I got a tip for you about the music. Ctrl-M.
Admitting defeat?
- Thread starter contempted
- Start date
I got a tip for you about the music. Ctrl-M.
I usually abandon a one sided battle. But, there is one exception: World Wars. If I am in a world war all turns are pretty exciting and suspenseful. It could be a 3v13, and if the team of 3 I am in manages to get a foothold, it just gives that much more satisfying when you win. I also play world wars to defeat as well.
globaooba
The Wolpertinger
I have about 30-40 games that I have not finished. Because of this thread I'm going to go and finish a few now
smackthewise
Prince
Generally I will play the game all the way through to Victory or defeat unless I am definitely going to win 'no questions asked' because if there is no way I can loose, what is the point? No excitement.
However, if its evident I cannot win or compete and the game isn't shaping up to be entertaining either, I will quit. Especially in the case of a fully isolated start, no interaction with other AI's is SOOOOOOOO boring! If its a continents map i usually want 3-4+ Civs per continent.
Some games I also bridge the Continents with islands so Galleys can cross. This allows pre-astro relations, i.e. missionaries etc earlier in the game. But who doesn't like meeting half the Civs after Optics!
I like warring in all periods but I like marines, infantry, artillery, fighters etc for warring against large Civs so I often wait. Although AI struggles against a 4 front offensive
However, if its evident I cannot win or compete and the game isn't shaping up to be entertaining either, I will quit. Especially in the case of a fully isolated start, no interaction with other AI's is SOOOOOOOO boring! If its a continents map i usually want 3-4+ Civs per continent.
Some games I also bridge the Continents with islands so Galleys can cross. This allows pre-astro relations, i.e. missionaries etc earlier in the game. But who doesn't like meeting half the Civs after Optics!
I like warring in all periods but I like marines, infantry, artillery, fighters etc for warring against large Civs so I often wait. Although AI struggles against a 4 front offensive
Dereliction
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 12
For some games, when I'm clearly going to win, I'll quit rather than play it all out. I'd rather move on to a new challenge, I suppose. However, if I've for some reason had a spectacular game, I will play it entirely. Maybe it's to see the final score, but I think more often it is to see how early I can close the win.
At the same time, I find myself intrigued with games that I'm sure I can no longer win and the situation for my civilization is tenuous, usually just at or below mid-field but with dangerous enemies about. I'll play some of those through to the bitter end, just to see if I can survive or, more rarely, make a surprising underdog comeback.
I wonder, do any of you tend (like me) to play the same leader/civ for a series of games? I find that I almost always fixate on a strategy and then pick a leader that seems most suitable for it. I then iterate the strategy over many games, 10+ at least. Just as often, that ends up with a new derived strategy, a new leader choice, and a whole other row of games played in the same fashion.
It has led to me being able to play some leaders on higher levels (for me at least), even leaders some would consider arguably weak (such as, say, Saladin), but virtually incapable of playing other leaders whom I haven't ever focused on much, even if they are stronger.
This also leads to situations where I'm in the "underdog" position at a tougher difficulty, but I'll play it out because I feel like I have at least a slim chance with a familiar leader that I've proven an ability to play with in the past. Curious, I never really considered that as a possible reason why I play out some "loser" games, until this thread had me analyze my playstyle a bit more.
At the same time, I find myself intrigued with games that I'm sure I can no longer win and the situation for my civilization is tenuous, usually just at or below mid-field but with dangerous enemies about. I'll play some of those through to the bitter end, just to see if I can survive or, more rarely, make a surprising underdog comeback.
I wonder, do any of you tend (like me) to play the same leader/civ for a series of games? I find that I almost always fixate on a strategy and then pick a leader that seems most suitable for it. I then iterate the strategy over many games, 10+ at least. Just as often, that ends up with a new derived strategy, a new leader choice, and a whole other row of games played in the same fashion.
It has led to me being able to play some leaders on higher levels (for me at least), even leaders some would consider arguably weak (such as, say, Saladin), but virtually incapable of playing other leaders whom I haven't ever focused on much, even if they are stronger.
