Does anyone notice...

[TheWilltoAct]

...Winning a game of civ 4 is actually pretty boring. Many of my losing games have been far more memorable. I find experimental, dynamic games a lot more fulfilling than playing out the same obsessive strategies (Pyramids-Representation-mania, axe rushing, "Oracle gambit", and so on) game after game.

Isn't that the irony... I agree wholeheartedly. What is it about civ that makes winning so boring I wonder? Imo I think that once you hit the certain point where you know you are guaranteed to win it just isn't much fun anymore. Somehow the end game needs to be reworked to make it far more interesting. Less microing of all those lil filler cities for example.

 

[Titus]

Isn't that the irony... I agree wholeheartedly. What is it about civ that makes winning so boring I wonder? Imo I think that once you hit the certain point where you know you are guaranteed to win it just isn't much fun anymore. Somehow the end game needs to be reworked to make it far more interesting. Less microing of all those lil filler cities for example.

Yes. The victory conditions typically requires that you are quite dominant, so dominant in fact that you can't lose, and the remainder of the game becomes too much of a "mopping up" tedium, when all that micromanaging (which is pretty fun in the early game) doesn't really matter. I've had some really close space races that were interesting, but still, I find winning much less fun than just playing, making decisions as new circumstances arise.

I find that the game is the most fun in the period between when the initial land grabbing ends and people start to look around for weak neighbours to conquer (as I'm usually playing a 34-civ mod, this typically happens when each civ has no more than 3 cities - even on a huge pangaea with low sea level), and the early modern age. This is around the time railroads come into play. By then, the large power blocks have been established, and there seems to be less room for diplomatic manouvering, one of the things I enjoy the most (not just my own, but watching other empires rise and fall, attack and vassalize each other, forge alliances, and so on). This seems to disappear somewhat in the late game. Also, empire management becomes reduced to making long queues with every remaining building, automating workers, and not really having to make any decisions because the economy is already so stable. So, even if victory is not clear-cut, the game is less fun than in earlier times.

 

[Mik1984]

Winning a game of civ 4 is actually pretty boring. Many of my losing games have been far more memorable. I find experimental, dynamic games a lot more fulfilling than playing out the same obsessive strategies (Pyramids-Representation-mania, axe rushing, "Oracle gambit", and so on) game after game.

Try playing on Immortal! Those things ain't working out there!

 

[LordMachiavelli]

I play with a different map and different leader every time. I like trying out new strategies. The level is determined by my mood at the moment of creation.

LM