OPM World Conquest on suicide. Feedback/bugs/thoughts (Yes its possible)

[MoLAoS]

The point is that the AI is trying to win the legacy game. It doesn't react to a WC the way humans would because it's not programmed to recognize that play style. It can quite easily be tweaked to do that. It would even make sense for the AI to trigger mass revolt at some tipping point. That's the point. This strategy might work, if indeed the game is played until shockk actually finishes his game, but a patch would once again make the player concentrate on a cultural legacy to win.

Sure but that applies to any strategy. Because the game has a defined goal based on a simplistic score system it is basically solvable. You can fiddle the equations to make any strategy move from viable to non-viable or vice versa. For instance you could change them to make turtling a failure. This is roughly what happens at D6 and D7 where the AI has massive legacy buffs. You can't just sit in northern Germany and make culture farms to win whereas on easier difficulties that is a viable strategy. The AI isn't actually trying to win a legacy game. It is trying to sort of follow a scripted historical path and win a very specific subset of the legacy game. How often does Carthage bee-line for Greece and then camp there on special buildings and culture farming until it wins? Or Egypt? Yet even in MP players engage in such actions. If I play Seleucids, especially with the new ditch regions mechanic, wouldn't my best play be to ditch my shitty Persian lands and go hard in Greece? Which is weird because the Persian empire was incredibly cultural compared even to Greece at the time. The AI would never do this.

[pnoff]

The point is that the AI is trying to win the legacy game. It doesn't react to a WC the way humans would because it's not programmed to recognize that play style. It can quite easily be tweaked to do that. It would even make sense for the AI to trigger mass revolt at some tipping point. That's the point. This strategy might work, if indeed the game is played until shockk actually finishes his game, but a patch would once again make the player concentrate on a cultural legacy to win.

I'm pretty sure shockk is getting more legacy than a normal size player controlled state which ''plays legacy game'' would, and that could be boosted further by purposefully getting regress tokens and taking objectives. That and the possibility of killing anything which looks at you the wrong way.

Not trying to be combative, just not sure what you are arguing for.

Shockk's point is that WC is possible, decadence is not really a problem with proper management, and bunch of other things (hope I state that correctly)

I was making the point that decadence should be a problem even with proper management, especially while conquering half of the world.

[MoLAoS]

The point is that the AI is trying to win the legacy game. It doesn't react to a WC the way humans would because it's not programmed to recognize that play style. It can quite easily be tweaked to do that. It would even make sense for the AI to trigger mass revolt at some tipping point. That's the point. This strategy might work, if indeed the game is played until shockk actually finishes his game, but a patch would once again make the player concentrate on a cultural legacy to win.

I'm pretty sure shockk is getting more legacy than a normal size player controlled state which ''plays legacy game'' would, and that could be boosted further by purposefully getting regress tokens and taking objectives. That and the possibility of killing anything which looks at you the wrong way.

Not trying to be combative, just not sure what you are arguing for.

Shockk's point is that WC is possible, decadence is not really a problem with proper management, and bunch of other things (hope I state that correctly)

I was making the point that decadence should be a problem even with proper management, especially while conquering half of the world.

Good framing.

[Ragu777]

Shockk's point is that WC is possible, decadence is not really a problem with proper management, and bunch of other things (hope I state that correctly)

I was making the point that decadence should be a problem even with proper management, especially while conquering half of the world.

decadence not big problem because AI don't invest in culture so much
also i think it abuse that you don't go to glorious for avoid decadence from age

[pnoff]

Shockk's point is that WC is possible, decadence is not really a problem with proper management, and bunch of other things (hope I state that correctly)

I was making the point that decadence should be a problem even with proper management, especially while conquering half of the world.

decadence not big problem because AI don't invest in culture so much
also i think it abuse that you don't go to glorious for avoid decadence from age

I agree that it is abuse of intended state of the game, that's why I'm arguing for some change

Staying stable and big should be hard, not a matter of moving pops around for a few turns.

[Gray Fox]

In case you missed it, shockk has not won the game yet. He posted that it would take 50 more turns to merely surpass the highest AI legacy. It would take even longer to actually reach the winning threshold. So WC is possible, but may not win the game any quicker than building legacy. By his own admission it makes the game tedious and creates playing bugs, which is not a very good endorsement.

