What is your favourite time in the game?

(Apologies, this topic has bound to have been done before but...)

Started a new game last night, got to thinking about the time in the game I most enjoy. Because I play on small continents or continents a lot I think it is when I discover Astronomy and can get out on the oceans to see the wider world. I also love the first 20 or so turns.

I greatly enjoy the game more once the world congress starts to convene. It feels like the game and the world is coming closer together, yet farther apart as diplomacy becomes much more important than ever. It makes things more involving for the player as to what decisions they are going to make if they wish to get along with the other leaders, or conversely which ones they aren't fond of. I also like the game when it's going my way but I'm on the edge of losing my lead to a rival civ. When it is most competitive; very close space-race vics or races against others going for culture or diplomatic VCs can be quite tense!

The ancient and classical era are where I make or break the game. If I can't get a good foothold there or at least catchup by the late renaissance, I'm going to have a rough time of things heading into the modern era. By far, mid-game tends to be my favorite time, since it's typically when I am either doing well enough to overcome my opponents or very poorly and on the brink of having to start a new game. The warfare is also interesting, since I feel it tends to wind down after the industrial era. Sieges with trebuchets and swordsmen fighting off crossbowmen and knights just have a different sort of feel than that of bombers and paratroopers trying to avoid getting nuked or destroyed by armored units.

I prefer Ancient to Medieval. It`s a pity that Civ 5 does not really cater to these eras and gets a lot more excited when it gets to the modern era. The Ancient and medieval feel is just not there and the Techs just shoot by because there aren`t really much, even in an Epic game. Again, a Dev preference, preferring big bangy and shooty things, no doubt.

Early game for me always, i have lost count of how many civ games (all versions) that ive just abandoned once it becomes clear i will win..

I love the Industrial Era, as it always seems that that's the time when the World Congress starts to get more interesting. It's also when Ideologies are starting to play a role, which I feel adds a cool new dimension to gameplay.

For me its turn 50 - 100. Thats when i can build, expand and grow the most important things.
Also i like the luxury grabbing contest that takes place at this time.

Classic - Medieval. I'd prefer the Ancient era too if it last longer enough for cities to build things quicker. I just prefer the game everything you do will effect how you have to play later and there aren't improvements everywhere and can choose who you annoy or whether you play it safe and attack barbarians. Although it was more fun when I didn't have to worry about happiness AND money.

Renaissance. Game does a decent job of capturing that whole concept of "exploration and new ideas". Caravels exploring new continents, frigates posing an actual threat on the seas, and cannon being the first siege unit that starts to really make a difference.

Before that, game feels like you spend all your time fending off barbarians with ancient-era units with a very brief window of classical/medieval action.

I love ancient - classic just for the sake of me being hugely interested by ancient Mesopotamia and Greece. I love to watch documentaries about battles that took place back then - But it hasn't much to offer gameplay-wise...

My favourite era to play in is probably Renaissance. Everything starts to make more sense from that time, as Matthew explained very well above.

Matthew. said:

Before that, game feels like you spend all your time fending off barbarians with ancient-era units with a very brief window of classical/medieval action.

Click to expand...

Well exactly, because the game (the Devs) don`t show any real interest in that period that we have. We know that those times were chocabloc with interesting inventions and units, etc. I love those ancient times and how they developed, it wasn`t just a bunch of barbarians attacking isolated cities.

I like ancient/classical period, too. I wish it were more fleshed out. One of my least favorite aspects of the game is how quickly some of the eras race by. Trying to beeline certain techs is definitely a factor, but it feels like I can't do much but build infrastructure prior to late medieval/early renaissance. Even at the glacial/analysis paralysis pace at which I play, it feels like everything prior to 500-AD is over in 20-30min.

I like the first 100 turns the best. I played my first full game of BNW Last night on Prince to get the feel for everything (I just got BNW 2 days ago). I was playing as the Greeks and I really enjoyed the world Congress but I found it was really easy as the Greeks I was on a fractal map and spawned on my own decent sized island. But once I got a good economy rolling with Alexander's special city state boost plus the adopting patronage my influence on degraded by 0.25 a turn. I just kept good relations with every city state and absolutely dominated world congress and won a diplomatic victory(I was originally going for Science).

Also I noticed wars are alot less frequent in BNW but I was only with 9 other somewhat cultural/peaceful civs. The late game is alot better in BNW as well.

Classical Era. Then Ancient and Medieval.

I like Rome, Assyria, Huns, Babylon, Iroquois which all have their UU in the Classical and I like to go on a conquest in that time. Now in BNW I usually have problem with money.

So I would love if something would be done for more action in early eras.

The moment when my civ's Uniques come into play, generally. Those are the times that feel especially interesting and thereby fun.

The beginning of time. I like exploring

That moment I enter the Industrial Era, find out I have coal, have one GE to spend on the Big Ben and get the early adopter tenants for Freedom or Order.

Second best moment is when I find out I may not be able to get a religion (been happening a lot lately) but then comes Boudicca with her army of missionaries to convert my cities and I find out she chose the best beliefs for my game.

I love the Renaissance, its wonders, the increasing level of connections around the world, the unique units that start showing-up, the start of espionage and World Congress maneuvering.. it feels(quite appropriately) like a period of huge changes in the way that the world works.

Up to about turn 50 on epic speed. After that the game starts to get tedious. I rarely play beyond turn 100 or so.

Darkflight said:

Up to about turn 50 on epic speed. After that the game starts to get tedious. I rarely play beyond turn 100 or so.

Click to expand...

I concur, and this is the only area that, IMO, civ fails at and has failed at since civ III. Since those days (civ III vanilla, that is) the franchise has consistently provided the most exciting, entertaining, and thought-provoking game on the market, and a TBS game no less. Yet every single permutation in the last decade+ gives you a game that consists of two halves:

1/2:the most exhilarating adventure,as you build stronger armies and add multiplier upon multiplier to your exponentially stronger cities, carefully calculating build queue decisions and unit placements, and
1/2: the most tedious process of wrapping it up. Victory is usually decided and almost unavoidable hundreds of turns before it is reached,yet you still have to turn-click, skip moves, turn-click for hours on end. Finishing this game requires work ethic.

The process of creating a winning scenario is incredibly fun, but actually using it to win is incredibly tedious. So much so that someone with extraordinary patience could turn a pretty penny finishing other people's games for them. I may work with autistic children 60 hours a week, but I don't have that level of patience.

Seems the designers need to either A.) find a way to make the end-game as fun as the beginning, which I'm pretty sure has been a priority for some time but is as problematic as ever, or B.) have an auto-finish option. Seriously, around the mid-industrial era, have a pop-up that says, "I see where this is going" and auto-finish the game. It's kind of like the "retire" option, but that's more for losing; retiring is like admitting defeat in chess when you have only your king against king/knight/bishop: you're gonna lose, but you could pointlessly dance around the board for a couple hours until that VC is achieved.

Apologies for ranting at length, but as this is, IMO, the best game on the market, and every few years they release a new, even better version, yet every version has just one downside, the SAME downside year after year, and this forum discusses that franchise, it seems appropriate.

Early game for me, I hardly ever finish a game. when the ending seems forgone, I start another.