When do you consider a game won?

M

madm

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 9, 2003
Messages
38
I’m just wondering: when do you consider a game won? I rarely play until I hit the victory screen, because frankly I find the game boring when I’m way ahead of everyone else (landmass, pop, tech…). In my years of civ playing I came up with different ‘winning’ conditions, like playing until my score is at least two times that of the number two, being really way ahead in tech compared to everyone else, or being first by length in all demographics. (I like the first 100-200 turns of the game best, so I want to start over rather quickly.)
How far do you usually play a game, and when do you consider a game won?
 
I've considered a game done when I've only got a spaceship part or two left to build, or there is only one civ left to overtake in influence. Usually, if it's 20 or 30 turns, I just quit. I don't like sitting there clicking next turn 20 or 30 times. Taking into consideration the AI's turns and the CS's, I don't feel like wasting an hour of my time.
 
I usually play till the victory screen if for no other reason then I like to watch the replay and want to get the achievement for it. I get what you describe too though and usually stop playing a game for a while when it gets too boring late-game, only to come back a week later and finish it up when I'm less ansy. What I consider a complete victory is building both a powerful empire with a large score AND getting a victory condition. I don't usually go for VC's that I can accomplish from way behind as I feel like I haven't really won and it's the reason why if I win culturally it's usually on accident and just because I'm awesome at everything. Diplomacy I've never even tried, even on the games where I allied every CS and could I don't.

For science: I usually completely launch the ship. It goes quick for me and I'm not usually waiting that long.

For culture: when I've got that one guy left and it's just a waiting game.

For diplomacy: dunno, because I hate the VC and never try for it. It's so anticlimactic

For conquest: when every city is mine. In civ V you can win by sniping capitals with nukes, stealth bombers, and xcom, but I'm not interested in this. I consider domination complete when I completely wipe out the world, burning all the cities I don't like and keeping all the ones I do with the exception of CS. Obviously this makes it near-impossible to win on a huge map in a timely manner but it's the way I play. Otherwise I feel I've not really dominated, I just popped some caps without giving the others time to recover and fight back.
 
I literally can't finish a Dom or Cultural victory to the end any more. So, I basically stop a game if the Military situation is clear, and I basically don't aim for Cultural victories. Never tried a Diplo win for same reasons as above.

As for science, I generally like to play to the whistle and see how fast I can do. Some exceptions, but especially if other Civs aren't entirely out of the picture, far.

As to the bigger picture, I generally think a game is 'won' when I could avoid building another military unit and no civ can hurt me. I actually got caught showboating once on on Immortal and a rival civ took one of my main cities. Didn't stop me winning, mind you, but boy, the sting from losing a key city by thinking only about 'faster victory' pissed me off :). Especially with smart ai mod, the AI can be a bit feisty on Immortal and I got ambushed from a winning position. So in that case, I should have done it by the book and built more fighters :).

In reality, if you're a good player, getting to Ideologies first should be an automatic win, although on large or huge maps, that can still be dicey in some situations.
 
I usually play until the victory screen as well, because that's when you've actually achieved victory.

As far as "considering a game won" meaning "achieving a point in which victory is inevitable," some of you may be cheating yourselves with the culture wins - saying that it's just a waiting game or turn-clicking to victory against that one last remaining civ. That last remaining civ is the critical element of winning a culture victory, and for all we know, they have yet to build hermitage and broadcast towers and will eventually build SOH and you very feasibly could be unable to become influential with the civ, meaning that you'd need to be able to achieve a different victory condition, and before anyone else does. I dunno, that seems to be a case where it's assumed something is inevitable when it clearly isn't, and a check is being placed in the win column when it should be in the loss column.

But I get that we all dislike the late game, it lingers so. As such, I employ a great deal of suspension of disbelief, thinking that, "they still gotta chance! they might pull something off," and delay concluding that, "victory is inevitable" as much as possible. Just so that there's some tension left, fake as it may be, which helps deal with the droning, drooling theme of late-game, runaway play.
 
danaphanous said:
For diplomacy: dunno, because I hate the VC and never try for it. It's so anticlimactic.
Click to expand...
Try this: not because it has a high degree of challenge, but more because it adds some flair to diplomatic games.

