[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/vst/ - Video Games/Strategy


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: 165454857.jpg (173 KB, 1280x720)
173 KB
173 KB JPG
Score-based victory conditions are the only kind that make sense in Civ game with more than 2 players, and possibly any MP 4x game.
>Conquest victory
Turns into a 2v1, third-party, or snowball that punishes players for pursuing a different victory condition.
>Culture victory
Doesn't exist. Turns into a fight for your existence if you ever come close.
>Diplomatic victory
Doesn't exist. Turns into a fight for your existence if you ever come close.
>Religious victory
Doesn't exist. Turns into a fight for your existence if you ever come close.
>Science victory
Aligns with conquest, so becomes the only other real option
>Score victory
Can come from many areas, including defense, allowing you to pursue multiple unrelated objectives at once, complicating politics, and potentially punishing attempts to militarily prevent someone's victory.
It opens up the game. Should this be the standard victory condition in 4x games?
>>
maybe it makes sense, but it's lame
>>
>>1196807
Contrast these two scenarios:
>England conquers Ireland, cuts enemy foreign trade to Morocco and India, becomes culturally dominant over America, manages total naval dominance, and creates the internet, then fights off Germany as it attempts to crush it, resulting in a victory.
>England hides somewhere in the tundra and spams cultural wonders and art until someone notices and razes their cities to the ground, or fails, enabling a cultural victory from a literally who country.
I think the latter would be far more lame.
>>
>>1196813
In an actual game it would be more like every player ganging up on whoever has the highest score and then the rest ganging up on whoever was second etc, turning every single game into an insane free for all total war with the winner determined essentially by luck or by kingmaking. You would also have stupid shit like somebody winning with a completely destroyed nation, just because they amassed a lot of points beforehand.
>>
>>1196873
>In an actual game it would be more like every player ganging up on whoever has the highest score and then the rest ganging up on whoever was second etc
You basically can't coordinate in that sort of situation.
>turning every single game into an insane free for all total war with the winner determined essentially by luck or by kingmaking.
Unrealistic.
>You would also have stupid shit like somebody winning with a completely destroyed nation, just because they amassed a lot of points beforehand.
That'd be entirely fair. In a thousand years, people will still talk dreamily of the British Empire. No reason England should be barred from victory entirely once that's done.
>>
File: 1341785804930.jpg (18 KB, 250x250)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>1196796
>Die
>You win despite being DEAD
>OP thinks this makes any sense at all
>>
>>1196914
>>1196813
(((who)))
I will leave now
>>
My group plays with all victory conditions turned off. History doesn't have win conditions!
>>
>>1196914
Being completely killed off should remove your score, but anything short of that? Nah.
>>
>>1196914
rome kinda won despite being dead
>>
>>1196914
If you kill your enemies, they win.
>>
>>1196796
>>Score victory
>Doesn't exist. Turns into a fight for your existence if you ever come close.
FTFY.
>>
>>1196807
all victory types except conquest are lame (and I practically never do conquest, I just admit it's superior)
>>
>>1197256
Same for Japan.
>>
>>1196878
>In a thousand years, people will still talk dreamily of the British Empire
No
>No reason England should be barred from victory entirely once that's done
So in, say, 1960, UK, a glorified American satellite humiliated at Suez, would still be considered the winner of the IRL civ campaign? Why? They only were the premier power for 200 years. By the same token, you should hand over the victory to China or Italy because they were the dominant powers for longer.

