Addicted to openings

[Quotey]

Opposite.

I hate opening. Usually if I find, say, an AI close, I just restart. So here's how we go. You play the opening, I'll finish the game!

 

[Dirk1302]

If he's really close he'll have to die right . Actually i often do the same in early games unless i'm actually testing early rush scenarios.

 

[slobberinbear]

Signs that the "opening" is over and you are entering mid-game:

* there is no more land to easily settle
* the religious / diplomatic blocs start to form
* wars start to break out amongst the AI civs

All of these things essentially change the game from a REX/rush/gambit kind of game into a diplomatic and/or grind-it-out military game.

 

[PaulusIII]

Usually if I find, say, an AI close, I just restart.

I start planning a rush at that moment.

The late game... it can be tedious to wait for your spaceship or culture - that's why I rarely get space/culture. I get bored and start conquering to speed things up.

 

[BornSlippy]

Hmm, seems like lots of people suffer from the same thing as me in a more limited degree. Most of my abandoned openings really are openings -- I mean, not even up to the Medieval era yet. Still, it's good to see that in some sense, I'm not alone.

Somebody mentioned a sample game, or forum game, for practicing not abandoning openings... unlike practicing how to do well in the midgame, where such a game is easy to imagine and even has already been done, solving the psychological problem of how to spur yourself to load up that midgame save and play on it is a bit hard to solve by offering a midgame save. Maybe what I really want is a way to magically hide that shiny "Play Now!" from myself! :-D

Well, we'd do it ... like I've seen elsewhere on this forum ... so we'll have a roster of players, one opens, plays some turns, then posts the save and another takes over. Succession game, y'know.

 

[Bleys]

I start/finish games at a ratio of at LEAST 10/1. I dont think this is unusual at all. In fact, I think its very very common. I do it because the early game is so important and critical to success that it requires more practice. In fact, I have actually started tons of game with absolutely no intention of ever finishing them. Most of the time, I dont finish because my position is so dominating that the rest is just mop-up, and that can be tedious.

I do have some advice on how to get farther along though:

Create mini-goals - This was already mentioned, but its worth repeating. These mini-goals can come in many flavors. Some of mine are things like conquering a specific AI, grabbing a specific island or area of land, obtaining every Wonder or Resource in the game, either by building or conquering, Bee-line a specific tech, and "play til that tech", etc.

Play series games - This has been the best medicine for my half-game-itis. Playing a series type game that others are playing seems to make it "matter" more, so I tend to play em longer. LHC, NC, Immortal University, etc. Succession Games can also be great for finishing, since you dont actually play all the turns, so you tend to play your own turn-sets with more attention to details.

Create your own Victory Conditions - The way I see it, some of my games are "Won" long before Civ IV tells me so. Currrently I am playing the PYL III game. I have scaped and clawed a long time, and Justinian has gotten more and more powerful while I did, vassalizing all the remaining AIs at one point (two were voluntary, 1 conquered, 1 AI killed by barbs in the BCs). So I decided that when I captured 4 important cities that Justian owned, the game was "over". I have managed 2 of them, and still need 2 more, which I will try for today. This is sort of in line with the "mini-goal" thing, but I combine them, by having "mini-goals" along the path of my own invented "Victory Condition". In the same example, my "mini-goal" was to capture the AP city, since that wonder was a pain in my a$$. My "VC" is 4 of Justy's cities. Its worked well, I still have a strong interest in finishing.

Go DOWN in difficulty, but create your own tricky Role Playing Conditions - A bunch of players use this technique to create some really cool games that look super fun. Check some of madscientist's games, and try those ideas yourself. Cam_H also has a bunch of cool Condition games. Heck, just shadowing along with any posted RPC game can be enough incentive to actually "play it out".