Play Deity and hand select your opponents: Huns, Mongolians, Zulu, Assyria, Germans, and Two Greek empires. Germany usually holds his own, is rather aggressive, and will compete for CS influence. Two Greek nations means you're really going to struggle with alliance status, and they're (both) pretty aggressive.

More importantly though, they're going to attack anything in sight that doesn't fly under their banner! You can further impact this with war bribes (adding some element of "diplomacy" to a diplomatic victory.)

Your goal then, is to achieve half the votes you need from CS votes/proposals/globalization, and the other half of your votes from liberating eradicated civs.
 
ShakaKhan said:
As far as "considering a game won" meaning "achieving a point in which victory is inevitable," some of you may be cheating yourselves with the culture wins - saying that it's just a waiting game or turn-clicking to victory against that one last remaining civ. That last remaining civ is the critical element of winning a culture victory, and for all we know, they have yet to build hermitage and broadcast towers and will eventually build SOH and you very feasibly could be unable to become influential with the civ, meaning that you'd need to be able to achieve a different victory condition, and before anyone else does. I dunno, that seems to be a case where it's assumed something is inevitable when it clearly isn't, and a check is being placed in the win column when it should be in the loss column.

But I get that we all dislike the late game, it lingers so. As such, I employ a great deal of suspension of disbelief, thinking that, "they still gotta chance! they might pull something off," and delay concluding that, "victory is inevitable" as much as possible. Just so that there's some tension left, fake as it may be, which helps deal with the droning, drooling theme of late-game, runaway play.
Click to expand...
But 99.99 percent of the time, they are not going to get those broadcast towers in time. And my influence is already overwhelming. And if they're suffering unhappiness because of ideological pressure, the odds of them suddenly bouncing back in a dozen turns in practically zero.

But i see your point--nothing is guaranteed. But I'm not going to waste a half hour or an hour clicking next turn just to see the win screen.

I only usually play at King/Emperor so I think I when I'm that far ahead, it's safe to just quit and start another game.
 
Another reason for me to play GOTM.

I am not playing to win or lose from the AI (which indeed is decided rather early). I play for the best victory date and thus the challenge last until the end.
 
To be honest, a game can be considered won as soon as I open a map since I can't even remember the last time I lost. However you need to play to victory game in order to measure how quickly the win is.
 
^^That's true. When I quit early I'm aiming for a certain victory. I'll quit early if a science or cultural victory is pretty certain. But I won't quit early for a domination or diplomacy victory.
 
I have a habit of starting a new game once I'm in the atomic era, but with my culture victories I usually call it a game when it's just that last behemoth to influence.
 
These days, I can usually tell if I have won by simply seeing the starting dirt. If not then, then for sure by the time I have met all the other civs. I play Immortal. I don't think I have technically won (that is, waited until the game says I have won) a game in two years or more.
 
When I find myself getting bored or thinking about the next game. Or when I defeated the top two AIs and then don't feel like slogging through the rest of them since I've done that enough to know that there might at best be one or two minor setbacks but I'll inevitably win.
 
I can't say I commit to all my games these days but I wouldn't consider a game "won" unless you see that victory screen. Unless of course you aren't playing to win the game, then I've won whenever I get bored I guess.
 
Do people really quit so early as described on this thread?

There is a lot that can happen to add difficulty to a game later such as ideological pressures after those are adopted, late-game wars from the ideologies, etc. I think you guys are missing out if you quit before ideologies, not to mention haven't actually guaranteed a win.

Not to be "that guy" but seriously, there's a difference between winning being possible with skillful playing and it being "basically won" in my opinion. If it was up to "I'll win now if I play well" I would quit at the beginning of every game difficulty immortal or lower because I never lose on those levels. But if you do that you're missing the whole experience and not giving the AI a chance to shine when they get to the techs you have.

Bailing would be justified for me in only a few circumstances: if I was in atomic era nearing spaceship and the next AI was at least an era behind (basically no chance for them) or had overcome everyone on cultural and was going to win soon (aka 25 turns or so). Quitting when you have 100+ turns on a cultural leader is silly. You haven't won as they will probably soon get broadcast towers and all the cultural bonuses you have and then you'll never catch them without war or musician spam. After internet if anyone is stil 100+ turns you have other problems with your tourism output. You should be winning 25 turns or less. Since that isn't guaranteed (they can kill your musicians, deny borders, put up a fight, etc) quitting with that much of a lead time doesn't give them a chance. You're comparing your information-age tourism to their industrial culture and it won't stay like that for 100 turns.
 
danaphanous said:
Do people really quit so early as described on this thread?