To demonstrate what I understand as playing the game:

A. I have a garden and I will make it the best in the neighborhood by planting, nurturing and caring.

B. I have a garden and I will make it the best in the neighborhood by burning down all the other gardens.

I don't think you will miss the point that "playing the game" is more about A and not so much about B. Turtling or some other play style applied to growing a cultural legacy wouldn't require a fix because it is on target with that. WC, if it even works to victory, misses that mark. I don't suppose that Empires will be patched to prevent WC, because the devs just want players to enjoy the game. So WC is still an option.

[pnoff]

In case you missed it, shockk has not won the game yet. He posted that it would take 50 more turns to merely surpass the highest AI legacy. It would take even longer to actually reach the winning threshold. So WC is possible, but may not win the game any quicker than building legacy. By his own admission it makes the game tedious and creates playing bugs, which is not a very good endorsement.

To demonstrate what I understand as playing the game:

A. I have a garden and I will make it the best in the neighborhood by planting, nurturing and caring.

B. I have a garden and I will make it the best in the neighborhood by burning down all the other gardens.

I don't think you will miss the point that "playing the game" is more about A and not so much about B. Turtling or some other play style applied to growing a cultural legacy wouldn't require a fix because it is on target with that. WC, if it even works to victory, misses that mark. I don't suppose that Empires will be patched to prevent WC, because the devs just want players to enjoy the game. So WC is still an option.

If you don't see a won game here, then I never won a game in Civilization on Prince difficulty.

The bug that was ''created'' is that autobuild just not working.

Not sure analogies to horse racing or gardening are relevant, game is Fields of Glory: Empires, not Farming of Gladioluses: Entrepreneurship.

So we will have to agree to disagree here.

[shockk]

Worth pointing out the best way to get legacy points after the initial 50 or so is culture/land. So growing crazy big is the main way to hit 500+ points a turn

So even playing the legacy game doing a 1/2 world conquest is the best move. Cant get point fast enough other ways

[LDiCesare]

In case you missed it, shockk has not won the game yet. He posted that it would take 50 more turns to merely surpass the highest AI legacy. It would take even longer to actually reach the winning threshold. So WC is possible, but may not win the game any quicker than building legacy. By his own admission it makes the game tedious and creates playing bugs, which is not a very good endorsement.

I've won a game by building legacy and having alliances, and the 30 or 40 last turns are extremely boring. I perservere only out of stubborness, but the end-game IS tedious. When you have 20K legacy + 300 per turn and the second is at 9000 + 20 per turn, you know you just have to wait around 20 turns to win. It's tedious. So the only way to pass time is actually to conquer neighbours, because you might finish the game 2 or 3 turns earlier.

To demonstrate what I understand as playing the game:

A. I have a garden and I will make it the best in the neighborhood by planting, nurturing and caring.

B. I have a garden and I will make it the best in the neighborhood by burning down all the other gardens.

I don't think you will miss the point that "playing the game" is more about A and not so much about B. Turtling or some other play style applied to growing a cultural legacy wouldn't require a fix because it is on target with that. WC, if it even works to victory, misses that mark. I don't suppose that Empires will be patched to prevent WC, because the devs just want players to enjoy the game. So WC is still an option.

I think you miss the whole point. shokk has shown that some of the game mechanics are completely broken when you get a lead. It doesn't matter that you try to do WC or not. I currently own Greece and Asia Minor, a few provinces in Africa and have a huge lead at turn 200, admittedly only on experienced, but: Money, manpower, metal, equipment are all completely irrelevant. I don't even build stoas because I earn so much money there's no point. The only buildings I build are roads, walls on the borders, and culture buildings. A few infrastructure in undevelopped border provinces. Green and blue buildings are irrelevant. the only yellow buildings worth having are ceramics and anchorages.
There's no denying that military buildings are completely useless in the current state of the game. why would you ever build a building that brings 5xp if you were the province capital and you are not the province capital? Money is overflowing. Metal is overflowing. Manpower you have almost zero control upon. Equipment can slow down buying armies but it's really not an issue.
The way the game is currently, you have to kill the biggest legacy nation in order to prevent it from running away with the game. Whether you do world conquest or not is rather irrelevant. It's probably funnier to do something (world conquest) than to wait for your lead to turn into a win.
A x2 legacy figue at turn 200 would be a more interesting victory condition than the current x3 at turn 50 or x1 at 500.