Break your "routine" - If you always find yourself choosing the same leaders, and constantly following the same tech path, building the same Wonders, etc etc etc, then change it up. Try something different. Go for an early Oracle-MC sling with pre-chopped forests so you can get a fast Forge, run an Engineer specialist, and pop a GE for the Mids. Or try for a Feudalism Sling with a PRO leader and plan to try warring with only LBs (Sitting Bull rocks for that). Never focus much on religion? Go for the Religious plan, focusing on building the AP, UofS, Spiral Minaret, spreading it, converting all the AIs to your "Crusade". Its a blast, let me tell ya. Even if these new things you try arent exactly the "best" play, who cares? Its about having fun, and doing new things is a great way to spice up the fun-factor.

 

[Rameau's Nephew]

My post-BTS hall of fame is empty. I still haven't bothered to finish any of the games I've started since I installed the expansion.

Back when I was still in school and had more free time, I would grind out the endings of game much more often. Now I have less time to play and thus more focused on actually having fun when I'm playing. The fun decreases when I reach the industrial period, and I don't care enough about filling up my hall of fame to keep me playing until the end.

Now, as to why the fun decreases in the industrial period, part of it is certainly the tedium of managing a larger and more complicated empire. This is the part of the game where you've got to commit to which victory type you're aiming for, which means that you've got to envision all the diplomacy/research/pushing units around that you'll be doing before the game is over. That can be daunting. In some games it is because the drama has gone out of the game. But I abandon close games, too, so that's not everything.

I suspect that a part of the loss of the fun is because I'm less confident that the decisions I'm making are the right ones. If I screw something up in the earlier periods, I can chalk it up to an experiment and start over with little lost. But my perceived risk is greater if I screw up a game that I've already sunk several evenings into. So I chicken out and restart. This is why I'm sometimes bothered by this habit of mine-- it makes me feel like a coward. (But then I remember that it's just a game that exists solely for the purpose of my entertainment.)

 

[Ibian]

The game is wasted when you restart anyway, so why not finish it, screwups and all?

 

[Rameau's Nephew]

The game is wasted when you restart anyway, so why not finish it, screwups and all?

It's not a waste if I've already played the fun part and enjoyed myself while doing it. It's a game-- like any single-player game, the only thing that makes it anything other than a waste of time is the fun you have while doing it. For some people, that fun comes from satisfying the game's defined victory conditions. For me, that's less important. Finishing the game provides the potential for a satisfying "you won!" from the game at the end. It also provides the potential for a frustrating "you lost!" On balance, that's not often worth the necessary tedium.

Maybe I should start playing exclusively for mid-game AP diplo wins...

 

[futurehermit]

I give myself heck for not finishing my games sometimes. I also have a start to finish ratio of at least 10:1. However, I do have a lot of games finished in my hall of fame still (10% of a lot is a fair bit still). I'll finish a game if: It is a nail-biter and/or I really enjoyed the game a lot.

In most cases, I just play the game until I feel it is in the bag or I messed it up too much to my own standards. I could probably still win 80% of the games that I give up on because they fall too far away from my ideal.

It's a good idea though to try and play the game at least to the point where you feel it is won or lost.

 

[josephstalin]

The modern age is more fun in civ4- corporations, many new units, UN, variable space race requirements. You cannot say "The game is in the bag" until you can see the victory movie. AIs often do crazy stuff, like sabotage the spaceship and it makes the game much more fun.

 

[StrategeryBush]

Much the same as the majority here, the tedium of a large scale campaign of overwhelming force spending 15 minutes per turn for dozens of turns to conquer a continent which is about 5% too small to get a Domination victory, then building a fleet, then going on to upgrade your units to the next level of overkill, etc., etc., is just no fun. You've won, unless you are intending to show off your HOF scoreboard to your girlfriend (not recommended), you are the only one who will ever see the thing, just accept that you've won and avoid the tedium. For those who enjoy whomping up on hapless AIs, whomp away, but I'd rather go back to a more challenging and interesting start.

 

[Cleverbeans]

Recently I found I was quiting my games after a short time. To break this habit, I made my wife promise me she'd kill a kitten every time I started a new game before finishing an old one. Unfortunately we've now become critically short on kittens, and Tokugawa is unwilling to trade his away.

