Late game in strategy games

[Marat]

What are some games that manage to remain challenging in the late game? Why is late game usually so easy? And how to make it not so?

 

[laclongquan]

Sid Meier's Alpha Centaury. If the AI survive into the late stages, they can throw tens of ballistic missiles on your head like free water balloon. They could lower terrain that way and finally bomb our perfect column into annhilation.

In strategy games it's usually a matter of racing between human players and AI in research and production. Since we can optimize better, we usually outpace it and leave them in the dust.

SMAC also present a solution: races with unique features. Research faction, Money faction, etc... Each has its own pros and cons that usually pretty hard to overcome.

Take Money faction, aka Morganites. They are great at producing money, which they can use to push research (thus emulate research faction) and buy production (thus emulate Yang). But that come with limit in military that is pretty hard to overcome. Thus Morganites has an unique way to advance, and pretty hard to experiment other ways.

Same deal with Research faction, aka University, or Production faction aka Yang.

Why they are important? Because races with unique features present different way to advance and so other races can wriggle into weakness and holes to compete, thus can survive.

Like University. For human players, if they dont play that faction they usually leave that one alive to exploit their feature: research. OR Morgan survived to be hit for money.

It is of much importance to have factions with uniqueness.

 

[Norfleet]

What are some games that manage to remain challenging in the late game? Why is late game usually so easy?

The late game is easy for the simple reason that by the "late" game, you've overcome all the cheats the AI was given and come out on top. You have unlocked the full toolkit, so now anything in the game that can be done, you can do. Faced with a human player that is now at full capacity, the AI has nothing new it can really throw at you, aside from maybe cheating harder.

And how to make it not so?

I've often pondered this and come to the conclusion that simply piling cheats on the AI is the wrong approach, because all it does is ruin the early game while changing nothing about the inevitable late game. This is more true of a map with a non-bounded map than a finite map that the player has or will explore the entirety of well before this point in the game, but it occurs to me that the AI doesn't even need to actually exist before the player actually encounters it.

 

[Neki]

Why is late game usually so easy? And how to make it not so?

Once you're stabilized for a bit the strategy part of the game its largely gone, then its just a question of waiting for your numbers to become so big you can win against enemy numbers.

The only way the game can be harder its if it literally fucks you up by randomly doing things you cannot prevent or by just being outright unfair.

 

[Norfleet]

This is why you see games trying to add some kind of final end boss in the form of an outside context problem, like Stellaris's Crisis.

 

[Axioms]

I have a big blog post about this on my strategy game project blog: http://axiomsofdominion.blogspot.com/2015/03/snowballing-map-painting-blobbing.html

However I can simplify it a bit to apply to other strategy genres like 4X.

You should think of it as 2 functions, one for the AI and one for the player. The player's has higher variable coefficients but the AI's has higher base values. Once those functions intersect and the area under the players function is larger than the area under the AI's function the game is over. Player wins. There are no comeback mechanics typically for the AI, the AI can't exactly get better. The player has no real penalty for increasing their function value.

There is a distinction between the point where the player gets ahead of the AI and the point where the win condition is met. I think calling this the end game is a really bad design idea. The game is over. The endgame is actually the point slightly before the player's value function overtakes the AI's. Maybe the player is at 90% of the AI's value? As a potential example.

The other issue is sometimes you don't know when you are at that point. I think the game could maybe calculate in the background, how strong is the player vs the AI and calculate as if the player is an AI.

 

[Axioms]

I think a big problem in most strategy games is that they make it too easy to keep large empires. Your citizenry are all nice and quiet little drones happily working away to feed your warmachine and your immense economy. Your military is also made of meat drones, so you will never be worried about coups by rogue generals, usurper princes or what have you. You can't face a "Late Roman Empire" situation. Economies are generally too simple to properly despict serious economics issues. Demographics are never a real issue. Most of them don't despict things involving an empire's capability to control territory. Your empire can't fall unless you play like an idiot.

This is why you see games trying to add some kind of final end boss in the form of an outside context problem, like Stellaris's Crisis.

Funny, I was typing about it.

I think Stellaris has something interesting going with its mid-game and late-game Crisis. The Crisis in Stellaris is an interesting way to shake-up the late game.

