Do you play your game till the end?

[harusame]

^ topic
i tend to quit after i know i will win or lose

[Mortac]

Looks like more people than I thought get bored with the late game. I think something needs to be done for Civ5 (if it'll ever get made) to make the late game more interesting. It gets really tedious once you start controlling too many cities, or if you know you're gonna win already. It's just not much fun. I have spent the last couple of days trying to finish a game I know I will win, and I'm not enjoying it much, but I want to feel that I can complete a game for once. I find myself starting over time and time again since the early game is just way more fun.

[glaivemaster]

I'll normally play a game to the end when I know that I have a chance at winning, but it's only a chance. I mostly don't finish when I pretty much can't win, or can't be stopped

[Kip Beagle]

I usually play my games to the end, but I almost NEVER start from the "beginning."

I've gotten so bored playing the ancient-to-medieval games over and over and over that I pretty much always do an advanced start in either industrial or modern.

Modern warfare can be really fun if everyone starts on equal footing (well, as equal as possible)

[Pluvo241]

I almost always finish. I've only not finished one game in recent memory. I like the late game myself, but not moreso than the rest. If I start to get a little bored, I start another war. That generally does the trick. I assume that raising the level of difficulty would also keep the game exciting, and I will do so, but not yet.

[UWHabs]

If I know I'm going to win, by late game, I tend to take shortcuts. Screw defending cities or letting troops heal. Just keep going, and eventually that domination or diplomatic victory will come along. Similarly, if I'm not doing as well and will lose, I'll sometimes just give up.

The only times I'll probably end up really playing hard to the end is when it's close, or if I try for like a space win, where I see my opponents are getting their ship built at the same time.

[Unionfield]

There's no point in playing the game post-victory. Beyond the Sword was a pretty terrible expansion pack, in my view, because most of the content in standard play gets passed over in the rush to win the game. I mean, corporations are irrelevant as are most of the new military units.

[Joshua368]

Originally Posted by Unionfield

There's no point in playing the game post-victory. Beyond the Sword was a pretty terrible expansion pack, in my view, because most of the content in standard play gets passed over in the rush to win the game. I mean, corporations are irrelevant as are most of the new military units.

Many games last into the industrial (corporation) era, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Space Race game that didn't. In those cases, corporations can make a signifigant impact if you try using them.

As more military units, you're mostly right, they rarely see battle. An exception though is privateers, those things are awesome.

[Iranon]

If I seem to be losing, I play to the bitter end (and turned around quite a few seemingly impossible games).

If I'm sure to win but the game seems lifeless and unexciting I don't bother finishing the job... unfortunately that's becoming the norm.

[ventrue]

I will sometimes play on, if I want to practice some war tactics or try different things out, etc...

The big problem with playing on is global warming. It eventually turns most of your land into desert and all you can build on it is a fort. It doesn't matter if there was a nuclear war or not. It usually starts to happen around 2100 and on. There should be some type of worker action that can counter the global warming, like the replant forrest option in a previous Civ. II or III game, I believe.

Corporations are nice, but no matter how many times you buy out another corporation and spread you corporation, the computer will have hundreds of corp. execs. built up in a few of there cities, waiting to change it back into their corp.

[dorkynorky]

I'll stop a game if I'm attacked by someone whose got twice the cities, is one level ahead in military and with whom I'm at like 0.3 on the power rating. I know, that's wimpy. I'll also stop if an AI is about to win a space or cultural vic and I've just failed an attempt to smash the city in question and don't have time to raise/transport another army. At this point I don't stop when I'm going to win. Instead I use that time as an opportunity to refine my strategies and tactics, because I know at the next level up I'll need every advantage I can muster at later points in the game to pull out a win.

[eris]

If I have any chance to win, any chance at all, I will keep playing. Quitting may not end up on the scores record, but for me it is a loss, and happens more often than I care to admit. If I am winning, I play to the end. I am not good enough to decide the game by 1000 AD as some folk do, at least not on the level I am now playing, so anything can happen and often does. However, now that I think about it, I have not gotten to the Modern Armor and Mech Infantry stage in a while, so I might be getting better. For me, what's the use of starting a game if you aren't going to finish it? I wish it were a sign of character strength in persistence and commitment to goals, but it is probably just mule headed stubborness.

[cracked]

I abandoned one game recently after every other team present declared war on me because of AP voting.

[DMOC]

Sometimes, only because of lack of time.

[LordBuildaholic]

I think it's worker and city management fatigue. By the end, especially if you're conquering cities, you just get worn out.

What also bugs me is the physics to pre-flight era where you have no way to take out the annoying airships that chip away at your stacks.

[CCRunner]

Rarely do I finish a game. I usually effectively either win or lose in the first 50% of the game and get bored after that.

[TheMeInTeam]

If I can win I'll usually finish it. Otherwise, I quit once I realize there's no chance of winning.

[De Gaulle]

Originally Posted by Mortac

Looks like more people than I thought get bored with the late game. I think something needs to be done for Civ5 (if it'll ever get made) to make the late game more interesting. It gets really tedious once you start controlling too many cities, or if you know you're gonna win already. It's just not much fun. I have spent the last couple of days trying to finish a game I know I will win, and I'm not enjoying it much, but I want to feel that I can complete a game for once. I find myself starting over time and time again since the early game is just way more fun.

I was really starting to think there was something wrong with me after about the 150th game I started and didn't finish. Finally I'm about to finish a Marathon game on a Large map against 9 other civs. It's excruciatingly tedious at this point, now that I control about 25 cities and still only 25% of the map, and am dominating rivals to the tune of battleships against frigates.

For me the fun is in trying to build the strongest empire through economic and military development. Once you've done that, there's no point to continue.

[dennisg]

If I know I'm going to win I will always finish it because I figure I can always learn something, and believe me, I have a LOT to learn

If I know I'm going to lose (as I usually do), I'll typically start over because, what the hell, I'm done for.

[afa2000]

Originally Posted by harusame

^ topic
i tend to quit after i know i will win or lose

Same here, especially if I'm sure I'll win.