Game Pacing Thoughts

from GalCiv3 Forums

Here is the issue:

1.  The beginning of the game is extremely fun.  You're constantly thinking: what's the best method to get the most colonies? That's a challenge.

2.  When war begins, that part is fun too.  How do I not get owned by the AI on Suicidal?

However, there are two patches where the game gets EXTREMELY boring:

1.  The period BETWEEN the colony rush and the beginning of war.  Due to the way the pop mechanics work, you simply CANNOT invade your neighbors because your worlds don't have enough population and production.  The AI is in a similar bind.  In this period all you're doing (literally) is building factories/research buildings and constructors.  That's it.  You aren't doing anything else.  You CAN'T do anything else.  

2.  The period AFTER you've attained dominance.  There isn't a challenge anymore.  The rest is just mop up until the game officially says "you've won."  

The larger map, the more painful those two boring patches become.  So.... thoughts on dealing with this? 

I have one major idea:

Change population mechanics for different races.  For example, more warlike races like the Drengin are given a better Birthing Subsidies then other races, allowing them to build up their population FASTER than normal in the middle game.  Not as fast as the synthetics, but faster than everyone else.  In return make their late game nerfed.  Consequently, their play-style is to rush their neighbors with transports BEFORE their neighbors are ready.  Teach the AI to do the "Drengin Rush," or the "Yor rush" (for synthetics) and the game becomes much more interesting.  

For Benevolent races, make them weaker in the mid game but give them much stronger stuff in the late game. Pragmatic is somewhere in between.  Not only can this make the mid game more interesting, it will also add depth to the AI.  

9,423 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

If you are that kind of person that plays to the very end your map is going to look like that all AI planets are taken, all their ships defeated, you get it....

I'm not sure what exactly you're asking for - but are you asking for a mechanism that will do that automatically for you? Such a thing usually features a high risk of getting out of hand in some scenarios... just like AIs at one point all surrendering to one another... maybe it could be that influence/cultureflip could do the job but it's hard to do it right without risking that this won't affect midgame play.

For example, it's kinda fun if you can have planets colonized also in enemy territory and use them for range or as invading stronghold, making world lesser hard to flip will basically turn all AI ZOI into equally homogen areals.

I know you want to do more interesting stuff after midgame, and I agree, but even if there's stuff like collaborating AIs, tide-turning megaevents etc happening it'll only prolong the inevitable mop-up. Ultimately, at one time you'll reach the situation where you are irrevocably the strongest and did, win the map. You can either do the mop-up, or simply restart another game.

We should have some sort of endless-games/ unreachable victory conditions à la "prolong peace as long as possible" "don't eliminate any AI or you loose" which could make a different challenge by trying to bring balance of power on the map, ie. also supporting other factions, or having to bite the bitter apple also with hostile factions, not just allying with friendly and eradicating the unfriendly ones.

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Just... more flexibility.  In Civ IV you could war effectively in any era because the only limiting factor was production and army units.

In this game in order to war you need a large pop first.  Much harder to rush....

The problem is in the early-mid game getting the %bonuses for manufacturing and research tech is so powerful that it forces players along that path.   

I know: another idea:

They should add a mechanic where conquering worlds gives you tech AND ideology points (and change Zealot to giving you Double ideology points).  This would encourage people to go to war from the very early on with the strategy of instead of building up your worlds, you're invading worlds the AI built up and grabbing their tech.  

The thing is I want to be building an empire AND warring at the same time.  This is a lot more fun than spending 50 turns doing nothing except building buildings and starbases.  

Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

You can war in the in-between phase. Not being able to is largely a matter of your playstyle. Trying building up a few of your planets during the rush rather than spending absolutely everything on colonizing so that you have some mature worlds by the time the initial phase ends. Given the incredible advantage attackers get in invasions, you really don't need a very big population to take huge numbers of planets. Advancing the empire in stages does work; it's just that present mechanics don't foce you to do so like maintenance would.