If you get knocked out you get knocked out. The only competitions the dead can win are elections and round-robin tournaments.
>>
>>1197349
>So in, say, 1960, UK, a glorified American satellite humiliated at Suez, would still be considered the winner of the IRL civ campaign? Why?
>They only were the premier power for 200 years.
200 years in the tail end of the game may be worth more, and the industrial revolution may just be worth that much.
>By the same token, you should hand over the victory to China or Italy because they were the dominant powers for longer.
Italy was dominant for only about as long, and China was just the product of its start location. However, this is leaving the topic. We could say China, Italy, Bengal, Mongolia, etc. all can win. The point is just that the loss of an empire doesn't mean giving up the game. Empires rise, empires fall.
>If you get knocked out you get knocked out.
That's why being wiped off the map isn't the same thing as the empire dissolving.
>>1197264
Since it's a score victory, you can afford to invest in your military as a way to contribute to your victory and your defense, with additional points being granted for successfully winning a defensive war.
>>
>>1197356
>Since it's a score victory, you can afford to invest in your military as a way to contribute to your victory and your defense, with additional points being granted for successfully winning a defensive war.
Wait, are you arguing about score being better from game design perspective, or being stronger?
>>
>>1197367
Better from a game design perspective, with this argument of it being stronger contributing toward that point.
>>
>>1197349
Ok, but it doesn't have to be that way. Score can be exponential, so lategame advantage beats out earlygame.
>>
>>1196796
Eh, historical option is just give big military debuffs/war exhaustion to countries with the same dominant religion or heavily influenced by each other's culture fighting against each other. There's generally a certain civility in wars fought against similar cultures/religions, whereas on the other hand you have shit like the reformation wars or the Haitian war for independence or whatever where it turns into straight up genocide because of irreconcilable identities
>>
>>1198104
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate or how it ties into the topic.
>>
>>1198138
Then you're dumb, congrats
>>
File: Utopia Project.png (156 KB, 360x360)
156 KB
156 KB PNG
>>1196796
>>1196813
>score victory is better because...
>you will be fighting for your existence if you ever come close
>aligns with conquest, because cities = score
>defence is a waste of hammers, offence isn't, as per usual
>it closes down the game because most mechanics because pop, tech, land and wonder are the only things counted
>wonders are the highest impact score, so it's equivalent to Civ 5 culture turtling before tourism was added
>... so it's the Civ 5 Utopia project victory condition, the worst victory condition in any Civ ever, but exported to every Civ game
Well done, you've enabled score victory from a literally who country. Thankfully they can't start on tundra and win.
>>1197256
It won then hit the "Just one more turn..." button, put timed turns on, fell asleep, woke up and found Italy populated by Germans and Greeks and now the god of wine is called Jesus instead of Bacchus and has way worse buffs and also they died.
>>1197269
Japan never won nor is it dead. It's exclusively lost throughout history.
>think pop = power
>leave workers on rice and fish tiles
>notice happiness is at -50
>japan: wtf, pls help
>everyone: are you stupid?
>china & india: yeah... we did the same...
>uses nationalism to draft pop, this helps happiness
>invades korea and hits the rape button, this also helps
>invades a US harbour for the pearl luxury, this doesn't help
>baits US into nuking pop, this fixes everything
>>1197356
>200 years in the tail end of the game may be worth more, and the industrial revolution may just be worth that much.
Civ has never made the industrial revolution worth anything. As it's styled like a board game it's always more aligned with physiocratic values. Biology/Fertiliser/whatever the tech is called in 6 is MORE IMPORTANT than factories but the game is likely already decided by that point regardless.
>>
>>1198359
>Well done, you've enabled score victory from a literally who country.
That depends on wonders providing the most score. They can simply not be weighed that heavily.
>Civ has never made the industrial revolution worth anything.
I can't tell if you're intentionally missing the point, or...
>>
>>1198428
>That depends on wonders providing the most score. They can simply not be weighed that heavily.
They are anon. That's how civ works.
>I can't tell if you're intentionally missing the point, or...
How vacuous, you don't even know how to defend that era of civ. Perhaps you've never played the game.
>>
>>1199362
>They are anon. That's how civ works.
I think you may have misunderstood. I'm saying score victories should be treated as the default in future 4X installments, not that Civ's wonders need immediate rebalancing.
>How vacuous, you don't even know how to defend that era of civ.
I don't have a reason to. It's thoroughly detached from the argument.
>>
>>1199919
>I'm saying score victories should be treated as the default in future 4X installments
>Score-based victory conditions are the only kind that make sense in Civ game with more than 2 players, and possibly any MP 4x game.
Sorry OP but be consistent.
>I don't have a reason to. It's thoroughly detached from the argument.
Not an argument.
>>
>>1200116
>Sorry OP but be consistent.
Cool. Didn't realize the wording would imply I meant something so immediate.
>>
>>1198104
I remember in civ 4 you get a happiness penalty for fighting a civ with the same religion
>>
File: objectives example.png (403 KB, 700x484)
403 KB
403 KB PNG
>>1196796
that just raises the question of how is score calculated. and if done wrong, it can turn a nice 4X/Civ game into an awful "just rush for thing A or thing B that will win the game with [objective]" slugfest.

i like how Twilight Imperium handles score. Every round, a new objective is revealed (and the objective can be anything from controlling territories and planets to doing science and trade), and each player has a hand of secret objectives as well, which include more interesting stuff like kill an enemy flagship or be neighbors with everyone. Secret and Stage 1 Public objectives award 1 VP, stage 2 Publics award 2 VP and only come out after five Stage 1 are revealed. Every round end you can score up to 1 public and 1 secret objective, first to 10 points wins.
This system keeps the elements of Civ-like Diplomacy/Culture/Science/Conquest victories, while adding a good bit of transparency so that everyone knows approximately what all other players are trying to do or looking for from trade between players; at the same time it's not completely transparent so you always will have an element of uncertainty on what the opponents' secrets are. Plus, the randomness of objectives kinda forces you to try everything out just by you playing more, even within the same faction.

Leader-bashing does happen, but everyone i've played with knows, or understood through play, that if they spend too much attention on the leader then they won't be able to score themselves. So everyone is balancing keeping everyone else in check while getting a bit of score, and preparing for the last round burst of scoring to snatch the win.
>>
>>1198359
>cities = score
that's just a bad objective, then. get better criteria for scoring.
>you will be fighting for your existence
>defence is a waste
please be consistent
>wonders are the highest impact score, so it's equivalent to Civ 5 culture turtling
that's just a bad objective, then. get better criteria for scoring.
>it closes down the game because most mechanics [don't count for score]
get better criteria for scoring.

just because current Civ score mode sucks doesn't mean score modes suck in theory.
>>
>>1200133
If you didn't mean something immediate, you shouldn't have said it's the only victory condition that makes sense in games we already have.
>>1201259
>get better criteria for scoring.
>get better criteria for scoring.
>get better criteria for scoring.
That's civ for you, baebee. Even civ-likes make it that way.
>please be consistent
Most civ gaymers will agree that defensive armies are a waste of hammers.
It's usually why even in the games where you need it, it's relegated to the most useless cities.
That's pretty consistent.
>just because current Civ score mode sucks doesn't mean score modes suck in theory.
Ah so you're an ideas guy. Yes, if in theory we had a game that worked, every mode other than score victory would be even better than score victory. Damn, I wish we had that game. Great talk.
>>
yeah well, fuck you i made a big fuck off rocket and im off to space
enjoy your score earthbag
>>
>>1201526
>armies are a waste of hammers
how? if you're fighting for existence you need to at least protect yourself from death. armies do exactly that.

from your post all i can gather is "civ sucks dick" and i agree. my only experience with it was unCiv but i can't imagine any sort of coat of paint fixing that mess into anything fun



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.