This also leads to situations where I'm in the "underdog" position at a tougher difficulty, but I'll play it out because I feel like I have at least a slim chance with a familiar leader that I've proven an ability to play with in the past. Curious, I never really considered that as a possible reason why I play out some "loser" games, until this thread had me analyze my playstyle a bit more.
IAM
Emperor
If I'm winning and it's like a cake walk I'll quit or if I'm beyond help and loosing I'll quit. I just enjoy the early/mid game so much more than the late game. Most games I don't finish.
RD-BH
Human
I can enjoy total anihilation or global victory.
Having said that, there are exceptions to playing to the bitter end.
If I have made many errors I'll restart the same game.
If I feel I made an honest effort and no major senile moments, I'll play even a losing game out just for the FUN 8) of it.
When playing (ie for FUN 8) not challenge), I change the turns from 500 to 309; if I haven't won by then, I'd rather just kick out on score. Also, this forces me to streamline my play style.
It can be a blast throwing your last non-upgraded warrior in front of his 30+ stack of tanks.
Having said that, there are exceptions to playing to the bitter end.
If I have made many errors I'll restart the same game.
If I feel I made an honest effort and no major senile moments, I'll play even a losing game out just for the FUN 8) of it.
When playing (ie for FUN 8) not challenge), I change the turns from 500 to 309; if I haven't won by then, I'd rather just kick out on score. Also, this forces me to streamline my play style.
It can be a blast throwing your last non-upgraded warrior in front of his 30+ stack of tanks.
bonafide11
Worker
I never finish games if I know I'm going to lose. What's the point of that? I also don't finish a lot of games I know I'm going to win either since it's not really fun to be ahead by that much and still have to wait a few hours to finish it off. It's also rare for me that the game isn't decided by 1500 or so, so I usually don't make it into the modern era. The industrial and modern eras of the game take too long anyway since there's so much stuff going on and so many units and cities to keep track of it ends up getting boring. I'm hoping Civ V fixes this and makes the modern era more exciting.
Kiwiwriter
Chieftain
For some games, when I'm clearly going to win, I'll quit rather than play it all out. I'd rather move on to a new challenge, I suppose. However, if I've for some reason had a spectacular game, I will play it entirely. Maybe it's to see the final score, but I think more often it is to see how early I can close the win.
I wonder, do any of you tend (like me) to play the same leader/civ for a series of games? I find that I almost always fixate on a strategy and then pick a leader that seems most suitable for it. I then iterate the strategy over many games, 10+ at least. Just as often, that ends up with a new derived strategy, a new leader choice, and a whole other row of games played in the same fashion.
I agree with both of the above...when I've got the game in the bag, I don't keep going. However, the latest game I played, I'm in the modern era, won the Domination Victory, and I'm still playing. First time I ever saw Corporations in play, so I'm curious to see how they work, and it's a good chance to build a spaceship, which I have yet to do.
Also, I usually play the British, Canadians, or Americans, when I play. Just my three favorites, I guess.
Kiwiwriter
Chieftain
It does get old...the renaissance-era music is pretty good, it has two pieces from the "Amadeus" sound track. I would have expected the modern era music to include a little more jazz and classic rock, somehow. Maybe I'm wrong.
s.bernbaum
Mostly lurking
I always play the game out whether I will win or lose, even when it becomes obvious, because I play for the enjoyment of the game. Yes, I like to win but that is the icing on the cake not the cake itself. Besides, sometimes I manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, or the other way round.
Jarlaxe Baenre
Emperor
I agree with both of the above...when I've got the game in the bag, I don't keep going. However, the latest game I played, I'm in the modern era, won the Domination Victory, and I'm still playing. First time I ever saw Corporations in play, so I'm curious to see how they work, and it's a good chance to build a spaceship, which I have yet to do.
Also, I usually play the British, Canadians, or Americans, when I play. Just my three favorites, I guess.