The Crisis in Stellaris is functionally identical to the Antarens or w/e in MOO or the Dreadlords in GalCiv or w/e. There is nothing new or interesting about the Crisis mechanic in Stellaris at the high level. Personally their mid to low level implementation doesn't impress me either.

 

[octavius]

Regarding the OP's third question:
I'd like to have as an option for the enemy to surrender once the human player is in the lead in all categories.
Also having specific victory conditions, (reach certain tech level, capture certain city/planet, kill certain hero/leader) will shorten the mopping up phase.
And having the AI break alliances willy nilly (Civ2, AoW) just as you are winning is bloody annoying.

 

[Galdred]

Regarding the OP's thrid question:
I'd like to have as an option for the enemy to surrender once the human player is in the lead in all categories.
Also having specific victory conditions, (reach certain tech level, capture certain city/planet, kill certain hero/leader) will shorten the mopping up phase.
And having the AI break alliances willy nilly (Civ2, AoW) just as you are winning is bloody annoying.

Yes! It would be great if the mop up phase was optional.
Now, as for alliances, I am a bit torn on the issue, because human players would totally disregard all past agreements and backstab you if you seem about to win, so it kind of makes sense for the AI to do the same.

 

[Axioms]

Regarding the OP's thrid question:
I'd like to have as an option for the enemy to surrender once the human player is in the lead in all categories.
Also having specific victory conditions, (reach certain tech level, capture certain city/planet, kill certain hero/leader) will shorten the mopping up phase.
And having the AI break alliances willy nilly (Civ2, AoW) just as you are winning is bloody annoying.

Yes! It would be great if the mop up phase was optional.
Now, as for alliances, I am a bit torn on the issue, because human players would totally disregard all past agreements and backstab you if you seem about to win, so it kind of makes sense for the AI to do the same.

I think you have to consider what winning means and also whether AI should really operate as human players. I think the answer depends a lot on the genre. A lot of primarily single player games with a more verisimilitude focused design should probably not create AIs that play like humans. Especially in games that you don't really *win*.

More board-game style stuff like Risk or Catan or Diplomacy the AI should just go hard for the win. Those games are really not about AIs. But a Paradox game or even Total War or something? The concept of *winning* doesn't really make sense.

 

[Savecummer]

y is chess easy when you captured all the enemy pieces!?!?!?!?

galciv2 has a nifty trick for the ai that is losing a war - sometimes its gonna surrender to a faction you have shit realtions with...
suddenly they are bigger than you and have more tech

 

[Agesilaus]

What are some games that manage to remain challenging in the late game? Why is late game usually so easy? And how to make it not so?

Do you consider the soul-destroying burden of late-game micro-management to be easy or difficult?

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

Need more games that start from the late game. So the devs can focus on making that interesting instead of endlessly fine-tuning the build up from single settler and a warrior start (or whatever the equivalent is).

 

[oldbonebrown]

Need more games that start from the late game. So the devs can focus on making that interesting instead of endlessly fine-tuning the build up from single settler and a warrior start (or whatever the equivalent is).

A reverse Civilization could be cool. You start in the future, and as you destroy the world you go backwards in technology until you're finally barbarians on horses dragging around the one remaining nuke on a sled.

 

[Joined on the 4th of July]

you go backwards in technology

Yeah, another annoying thing is how it's presumed in these games that maintaining your tech levels doesn't require any effort whatsoever. Progress just keeps progressing, just maybe stalling briefly every now and then. (and also progress keeps progressing along a pre-determined path, but that's yet another issue...)

 

[Ravielsk]

The way I see it is that most strategy games lack any sort of guiding mechanisms for the AI to generate challenge. I will use Stellaris as a reference because I was playing it most recently but this does apply to other games as well.
Essentially it boils down to the fact that most strategy games lack something like a point of contention. Something that everyone on the map wants but only one can have. In Stellaris this manifests as "rare resources" that are needed for more advanced tech and ship components but are rare in name only. So you can find deposits in every third system or you can cheaply synthesize them(the technology for it can be researched without even finding the resource first). They also never run out so the end result is that there is never any reason to fight over them or even haggle and trade as they are plentiful and easy to get. So the AI cannot structure its behavior around(a.k.a building fleets, researching weapons tech, haggling for it, making deals/alliances) getting said resources because there is no point to fight over them in the first place and setting "capture every third system on the map" as a goal is sure to only cripple the AI instead of providing a challenge. This exact dynamic more or less applies to everything in Stellaris.
Does not matter if its tech, planets or pops. They are all rather easy to get and always plentiful so no matter what they can never really be used to set a certain goal for the AI and therefore the AI cannot really pose any kind of challenge as its only available goals essentially boil down to "existing" and not much more.

