Topic: Ending the Game

[MicaByte]

Here (if anyone wants to), we can continue the discussion from the old ezboard on ending the game in the Grand Campaign.

As mentioned, the Grand Campaign runs from 265-25 BCE, and features Rome, Carthage, and the three Successor states.

I plan to implement as much flexibility into the game scheme as possible, but the standard system is designed use victory points (VPs) and functions as follows:

Roman factions gain VPs from attaining office, and gaining victories in war. "Winning" VPs are gained if the faction succeeds in getting his character appointed Imperator Augustus/Princeps, and surviving the inevitable civil wars to the end of the game.

Carthaginian factions gain VPs from attaining office, and expanding the sphere of Carthaginian trade influence. Carthaginian factions gain "Winning" VPs if Carthage has at least nominal control over Spain, Sicily, and Africa at the end of the game, and individual factions gain "Winning" VPs for being the wealthiest faction, and having trade domination in various goods at the end of the game.

The Successor states gain VPs through the achievements of their Kingdom; success in war, a strong economy, and peace and prosperity will net the player a large number of VPs in the course of the game. "Winning" VPs are gained by achieving the territorial ambitions of each particular power by the end of the game.

Currently, I lean toward simply letting every game run till 25 BCE, with extra victory points scored if the faction/state achieves its victory conditions.

The victory point systems gives the "Historical" gameplay option. In addition to this, there may also be other victory system alternatives, such as "Conquest" (nation that has conquored the most within a set time frame), and simmilar. In addition to this, there should of course be a number of scenarios, with the additional capability for the user to create his own.

[Thomo the Lost]

Here (if anyone wants to), we can continue the discussion from the old ezboard on ending the game in the Grand Campaign.

As mentioned, the Grand Campaign runs from 265-25 BCE, and features Rome, Carthage, and the three Successor states.

I plan to implement as much flexibility into the game scheme as possible, but the standard system is designed use victory points (VPs) and functions as follows:

Roman factions gain VPs from attaining office, and gaining victories in war. "Winning" VPs are gained if the faction succeeds in getting his character appointed Imperator Augustus/Princeps, and surviving the inevitable civil wars to the end of the game.

Sort of like having dignitatis (or however that is spelled) points. And the winner had 77 DPs!

Of course, where you have players in different cultures with victory points at the end of the game, then you really have multiple winners (an ancient win-win) as I guess ancient times the object was to win in one area whilst avoiding defeat in another area and in many circumstances, avoiding defeat was sometimes a bigger win than the win itself <-- does that make any sense?

Currently, I lean toward simply letting every game run till 25 BCE, with extra victory points scored if the faction/state achieves its victory conditions.

The victory point systems gives the "Historical" gameplay option. In addition to this, there may also be other victory system alternatives, such as "Conquest" (nation that has conquored the most within a set time frame), and simmilar. In addition to this, there should of course be a number of scenarios, with the additional capability for the user to create his own.

And, it allows for multiple winners. I think that you should be able to set the assessment of the winner at the end of the game to provide for multiple winners.

Cheers, Thomo the Lost

[Demonic_Emperor]

I'm interested in how the victory conditions in Imperium will account for the fact that, assuming the game attemps to encourage historical trends, there is a very good possibility that some of the major powers won't exist at the end of the game.

It is of my opinion that VPs based on end of game position shouldn't be too large, so as to allow an eliminated nation to still have a possibility of winning if they performed substantially better and/or lasted much longer than their historical counterpart.

Consider that historically Carthage is the mightiest power of the Mediterranean at the beginning of the Grand Campaign yet was effectively eliminated in the first third of the 265-25 BCE period. What is the chance of Carthage not only surviving, but actually retaining control of Spain and Sicily until 25 BCE? Perhaps a better idea would be to give small amounts of VPs to Carthage every year they control certain objectives in Spain, Sicily, and Africa.

What do you think of the idea of giving VPs for length of time territorial objectives are controlled, rather than just the endgame position?

[Nikanarchon]

A plea to be able to play on past 25BC should one wish to.
Imagine being on the verge of re-establishing Alexander's empire, then suddenly, 'Sorry, time's up!'  

[Nikanarchon]

I like Demonic Emperor's suggestion.
Maybe it could be modified so you accumulate points for battles won, years in possession of territories, money made each year(Kart), years your faction has a consul(Rom) etc etc etc. Maybe also minus points for losing battles, making a loss, having territories secede or ceded to enemies etc etc etc, although these probably need time limits (one-off point deductions).

[MicaByte]

Obviously, the victory point system is something that is going to take a lot of balancing to get just right.

But the way it is intended to work (as Thomo rightly guessed) is for the player to gain victory points for the dignitas/fame/standing of his characters. However, this is obviously going to work very differently from nation to nation (due to the varied numbers of characters available). Victory points are only gained when the character dies or retires, and dignitas can both be raised and lowered (e.g., by loosing battles and wars).  To these VPs that the player gains will be added victory points of the various states national achievements (shared out among the factions in the case of the Republics).

Victory points will be steadily accumulated during the course of the game, so a player that does very well in the start can win even if by the end of the game he is no longer a powerful player. In other words, if Carthage controls their historical objectives during a period of the game, the Carthaginian factions will be raking in VPs during that period.

However, my current opinion is that if a state gets destroyed in the game (e.g. Carthage and Macedon), then it has basically lost. Even in the worst of circumstances, I believe it should be possible for a reduced Carthage, Macedon, or Syria to survive out the period, provided the player acts carefully and bends his knees when that fate becomes inevitable (like Egypt essentially did to Rome).