 

[eewallace]

I must admit that I start probably twice as many games as I finish, but I feel compelled to finish at least some, because I keep trying to get new leaders into my "top 10" scores. Used to be all Darius, HC, Ghandi, Ramesses and Elizabeth. Now I've added Qin, Roosevelt, Willem and Gilgamesh! (Okay, so Gilgamesh was mostly just a really lucky starting position...)

 

[Yxklyx]

I finish all my games. In games that I know I've won I start fiddling with strategies - and learn more about the game. I've only played about 8 games so far though (Epic/ Standard).

 

[Bostock]

Recently I found I was quiting my games after a short time. To break this habit, I made my wife promise me she'd kill a kitten every time I started a new game before finishing an old one. Unfortunately we've now become critically short on kittens, and Tokugawa is unwilling to trade his away.

Although I have never reached the age of rifles without quitting first, I can but ask: "But does he have rifles?"

Overall, potentially good plan. Will need a large stock of defenseless kittens first.

Bostock

 

[turnip]

I am an opening addict, but for different reasons. I started playing civ because i am interested in history, especially ancient and middle ages. i like having one scout and finding new territory, once i've explored all the land i still play but one of the most interesting aspects is over.
sounds like most of you stop playing when you know you have won and just don't want to keep hitting enter. i'm the opposite: i'm hopeless at the game (well sort of) so i usually quit when it looks like i'll never catch up. or worse yet i think i'm doing well until i meet some civ that has me beat by a mile. specifically, i usually quit when 1) i missed out on circumnavigation and liberalism, and i'm behind in score, 2) the other civs are getting rifling and i'm no where near it, or 3) here comes the SoD and there is no perceivable way for me to successfully defend myself.
I don't have a handful of won saves and dozens of unfinished saves: for me it's hundreds of unfinished saves.
i learn more and more from this forum (thank you so much), and i am making extremely slow progress, but i have a long way to go. sometimes i wish i knew someone else who played who could sit next to me and say "no! don't do that! that's where you're going wrong!"
the most embarrassing thing is that this is all at noble level. and yes i'm reading all the noble help threads.
still, today will be like most other days, i'll start a new game and think "maybe this time it will work!". hope springs eternal. okay, rant over. thank for letting me vent.

This is exactly how I feel (minus the getting whomped on at Noble thing - I still can't win at Noble, but I am always a 'contender' - someone the AI's either want to be in a DP with, or someone they are afraid to fight). The most exciting and interesting part of the game for me is the early unknown. That striking out into the Black Fog with a stick and a loincloth gets me excited, and the ancient wars with axes and swords are way more interesting than mowing down Rifles with Tanks and Infantry. I dunno...sometimes I'd like to stop the tech tree at the Medieval stage or something, or have more barbarians that built up more cities and networks to keep the 'wilderness and unknown lands' wild and dangerous, but without the ******** hordes beelining for my capital and pastures every two turns.
I just won a space race victory the other day, and I had to sit there for an hour pressing 'enter'. It wasn't pretty.

 

[BornSlippy]

I dunno...sometimes I'd like to stop the tech tree at the Medieval stage or something, or have more barbarians that built up more cities and networks to keep the 'wilderness and unknown lands' wild and dangerous, but without the ******** hordes beelining for my capital and pastures every two turns.

Word, dude!

 

[BornSlippy]

Can't find a way to delete it..

 

[siggboy]

My finish:start ratio is zero since I've moved up to Emperor. I thought I'm lame so I'm glad to hear the same is true for many others. The main reason because I abandon games early is that I still can't progress past mid-game on Emperor with a solid empire. Often things tend to fall apart early so I keep restarting to explore the early game on that difficulty level.

Actually I'm not bored by turn skipping. If the machine is well-oiled I find it very rewarding to see the plan come together. What I find annoying is to have the feeling that I'm struggling towards a win, because that means that I've made some serious mistakes earlier, and that urges me to restart and to try to do it better.