The critical mass problem

[Asmodean]

I remember several Alpha Centauri games where winning was a foregone conclusion, but mopping up still took a lot of time. I like the fact that this issue is being adressed in GalCiv. One thing I would like to see in GalCiv, though, is a feature like "Resign". Civ3 has it, Alpha Centauri had it, and I think it would be great here too. Sometimes you just find yourself wanting to see the endgame stats without having to wait for the endgame.

Asmodean

[notyoueither]

Two different approaches. It must be possible to make a good game by pursuing either. You just have to skin the cat differently.

And yes, I think I will appreciate a game where I do not have to conquer every last outpost in order to win.

Although, it might be a good idea if some of the races would be more determined to hang on and slug it out than others. Is this the case?

[Harry Seldon]

harry: The human player can play to the bitter end. But the computer players will generally resign if they think it's hopeless. Or more to the point, they surrender to a player.

I did get that from reading about the game. From Mr. Baggins post, I thought he was supporting the idea that a game should stop when winning is hopeless and wanted to state for the record that I'd like the choice to play on. That's one of the many reasons I'm drawn to GalCiv. It would be cool if you had the option to resign or surrender to your opponent though. Last stands are all well and good; sometimes I'd like to avoid the utter humiliating defeat.

[MrBaggins]

I honestly think that this whole 'surrender' thing is missing the whole point.

Players in TBS' know when they've won, and don't need a 'we give up' message to be informed of the fact.

The AI is there to give you a challenge as long as you demand that of it... I.E. as long as you continue to play.

MrBaggins

[Harry Seldon]

But the AI can challenge you anew when you start a new game. If I know I've won, many times I'll just bail out of the game and start again without finishing it. Who wants to spend three hours cleaning up a forgone conclusion? I'll admit, sometimes in MOO I'd enjoy conquering every system but after the first few times I would have welcomed a Mrrshan surrender instead of killing them to the last man(cat?).

[MrBaggins]

So... ultimately what is the point of this?

You get a message stating... "you've won" rather than your knowing you've won, and starting over yourself?

Big deal...

How is this an innovation?

[LDiCesare]

It is a big deal, because you know that you have won, not just believe it. Plus, you get whatever reward you can get for ending the game: end video, stats, and the ability to set up a record or high score if you are interested in that.
If I quit a game because I know it is won, I can't help feeling a sense of "uncompleteness" or something. Without it, I'd have a better playing experience.

[MrBaggins]

Its never really over 'til its over though:

The French surrendered in WW2... should they have stayed surrendered, in your view?

[Harry Seldon]

The French surrendered because they had no choice. They were beaten and had to do what they could to save their people. Hence, the AI abdication in GalCiv. When there is no hope for victory, an intelligent species will ensure it's future, just like the French and just like in the game. After all, if there's no one left there's no chance of a return to power.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
The French surrendered because they had no choice. They were beaten and had to do what they could to save their people. Hence, the AI abdication in GalCiv.

True but (a) It wasn't an unconditional surrender (the Vichy puppet continued for a time) and (b) The French didn't know (or didn't want to know) what they were getting in to - ie: How France and the rest of Europe would fare under Nazi rule.
GalCiv seems to include the "reaction-adjustment-through-experience" factor - ie: Based on the ethics of your actions through the game up to the point.
It would be nice if the surrender option factored this into the equation - ie: Ranging from essentially unconditional surrender (to an honourable opponent) to a no retreat-no surrender option for a particularly heinous empire guilty of exterminating/enslaving previous conquests.

[Jamski]

Well, as long as its not like in SMAC where my submissive pact brothers would go to war with each other or try to steal my tech Then I'll be happy.

-Jam

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Its never really over 'til its over though:

The French surrendered in WW2... should they have stayed surrendered, in your view?

Not a good example. In gaming, when you control 80% of the cities/planets/marshmallows/whatever, and you largest competitor control only 9%, the game is won. In WW2, there was still USA as the unknown factor, when France surrendered. Then, when given the chance by the U.S., France stepped back in to the fray. In Galciv USA will not suddenly materialize and help the AI. Trust me...It won't happen.

Asmodean

[Draginol]

I suspect I am not the only one who has "retired" (and greeted with a "you have been defeated" message) in a strategy game despite knowing that we would eventually win the game.

If I have 300 planets/cities/whatever and my opponents have 12, it's over. The only way it ain't over is if some incredibly cheesy random event came up to sabotage it and that would definitely not be an improvement IMO.

But often times, I don't want to spend the extra hour or two to mop up those last 12 planets. At a certain point, the AI should: a) Try to suck up to you to become your friend or b) surrender to you.

Now admittedly it's not always going to work out in those two cases. If, for instance, you are "evil" and the alliance of races taht make up that last 10% are "good" then they will fight to the bitter end. That's the downside of playing as evil, the good guys will go on a Wilsonian crusade despite the odds.

But in many if not most cases the AI will retire.

Which brings up an irony, those who love multiplayer surely remember playing games against people who play "hide the last unit in the corner to prolong the game". Having an ego-less AI does have its advantages.

[Harry Seldon]

Now admittedly it's not always going to work out in those two cases. If, for instance, you are "evil" and the alliance of races taht make up that last 10% are "good" then they will fight to the bitter end. That's the downside of playing as evil, the good guys will go on a Wilsonian crusade despite the odds.

That's as it should be. An AI that truly emulates intelligence would choose to follow the path of salvation, either by surrendering to a power to preserve their people or like in your example fighting a way of life that will surely lead to the destruction of their people regardless.

Man, I wish I was a beta tester!

[Sandman]

Having the other races give up and join you is a much better solution than imposing artificial barriers on successful playing. I think that such 'elastic' solutions are simply unfun, chaining the player for no good reason. Part of the fun in civ is 'the thrill of the chase' in catching up with rivals, or struggling to keep your lead.
I think that the player will be more creative (and thus have a more enjoyable playing experience) when the pressure is on, so to speak.

Having said that, it's absolutely imperative that it be difficult to make competitors give up and join you. I can see a snowball effect, where you and an single ally get to a certain critical mass of power, from which all other races agree to join you.