As regards playing past 25 BCE, I think that the game will require a firm ending date, otherwise we'll have the game turning into "the neverending story".  

Besides, if I get the system to work as intended, the only joy you'll have from re-establishing Alexander's empire will be the pleasure of seeing it all fall apart again when your King dies.

[Nikanarchon]

Salutations, Lupus Borealis,

Surely a few generations of continued imperial unity would be in order. The Ptolemaic empire did not disintegrate on the death of the early Ptolemies, nor the Seleukid on the death of the early Seleukid rulers. Not to mention long-lived dynasties in Pontos, Pergamon, Bosporos, Armenia, Bithynia, Kappadokia, Numidia etc etc. Of course there should always be the risk of fratricidal strife, but Alex was kinda unlucky to pop off when his son was still unborn.

Also am not sure that I agree an empire which goes under should lose all points. I prefer a system whereby even if you are eliminated, your points total might still win you the game.
Theoretically, all the player positions might be eliminated, the Romans & Antigonids by Keltic invasions, the Karts by the Numidians, the Seleukids by the Parthians and the Ptolemies by Pirates. As well as all by other players.

Also, on never-ending story, why not? I am not suggesting no fixed end point, I am suggesting the capability to play on beyond the end-point, just for the joy of the game.

[MicaByte]

Have replied to the first part of this in another thread.

I guess this is mostly a matter of opinion, but I consider that if you fight your enemy to the point of destruction, it is more or less your own fault (except perhaps in a multi-player game) and you're simply getting your just deserts. This game after all simulates the Hellenistic age, and this was not the way of the world then. If there is one thing I would like to get right in this game, then it is that players bringing modern and "gamey" ideas like total wars to the death into the game, will learn a bit of historical reality and get slaughtered.

The game system is not vindictive (at least not as currently designed), and it will always be possible to buy off the enemy with tribute, gifts, and submission. Bow the neck become a vassal, and behave like one and one's chances of survival should be good. A novel departure from most strategy games, where surrender is hardly ever considered an option (e.g., Europa Universalis). We shall see whether this works out as intended.

The Roman senate will usually be prepared to accept vassalage from civilized states, rather than direct conquest (no second chances though). The Carthaginian senate is not interested in conquest as such. The various Successor states may attempt to destroy each other, but there will always be the option of going into exile with a neighbor, and then attempting to return at a latter time.

In game terms, the historical destructions of Carthage and Macedon would be avoidable by strict devotion to their vassalage, Syria by not plunging into civil wars, Egypt by backing the right side in the final civil war.

I don't know whether you should loose all your points (likely there will be a high-score table, after all), but I don't see how the player can be acclaimed as the winner if he is wiped out. After all, if you get destroyed in 200 BC, very few are going to want the computer to play the next 180 years just in order to see whether the AI scores more points. This is more interesting only in the case of a multi-player game.

Piracy is not a direct major political threat, btw - in that they cannot go in and seize a kingdom. It can cause dangerous unrest, though.

Also, on never-ending story, why not? I am not suggesting no fixed end point, I am suggesting the capability to play on beyond the end-point, just for the joy of the game.

But at the cost of historicity. I think 250-300 years is going to the upper limits of what one can handle in a historical system, while still keeping the game historical. The game system setup wouldn't handle many of the issues that would start popping up as we enter the first AD; e.g., the spread of Christianity, the homogenization of the Empire, the Persian resurgence,  and the German pressure on the borders. However, if one really wanted to continue, I imagine it would be rather easy to modify the savegame to allow this.

[Philj]

Sorry to come in late on the end of game thread.

The game is intended to end with the principate.  Without simplifying too much, the choosing of this date coincides with the political triumph of one faction.  Will Roman (or surviving Carthagian) players be given the option to try to assume the purple if they feel strong enough before this?  At 25BC, Rome may still be a republic without a dominant faction.  Alternatively, if good enough, a faction might attain a similar level of power earlier.  Or will domestic unrest factors be sufficiently high to preclude one faction dominating in this way.  

I guess where I'm going with this is that the end date was basically determined by the results of the Roman political process (fed by spectacular military success).  If this is now determined within the game, does 25BC become variable and the game ends with ?Rome's domination.  

At the risk of requiring a bigger map, Rome post republic might be played teh same way as the eastern monarchs at teh moment.  

There is no chance that will last the length of teh empire.  It will be impossible to maintain a dynasty that long.  I believe all of teh Roman patrician families from the republic had died out well before Rome itself fell.  

Maybe that is teh end date - when you inevitably fail.

Apologies for rambling thoughts.

[MicaByte]

Late? Nah; this is a small forum and primarily just a clearinghouse for information about the game, so there sometimes goes weeks (even months) between posts.

Nope; it is not currently intended for the game to end with the inception of the Principate  (princeps = Emperor), though much of course depends on how easily it will be to metamorphose the game system for the Republic.

The game proper will end in 25 BCE, regardless of the play status, though possibly one might add on an option for the player to continue playing on beyond the end of the game if he wants to,   (e.g., like in Civilization) but without scoring any more victory points (and obviously with the historic game play ended).

Given the essentially open-source nature of the scenario data, it should be a piece of cake for anyone to modify the game files to allow playing the Fall of the Roman Empire if they so wish it. Or perhaps (when the game is done and some time has passed), I will be tempted to code some more and add expansion packs for various other time periods.

[Wisdom]

I will be tempted to code some more and add expansion packs for various other time periods.

You know i want!