What mod do you use?
gingerbill
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2005
- Messages
- 335
I usally quit if defeat is inevitable , mind you i usually quit when victory is inevitable , hardly finish any games but i dont usually attack till i have gunpowder so i usually see the modern techs.
Disgustipated
Deity
I hate having unfinished games. Though I do have a couple.
I thought I was going to unfinish my current game due to me not wanting to lose. If I think I'm going to lose, I will quit playing. The thing is, I underestimate myself. I suffer from lack of confidence. It's one reason why I play a difficulty level I'm too good for.
Anyways I tend to get worried when I'm not #1 in score. Even though score isn't that important, and doesn't measure how victory is really achieved. I was over 700 points behind in my current game. It's a huge earth map 28 civ Rise of Mankind mod game. I even have a post in the ROM strategy section about this game. I really did think I needed help, as I thought I was going to lose.
Anyways see my posts in the strategy section of ROM if you want the details. Long story short is with proper preparation, you can defeat an army much larger than you across an ocean with a civ with a very large navy. rifleman&cannons pwn all.
I'm still playing this game, actually. ROM games tend to be long. And this one is even at epic speed (I normally only play marathon), but it's still long. But I like it that way. So far, my earth map ROM games have been very epic. It's a great mod. Maybe a little too much tech/unit clutter in the tech tree, but overall a great mod. It makes games long, but epic. Only bad thing is when you get out ahead, and still have a long way to go to finish the game. I didn't want to get out ahead, but the Celtics (Boudica) kept declaring on me. I had to eradicate her from Europe.
I thought I was going to unfinish my current game due to me not wanting to lose. If I think I'm going to lose, I will quit playing. The thing is, I underestimate myself. I suffer from lack of confidence. It's one reason why I play a difficulty level I'm too good for.
Anyways I tend to get worried when I'm not #1 in score. Even though score isn't that important, and doesn't measure how victory is really achieved. I was over 700 points behind in my current game. It's a huge earth map 28 civ Rise of Mankind mod game. I even have a post in the ROM strategy section about this game. I really did think I needed help, as I thought I was going to lose.
Anyways see my posts in the strategy section of ROM if you want the details. Long story short is with proper preparation, you can defeat an army much larger than you across an ocean with a civ with a very large navy. rifleman&cannons pwn all.
I'm still playing this game, actually. ROM games tend to be long. And this one is even at epic speed (I normally only play marathon), but it's still long. But I like it that way. So far, my earth map ROM games have been very epic. It's a great mod. Maybe a little too much tech/unit clutter in the tech tree, but overall a great mod. It makes games long, but epic. Only bad thing is when you get out ahead, and still have a long way to go to finish the game. I didn't want to get out ahead, but the Celtics (Boudica) kept declaring on me. I had to eradicate her from Europe.
Disgustipated
Deity
out of curiosity, what does the defeat screen show? Is there a movie associated with it?
s.bernbaum
Mostly lurking
There isn't a defeat screen. You just get a message that Leader X has won a Space, or Culture, or whatever victory.
Yeah i do that sometimes. Mostly if the AI has taken up most of my most important cities, exept the capital and pillaged a lot of my valuable resources. And if you haven´t been smart enough to create a strong enough military to stand against that enemy, then there is no point in playing those extra turns until you are completely defeated. Some times also just tend to get boring, but that´s a different case.
PreLynMax
Your Lord and Master
I rarely never quit a winning game. Ok, I have. But usually by that time, I'm winning, and I play those games through.
On the other hand, I never, ever finish a losing game. If I'm far behind in tech and far behind in land, power, and gold, I don't even bother. If I lose a city that I have built, no matter the reason, it's game over. No copper? No iron? No game. Needless to say, my tolerance level is severely low, and I'm a disateriously poor loser.
On the other hand, I never, ever finish a losing game. If I'm far behind in tech and far behind in land, power, and gold, I don't even bother. If I lose a city that I have built, no matter the reason, it's game over. No copper? No iron? No game. Needless to say, my tolerance level is severely low, and I'm a disateriously poor loser.
Similar threads