Compare that to say much more "primitive" RTS games like warcraft where there are really only two resources but one of them comes in a very limited quantity(gold) and therefore if nothing else the AI is eventually forced to hunt for a new gold mine. Thus you get a point of contention and something for the AI to structure its behavior around and provide some kind of a challenge. Its not perfect but its hell of a lot better than the Stellaris AI which basically freezes once the cheats run out.

The core problem is that for this setup to function you need to count with these "points of contention" from the start to finish. So the AI can be actually programmed to pursue them with any kind of sense and so that these points remain relevant for the whole game or even become more relevant as it goes on.

 

[Axioms]

The way I see it is that most strategy games lack any sort of guiding mechanisms for the AI to generate challenge. I will use Stellaris as a reference because I was playing it most recently but this does apply to other games as well.
Essentially it boils down to the fact that most strategy games lack something like a point of contention. Something that everyone on the map wants but only one can have. In Stellaris this manifests as "rare resources" that are needed for more advanced tech and ship components but are rare in name only. So you can find deposits in every third system or you can cheaply synthesize them(the technology for it can be researched without even finding the resource first). They also never run out so the end result is that there is never any reason to fight over them or even haggle and trade as they are plentiful and easy to get. So the AI cannot structure its behavior around(a.k.a building fleets, researching weapons tech, haggling for it, making deals/alliances) getting said resources because there is no point to fight over them in the first place and setting "capture every third system on the map" as a goal is sure to only cripple the AI instead of providing a challenge. This exact dynamic more or less applies to everything in Stellaris.
Does not matter if its tech, planets or pops. They are all rather easy to get and always plentiful so no matter what they can never really be used to set a certain goal for the AI and therefore the AI cannot really pose any kind of challenge as its only available goals essentially boil down to "existing" and not much more.

Compare that to say much more "primitive" RTS games like warcraft where there are really only two resources but one of them comes in a very limited quantity(gold) and therefore if nothing else the AI is eventually forced to hunt for a new gold mine. Thus you get a point of contention and something for the AI to structure its behavior around and provide some kind of a challenge. Its not perfect but its hell of a lot better than the Stellaris AI which basically freezes once the cheats run out.

The core problem is that for this setup to function you need to count with these "points of contention" from the start to finish. So the AI can be actually programmed to pursue them with any kind of sense and so that these points remain relevant for the whole game or even become more relevant as it goes on.

I feel like this is more of a genre issue and a complexity issue. The AI sucks because the game is complicated and most players never outrun the cheats. So it is financially smart to not spend time on the AI. Not that the incompetent devs could ever write a good AI but still.

Also RTS games are fast tactical combat simulators while Stellaris, and most other Paradox games, are nothing like that. In fact RTSs is so reliant on fast tactical prowess that they devolved into MOBAs and only increased their popularity.

I do agree that there is an issue regarding goals. The AI and the player don't, and arguably can't, play the same way for the same reasons. Of course you can write an AI where it fulfills at least its ostensible purpose of being a space politics sim. And then you could give the game tools to where the player could actually play it that way. Most Paradox games suffer a disconnect between their actual and ostensible purpose.

I'd argue for GalCiv or something as a better comparison for strategy games generally since it has a premise more in line with its execution.

When we look at something like GalCiv we are brought back to the idea that the game simply needs to acknowledge the actual point of victory. Some players are able to just decide that they have won and move on but many other players seem to really require an official win screen. Move the win screen condition to the same point that pro-active players usually assign themselves the winner at.

 

[Alpan]

The core problem is that for this setup to function you need to count with these "points of contention" from the start to finish. So the AI can be actually programmed to pursue them with any kind of sense and so that these points remain relevant for the whole game or even become more relevant as it goes on.

I haven't played it myself yet, but have heard Age of Wonders III doing something like this in its Golden Realms DLC. Basically it generates a bunch of points on the map, initially guarded by strong neutral armies so you or the AI can't pursue them from the start. Then towards the end-game holding those points for an extended period of time is the victory condition. Because it's a fundamentally simple mechanic the AI apparently gets it.