[MoLAoS]

In case you missed it, shockk has not won the game yet. He posted that it would take 50 more turns to merely surpass the highest AI legacy. It would take even longer to actually reach the winning threshold. So WC is possible, but may not win the game any quicker than building legacy. By his own admission it makes the game tedious and creates playing bugs, which is not a very good endorsement.

I've won a game by building legacy and having alliances, and the 30 or 40 last turns are extremely boring. I perservere only out of stubborness, but the end-game IS tedious. When you have 20K legacy + 300 per turn and the second is at 9000 + 20 per turn, you know you just have to wait around 20 turns to win. It's tedious. So the only way to pass time is actually to conquer neighbours, because you might finish the game 2 or 3 turns earlier.

To demonstrate what I understand as playing the game:

A. I have a garden and I will make it the best in the neighborhood by planting, nurturing and caring.

B. I have a garden and I will make it the best in the neighborhood by burning down all the other gardens.

I don't think you will miss the point that "playing the game" is more about A and not so much about B. Turtling or some other play style applied to growing a cultural legacy wouldn't require a fix because it is on target with that. WC, if it even works to victory, misses that mark. I don't suppose that Empires will be patched to prevent WC, because the devs just want players to enjoy the game. So WC is still an option.

I think you miss the whole point. shokk has shown that some of the game mechanics are completely broken when you get a lead. It doesn't matter that you try to do WC or not. I currently own Greece and Asia Minor, a few provinces in Africa and have a huge lead at turn 200, admittedly only on experienced, but: Money, manpower, metal, equipment are all completely irrelevant. I don't even build stoas because I earn so much money there's no point. The only buildings I build are roads, walls on the borders, and culture buildings. A few infrastructure in undevelopped border provinces. Green and blue buildings are irrelevant. the only yellow buildings worth having are ceramics and anchorages.
There's no denying that military buildings are completely useless in the current state of the game. why would you ever build a building that brings 5xp if you were the province capital and you are not the province capital? Money is overflowing. Metal is overflowing. Manpower you have almost zero control upon. Equipment can slow down buying armies but it's really not an issue.
The way the game is currently, you have to kill the biggest legacy nation in order to prevent it from running away with the game. Whether you do world conquest or not is rather irrelevant. It's probably funnier to do something (world conquest) than to wait for your lead to turn into a win.
A x2 legacy figue at turn 200 would be a more interesting victory condition than the current x3 at turn 50 or x1 at 500.

Right? If the goal is to win legacy pretty much every nation must engage in the same optimal strategy of wiping out Greece. There's no nation that doesn't want to do this. Sure you don't have to do it but our friend is making an argument that shockk is not winning as fast as possible so under that logic wiping out Greece and Italy are mandatory. And probably Africa the province, the 3 major Egyptian provinces, and a couple key Seleucid provinces as well if you want to min-max.

Sure you don't have to conquer Britain and Germany and Spain and France. Because their provinces are shit.take them off the map and it doesn't really matter. You still win the fastest by conquering the AI with high legacy. In fact it might even be mandatory in some cases because of AI bonuses. On lower difficulty levels it is probably faster to take 4-5 provinces and turtle up and max out legacy buildings. Something the AI would never do which is why it is weird to say the AI is bad because it plays for a legacy victory. No it doesn't. It doesn't play even close to optimally for a legacy win. Hence why it needs massive buffs and the player gets nerfs on high difficulty levels(or at least the difficulty description of Experienced says the player gets nerfs).

[Gray Fox]

Worth pointing out the best way to get legacy points after the initial 50 or so is culture/land. So growing crazy big is the main way to hit 500+ points a turn

So even playing the legacy game doing a 1/2 world conquest is the best move. Cant get point fast enough other ways

Conquering the map is not a win, unless you play it out to the victory screen. That's not going to happen, because you just made the game boring. The topic is WC, right? Shockk just adnitted that WC is not the best option, which is what I correctly understood from his posts. Yes he conquered the map. If he plays it out to the victory screen, then he can tell everyone that he was the first to win a game of Empire by doing that. He'll probably be the only player to try this, since it looks like the worst, most bugged way to play the game.

