer the world" type of game into a "keep your population in line" type of game. And there is not much fun in this, I fear.

The skill is in expanding at the right rate, not just as fast as your military can expand. Think of Ancient Rome - its legions were split between expanding their territory, keeping the conquered provinces loyal and fighting civil wars when one emperor died without a clear successor or a general became too popular and got greedy. I actually find that sort of thing far more interesting than just min/maxing a swordsman rush.

EU2 is particularly clever in giving you so many nationalities with their own peculiarities to play. World dominators can play Spain or France who have relatively easy times, while those who want hell can pick a nation who suffer tumultuous internal strife periodically through the 400 years and for whom survival itself is a form of victory.

[jshelr]

I believe two realistic changes would help:

1) Any civ starting a war of conquest in the industrial era and beyond should face a strong AI preference for couter alliances. They should nearly automatically gang up on a leader, not stand back and wait to be picked off in turn.

2) It should be impossible to start a war of conquest as a democracy. That limit, plus the SS, would make war a risky business after the industrial era.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Grumbold


The skill is in expanding at the right rate, not just as fast as your military can expand. Think of Ancient Rome - its legions were split between expanding their territory, keeping the conquered provinces loyal and fighting civil wars when one emperor died without a clear successor or a general became too popular and got greedy. I actually find that sort of thing far more interesting than just min/maxing a swordsman rush.

I do agree with the concept of civil wars. I would also like to see it implemented. But there is a problem: considering the current civ3 version we have, it would be a torture to play a micromanagement game without the micromanagement information we need. So the game would have to sport new concepts and much more information to the player, in order to make the "keep your pop in line" type of gameplay vivid and fresh all the time.

That is why I understand your reference to EU. It is a game richer than any game of the civ series, because there is a lot of things going on all the time: complex diplomacy, religion, attrition, commodities, demand and supply, loyalty... Devoid of these complexity, Civ3 is now a fun "conquer the world" type of game, because it focus on the grand scheme of things. And this inevitably carries a sense of grandiosity that must be fulfilled by the epic tale of a leader that builds an empire to rule the world.