 

As for the endgame, yes, that's always going to be a mopping-up thing really. Not many ways round that, since the moments you have 50% of all worlds under your control it's still going to be mopping-up. 

 

 

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

as naselus pointed out, the midgame you describe is a result of your settings and your early game. try playing with rare or occasional habitable planets. the "early colony rush" and "midgame consolidation phases" are only distinct phases when there are too many planets to grab. with less planets you have a more organic growth model. there aren't hundreds of worlds to grab so you'll automatically build up your core planets while exploring the outer reaches for more colonizable planets.

all of my important wars take place in the mid game. that's literally the lable they put on the "midgame" in GC3 - "Age of War". that's where the action takes place.

the final age is just the mop up really - once you get there you get some silly stuff to speed up the mop up phase. 

regarding the mop up phase - that's a typical problem in every 4X game i ever played. game just gets boring when you've practically won and still have to reach some arbitrary victory  conditions. Civ4 had the domination victory condition that addressed the tedious endgame issue decently - once you got to an overwhelming position, the game declared you winner. so it was usually enough to swallow up your own continent and take over maybe one opponent on another continent. at that point you'd usually trigger the domination victory without the need to conquer all remaining civs.  wouldn't hurt to have such a victory condition in GC3, too. 

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Azunai_, reply 4

as naselus pointed out, the midgame you describe is a result of your settings and your early game. try playing with rare or occasional habitable planets. the "early colony rush" and "midgame consolidation phases" are only distinct phases when there are too many planets to grab. with less planets you have a more organic growth model. there aren't hundreds of worlds to grab so you'll automatically build up your core planets while exploring the outer reaches for more colonizable planets.

all of my important wars take place in the mid game. that's literally the lable they put on the "midgame" in GC3 - "Age of War". that's where the action takes place.

the final age is just the mop up really - once you get there you get some silly stuff to speed up the mop up phase. 

regarding the mop up phase - that's a typical problem in every 4X game i ever played. game just gets boring when you've practically won and still have to reach some arbitrary victory  conditions. Civ4 had the domination victory condition that addressed the tedious endgame issue decently - once you got to an overwhelming position, the game declared you winner. so it was usually enough to swallow up your own continent and take over maybe one opponent on another continent. at that point you'd usually trigger the domination victory without the need to conquer all remaining civs.  wouldn't hurt to have such a victory condition in GC3, too. 
End of Azunai_'s quote

YES.  Domination victory setting would be nice.  

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Hmm, they really need to scale the power rankings properly for that.  Human low power, is so under-estimated by the AI.  I'm usually 4-5x lower in power, until I go on the offensive.  And when I go on the offensive, I dont lose any battles, and its mop up right there....and my power is still easily half of the AIs, if not more.

 

In my game now, a sure influence/tech victory mop up....I am +5X lower in power than the highest faction.  4 factions remaining.  Combine them all, that have 10x my power....but I'm in mop up mode....

 

I love the idea of a domination/short victory (and of course, if you want, you can continue as long as you like), but at what point do you think the game should consider it mop up, when the power rankings are so borked?

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I have to agree the mop up stage can be a bit ridiculous some times.

A domination victory some thing like a Faction Power ratio modifier to influence might do the trick.

So FactionPowerPlayer(FPP) : FactionPowerAI(FPA) * or + FactionPlayerInfluence => (FPP/FPA) * or + FPI.  ...(maybe + not * would be better. Otherwise would be too powerful earlier in the game.)

Well it would be influence victory, but aside from the name, the same thing. Influence does seem to only work to a certain extent currently. After which it is ineffective unless you pursue conquest (mop up). 

It is a bit compounded by AI surrendering all it owns to another faction, but in closer matched games this can be a good thing in making it more challenging, so that's good how it is I think.

Another possibility is to allow users to set a turn limit. 1000 on larger maps with heaps of assets is pretty out there.