 

[Axioms]

The core problem is that for this setup to function you need to count with these "points of contention" from the start to finish. So the AI can be actually programmed to pursue them with any kind of sense and so that these points remain relevant for the whole game or even become more relevant as it goes on.

I haven't played it myself yet, but have heard Age of Wonders III doing something like this in its Golden Realms DLC. Basically it generates a bunch of points on the map, initially guarded by strong neutral armies so you or the AI can't pursue them from the start. Then towards the end-game holding those points for an extended period of time is the victory condition. Because it's a fundamentally simple mechanic the AI apparently gets it.

Maybe but the AI is still trash relying on static power boost cheats.

 

[Brancaleone]

Compare that to say much more "primitive" RTS games like warcraft where there are really only two resources but one of them comes in a very limited quantity(gold) and therefore if nothing else the AI is eventually forced to hunt for a new gold mine. Thus you get a point of contention and something for the AI to structure its behavior around and provide some kind of a challenge. Its not perfect but its hell of a lot better than the Stellaris AI which basically freezes once the cheats run out.

Z by Bitmap Bros really doubled down on points of contention.

Although tbh I can't for the life of mine remember whether the AI was any good, I'm getting old.

 

[mondblut]

Why is late game usually so easy?

Because you are playing them right.

In a zero-sum game success breeds success, and you can't avoid it without blatant cheating on behalf of AI or frustrating restrictions ("punishment for success") that kill any joy from progressing in the game.

 

[Hag]

Conquest of Elyseum can be surprisingly hard in the late game. Micromanagement hell apart (still better than in Dominions where it is arguably the real final boss), the game has a "dwarves digging too deep" aspect where your search for power can ultimately be your demise. Breaking one too many Seal, opening a gate to hell, visiting other planes, conquering a cursed city and so on are viable strategies to speed-up late game and get the definitive edge on your opponents but can as well be the source of spectacular and unplanned "fun".

Spoiler

Try playing as the Voice of El and unleash the Apocalypse. It is actually a very good way to win since this is the faction best suited to survive (against AI at least). Still, won't be an easy victory by any mean.

 

[octavius]

The core problem is that for this setup to function you need to count with these "points of contention" from the start to finish. So the AI can be actually programmed to pursue them with any kind of sense and so that these points remain relevant for the whole game or even become more relevant as it goes on.

I haven't played it myself yet, but have heard Age of Wonders III doing something like this in its Golden Realms DLC. Basically it generates a bunch of points on the map, initially guarded by strong neutral armies so you or the AI can't pursue them from the start. Then towards the end-game holding those points for an extended period of time is the victory condition. Because it's a fundamentally simple mechanic the AI apparently gets it.

Heh, in AoW1 the bloody AI can't even attack independents.

 

[Norfleet]

When we look at something like GalCiv we are brought back to the idea that the game simply needs to acknowledge the actual point of victory. Some players are able to just decide that they have won and move on but many other players seem to really require an official win screen. Move the win screen condition to the same point that pro-active players usually assign themselves the winner at.

I think the catch is that to move the win screen to that point would mean that the player would start to lose arbitrarily on these grounds. If the player occupies 30% of the map, he's probably into his victory lap. If the AI occupies 30% of the map, it's nowhere close to over, even in a full observer match, as the capacity of the AI to shoot itself in the foot far exceeds the player's at that point.

It also doesn't apply in a game where there are multiple players: One player occupying even a plurality of the map is nowhere close to the end. So you can't draw the win condition TOO generously or the game will be declared won prematurely, but if you make it more stringent, the game could be won and dragging by then.

 

[Marat]

Your empire can't fall unless you play like an idiot.

This. Games do very little to no simulation of various complexities of governance. Large states are notoriously difficult to manage. The larger a state grows, the lesser the extent of administrative control of it's base components by the top leadership. Also. different conflicting interests start to arise and become ever more difficult to get under control with the state growing in size. That is also something games don't even attempt to portrait or if they do, it's a lame slider that gives you time to the next rebellion.

Additionally, AI is often extremely passive. Player clears out his neighbouring rivals, consolidates his domain, takes control of his side of the continent/galaxy/whatever, nobody even thinks to interfere with him and when he's done, borders of AI opponents on the other side have barely moved. No hegemon has emerged, no one came out on top and all that's left is the clean up.