What is the goal of this game?

[sarudak]

So I bought the game because I love you guys and the concept sounded really cool. But this game is confusing me. As I understand it the stated goal of this game is to nurture two civilizations and help them avoid destruction at the hands of bandits, woes, or each other. The starting comic seemed to reinforce this. So far so good.

In my first game I wondered if I want to nurture them without them destroying then why build military? The appearance of bandits quickly answered that question. So peaceful is out. The world is harsh and red and blue need militaries to survive but you need to keep them balanced so they don't crush each other after killing the bandits. Obvious. Makes sense. I like.

So for the second game I jumped right into making choke points. Let them duke it out. Keep my production towns safe and cordoned off, have my military rush through the valley and chew each other up. Everything was happy. And then I realized I wasn't going to meet the score requirements. Score requirements? How do I score points. This is when everything went wrong for me. You score points by having red and blue ransack each others towns. That is completely counter to the stated goal of the game which is to keep balance! I don't understand why you would put in scoring and scoring requirements that run completely counter to the stated goal of the game. Can you help me understand this? It seems like a cheap cop out of if the player is doing too well balancing the sides then punish him and leads to gamey behavior like building towns who's purpose is to be destroyed to add to the player's score.

[Panopticon]

The idea is to keep balance, not minimize bloodshed. You want to escalate all conflict, but in a balanced matter so one side doesn't wipe out the other.

Apparently the master of this universe isn't so interested in peace and happiness. He's interested in mankind's other... pursuits and qualities.

[sarudak]

I feel like it should be stated somewhere then that you're actually supposed to cause as much destruction and bloodshed as possible without ever actually completely wiping one group out. Seems like a strange goal but if that is the goal it should be explicit. I would still say it tends to lend itself to gamey behavior like building defenseless towns whose purpose is to be destroyed

[Professor Paul1290]

You're going to be building a lot of towns and a lot of them are going to get destroyed. In fact I would say ideally most of what you build is going to eventually get destroyed. (hopefully not before you can compensate appropriately of course)

In order to get points you want to allow as much controlled destruction as possible, by that I mean you want them to kill as many of of each others units and as many of each others buildings as you can while keeping at a level where they can still rebuild, expand, and produce units fast enough that it won't wipe each other out.

Making defenseless towns is part of that, but you don't always want your towns to be completely defenseless. You'll want to make sure that they aren't being destroyed so fast that it outpaces construction and you want to make sure you can compensate for lost resources.

You'll also want towns to be able to put out enough units and have enough defenses to allow you to use mythological and god tokens without tipping the balance too much, and some of those are worth points when used. Putting down mythological and god tokens before your towns and units can compensate for them is a common way to lose games early.
The stronger your towns and units are, the more abuse your setup can tolerate from mythological and god tokens without tipping over, and being able to use those is another major source of points.

[sarudak]

So Chris mentioned the goal of the game being managing chaos. And yet the point system does not seem to reward this. It seems very odd to me that we have a game ostensibly about one thing (managing chaos, preserving two nations) with a score system that rewards another thing (maximising death and destruction). As a player what is my goal supposed to be?

EDIT: He also mentioned that score was added as a way to determine 'How well did I win?' But I don't see how score is related to that at all. Indeed you are likely to get the highest score when you are doing the worst at keeping the two sides in balance.

[Misery]

So Chris mentioned the goal of the game being managing chaos. And yet the point system does not seem to reward this. It seems very odd to me that we have a game ostensibly about one thing (managing chaos, preserving two nations) with a score system that rewards another thing (maximising death and destruction). As a player what is my goal supposed to be?

EDIT: He also mentioned that score was added as a way to determine 'How well did I win?' But I don't see how score is related to that at all. Indeed you are likely to get the highest score when you are doing the worst at keeping the two sides in balance.

Note that "managing chaos" does not mean "reducing chaos".    It's not actually two conflicting goals.   What managing chaos basically means is that yes.... you need to be causing more war and more fighting and more units dying and spawning and all of that.... but WHILE you do this, you must do your best to not let one side become stronger than the other.  It's not about reducing either side's fighting output, but simply making sure that when they are fighting, the sides are as close to equal as possible;  the inherant imbalances between the Norse and Greek create some of the challenge in doing this, and the woes and such create the rest.


So it's basically "controlled chaos" you're after.   You want lots of death and destruction.... but you want death and destruction that fits YOUR plans and gets you points, while also solving woe situations and NOT wrecking one side more than the other.

[xoseph]

It's also possible to score big points by placing God tokens, so there's that.

[LaughingThesaurus]

It's also possible to score big points by placing God tokens, so there's that.

It's also possible to cause massive amounts of death by placing God tokens.

[orzelek]

It's also possible to score big points by placing God tokens, so there's that.

It's also possible to cause massive amounts of death by placing God tokens.

That would actually give you more points that only for a token..

[LaughingThesaurus]

Yup, it only puts you closer to losing. If you can handle that, then tokens are awesome. I actually love this game for that philosophy.

[Histidine]

I think KDR_11k said it best: Skyward Collapse is Blood for the Blood God and you're the Blood God.

[Misery]

Yup, it only puts you closer to losing. If you can handle that, then tokens are awesome. I actually love this game for that philosophy.

Yup, same here.


Though there does seem to be a few tokens that go against that idea;  Pan's goat, for example, or Njord's.... everything.   Big points and beneficial effects for zero risk and somewhat low costs.   There's a couple of other examples but I cant remember what they are.

[LaughingThesaurus]

That's probably something to be put on mantis for adjustment.

[Winge]

Yup, it only puts you closer to losing. If you can handle that, then tokens are awesome. I actually love this game for that philosophy.

Yup, same here.


Though there does seem to be a few tokens that go against that idea;  Pan's goat, for example, or Njord's.... everything.   Big points and beneficial effects for zero risk and somewhat low costs.   There's a couple of other examples but I cant remember what they are.

Many of those tokens are limited in how many times you can use them--especially on harder difficulties.  You might only get the opportunity to use those tokens twice or even once per game.  Others (like Njord'a Coins) have minimal point benefits.