[LDiCesare]

Conquering the map is not a win, unless you play it out to the victory screen. That's not going to happen, because you just made the game boring. The topic is WC, right?

No? Did you ever win the game? The end game is boring as hell when you win by culture, and only conquest allows you to do it faster. So whether his way of doing it is boring or not is a topic for discussion. I think it's less boring to finish the game by doing something (conquering) than accumulating legacy twiddling your thumbs and waiting 15 minutes for every turn to proceed without doing anything fun.
If you play Rome as they did historically, you will have painted half the map red by the way.
The topic, imo, is that if it's possible to win by ignoring WC, then there are some mechanisms in game that don't work the way intended, and you can abuse them to blob and win, even without WC. So his feedback is very much worth taking into account.

[PJL1973]

Well if the end game is boring because of the 3 x legacy of next best faction, then perhaps the victory condition (VC) should be lowered? Or better still, give some options on it, e.g. x3, x2.5, x2, x1.5.

I did suspect this might be the case if the VC target is too high, although care must be needed if of allowing someone to win prematurely (perhaps a base level of legacy is needed before the VC can be triggered.

[Gray Fox]

If you make the VC lower, then the AI can win quicker too. So that's a dead end.

The game is not about WC. You bought the game, so play any way you want. If you think that a glass half full is good enough, then start a new game. Build half a model plane and then tell everyone else that it's just the same as finishing the project. The game is about leading a people as they create a cultural Legacy that surpasses all others. Take one pop regions (shit) and forge them into an Empire. Free slaves, build monuments, pass laws and become a great power. That's how you get to the Victory screen.

[LDiCesare]

If you make the VC lower, then the AI can win quicker too. So that's a dead end.

The game is not about WC. You bought the game, so play any way you want. If you think that a glass half full is good enough, then start a new game. Build half a model plane and then tell everyone else that it's just the same as finishing the project. The game is about leading a people as they create a cultural Legacy that surpasses all others. Take one pop regions (shit) and forge them into an Empire. Free slaves, build monuments, pass laws and become a great power. That's how you get to the Victory screen.

You are not consistent when you say "play any way you want" and "it's not about WC". If I want to play the WC, I'm playing the way I want to, am I not?
Since they included a WC in the game (it's not a Paradox game), you can't disregard it. Particularly if you play MP. Some people want to see the victory screen, if only to know what it looks like (and, yes, it's a bit underwhelming). That WC should be interesting, and if the optimal way of reaching it is by playing the game in a way that was not intended, then some elements of the game may need changing.
The WC should probably be altered, but not in a way that is just lowering the factor. The end game is tedious, but only the end-game. The point is how to find that there is no challenge left? I'd say if you have twice anyone else's culture and 3 times or more the legay per turn, you've likely won, but I wouldn't check that condition before turn 150.

[Pocus]

WC was never intended to be a victory condition.
We had to err on the safe side, so 3x, not 2x, or some game might be over too soon.
Perhaps an alternate victory condition then; I get that for some players, to get a sense of achievement they should see the legitimate official victory screen saying, "you have won". I might even be one of these players.

So something like: Starting with 2x in legacy, a special decision asking you to do a few special and not so easy tasks, and if you succeed, you also have won. Clearly, that's for the player, not for AIs. They will be happy (for an AI) to win with 3x. At least in this game the AI manages to win from time to time

[jimwinsor]

Something simple like reduce 3-1 down to 2-1 after turn 250 would work pretty well IMO. If you have double Legacy at the halfway mark, it is probably safe to say you are able to coast to victory by 500.

[PJL1973]

Something simple like reduce 3-1 down to 2-1 after turn 250 would work pretty well IMO. If you have double Legacy at the halfway mark, it is probably safe to say you are able to coast to victory by 500.

Or, a base legacy points could be met before the lower VC condition could be met (eg getting 3000 legacy points).