There is a lot that can happen to add difficulty to a game later such as ideological pressures after those are adopted, late-game wars from the ideologies, etc. I think you guys are missing out if you quit before ideologies, not to mention haven't actually guaranteed a win.

Not to be "that guy" but seriously, there's a difference between winning being possible with skillful playing and it being "basically won" in my opinion. If it was up to "I'll win now if I play well" I would quit at the beginning of every game difficulty immortal or lower because I never lose on those levels. But if you do that you're missing the whole experience and not giving the AI a chance to shine when they get to the techs you have.

Bailing would be justified for me in only a few circumstances: if I was in atomic era nearing spaceship and the next AI was at least an era behind (basically no chance for them) or had overcome everyone on cultural and was going to win soon (aka 25 turns or so). Quitting when you have 100+ turns on a cultural leader is silly. You haven't won as they will probably soon get broadcast towers and all the cultural bonuses you have and then you'll never catch them without war or musician spam. After internet if anyone is stil 100+ turns you have other problems with your tourism output. You should be winning 25 turns or less. Since that isn't guaranteed (they can kill your musicians, deny borders, put up a fight, etc) quitting with that much of a lead time doesn't give them a chance. You're comparing your information-age tourism to their industrial culture and it won't stay like that for 100 turns.
Click to expand...

Well like I said I've completed plenty of games and I know what will happen, some minor setbacks at worst, but even when I play to the end I rarely get to even finish the modern era and ideologies and such are fairly minor by then as I've already wiped out the top AIs. Why wouldn't I quit if I'm just repeating the same stuff over and over to an inevitable win? Just because the game can't recognize this doesn't mean I shouldn't.
 
danaphanous said:
Do people really quit so early as described on this thread?

There is a lot that can happen to add difficulty to a game later such as ideological pressures after those are adopted, late-game wars from the ideologies, etc. I think you guys are missing out if you quit before ideologies, not to mention haven't actually guaranteed a win.

Not to be "that guy" but seriously, there's a difference between winning being possible with skillful playing and it being "basically won" in my opinion. If it was up to "I'll win now if I play well" I would quit at the beginning of every game difficulty immortal or lower because I never lose on those levels. But if you do that you're missing the whole experience and not giving the AI a chance to shine when they get to the techs you have.

Bailing would be justified for me in only a few circumstances: if I was in atomic era nearing spaceship and the next AI was at least an era behind (basically no chance for them) or had overcome everyone on cultural and was going to win soon (aka 25 turns or so). Quitting when you have 100+ turns on a cultural leader is silly. You haven't won as they will probably soon get broadcast towers and all the cultural bonuses you have and then you'll never catch them without war or musician spam. After internet if anyone is stil 100+ turns you have other problems with your tourism output. You should be winning 25 turns or less. Since that isn't guaranteed (they can kill your musicians, deny borders, put up a fight, etc) quitting with that much of a lead time doesn't give them a chance. You're comparing your information-age tourism to their industrial culture and it won't stay like that for 100 turns.
Click to expand...

For me personally, I've played the game so much and easily have over 1000 hours. Finishing a game these days feels like a chore if the game isn't particularly interesting or you haven't set a challenge for yourself, the HOF challenges can be fun, or find a random game generator online.
That being said, if you're a newer Civ player or don't go for that sweet victory screen often I would recommend it, it's a satisfying feeling especially on the higher difficulties. "Restartitis" as I call it will just get you bored of Civ and any other game very quickly. But, of course that's only my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
When do you consider the game won?
Replies
15
Views
2K
Bryan317
Bryan317
ThermobaricPunch
Multiplayer desyncs (loading screen between turns) and weird bugs
Replies
1
Views
768
coolhandluke11
C
L
[vanilla] Locating Start of Game music
Replies
1
Views
544
HorseshoeHermit
HorseshoeHermit
The_J
Can you make an anti-imperial empire game? The 4Xperts behind Civilization, Syphilisation and Victoria 3 discuss eXperimental 4X design
Replies
5
Views
2K
martindo
M
noontide
Mid - to late-game questions
Replies
13
Views
1K
Gumbolt
Gumbolt
Top Bottom