Anybody not care about "winning"?

[rickb]

So I got to wondering after reading the REX post and the discussion of not being able to "win" without it, does anybody else play Civ without caring about "winning" the game? I've been playing Civ for about 10 years now, and I've never, ever actually played to "win" it. In fact, I turn off all the victory conditions. I've never even built a spaceship in 10 years! I just play a map until I get tired of it. I consider myself successful if my little civ hasn't been wiped off the map and my citizens are all nice and happy with plenty of resources. I don't care about conquering the world or about whatever random number the game generates that says I'm successful or not. I just play as if it were SimCity or something, I have no real goal other than to see my little civilization grow and prosper.

Like I've actually started on an island with only 4 cities (and not a single grassland tile! did have some flood plains though), and I was eventually able to catch up and surpass every one technologically and finally built a good sized little civ, but the meaningless score the game assigned said I didn't do a good job, yet that was one of the best games I've ever played.

 

[Darwin420]

I actually am weird... I enjoy setting up a multi-player hot seat game and control all 8 civs. Just for the fun. I get to create my own world (in the editor) and then unleash my own history on this little world. I can't wait for cIV so I'll be able to immerse myself into a more massive, 3D world, and control all the little aspects of it in hotseat play.

But, I will every once and a while play a game to achieve a certain victory condition, but don't have nearly as much fun of it.

 

[Leprechaune]

I'm with ya!

There's times when I wanna "Rule All" and other games I have set just to "SimCity" a civ as well...

I think Civ IV is gonna make this aspect a LOT more fun!

 

[bman003]

I miss civ 2 a little. Once I made my civ become the biggest in the map. When I started getting bored I used the cheats tab or something to swith to another civ and take over what I built. It made it more intresting becuase this time I developed a civ that could actually give me a little run for my money, since I think I was also running low on time to win. I wish that was available in later versions, maybe there is a way to do that I just never took the time.

 

[bio_hazard]

Yeah, sometimes I feel pretty good about surviving but not winning, although probably if I could win more reliably, I would! I don't think I have the killer micromanagement instinct to be a really competitive player.

However, I do enjoy trying out different victory conditions (20k, spaceship, etc), which more or less require you don't allow yourself or the other civs to win in some other way first. This seems much more exciting if you leave those boxes next to the other victory conditions checked...

 

[ThePersian]

the idea of Civ game is simple if the military guy is bound to win, always. But i sometimes get board of being a military powerhouse. Some time i attemp democracy games, i defend the little guy and give science to the backward people.

I find that the game becomes some what more intristing when you maintain peace rather than throwing it off. Some time i do play just for the sake of making sure its a peaceful world full of wonders and culture and deplomatic ideas.

And rickb i think your prayers are answered the deplomatic element in Civ IV is bound to make a game that is more than just constant war and race to win.

But i am happy they are not making the Civ game a no-winning concept. Sure there should be a way for players to have fun with out winning, but to get rid of the winning concept would really hurt the game. After all i sometime get urgese of seeing 65% of the world under my color

 

[Urederra]

Well, I play to win, I must confess.

I am with you in the sense that sometimes I don't feel like finishing a game, The early eras are more fun and more decisive than the late industrial and modern era. So sometimes, if I am performing a lot better than the AI, I simply quit and start another game, with different options like different civ, different trades and different size of maps. My main aim is to win, or being in winning possition in several different games with different civs, and when I achieve that, It is time to move up another difficulty level.... then playing with different civs and also quitting before finishing because I think the game is unwinable until, eventually, start winning again.

 

[Urederra]

Something very extrange happen when I submitted my last post, the forum page hanged up and half an hour later I found that I have sent two copies of the same post. Sorry.

 

[Carver]

I don't think I've ever played a game of Civ (or SMAC or CTP) without caring about winning. But it would an interesting change to play this way for once.

 

[BarbarianSlayer]

I must say that I always want to win, but my favorite way to play is random civ/map/terrain. I love playing to the different civ traits and map conditions to see if i can win with any combo.

 

[Sub]

I used to be like that and have fun with civ no matter what. This site ruined it for me though, I play to win now

 

[bloodofages]

I play how the games turns out, win or not.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In Civ2 and Civ3, my attitude has always been that winning is nothing more than a 'side-benefit', but not the be all and end all of the game. I am very 'Zen' about my civ games: 'Its not the destination, its the journey that counts' !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[henry k c]

I always play to win, do you people play on warlord or something?

 

[narmox]

I always play to win, do you people play on warlord or something?

Actually, I play on Monarch because levels above that are too geared on choosing the absolute winning strategy just to stay alive, rather than playing to enjoy the game.

Yes, I play to enjoy the game , and winning is a side-benefit like someone said above.

 

[North King]

I never play to win. It's a computer game. Get over it.

Actually, for the most part I win unintentionally. Like the one time I just happened to expand. And expand. And then just conquered neighbors for fun. By the time I was in the Modern Age, everyone else was still in the Industrial Age. And I just shot for spaceship. For the fun of it.

Really, I see no reason to play to win, and never have. I play to create history, and to enjoy the simulation. Which might be why I'm so much more in favor of realism than gameplay.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, North King, I think you hit on the reason why I have no problem with having Random events. Because I am more interested in the 'historical immersion' aspect of the game-as opposed to the notion of winning, it doesn't fuss me at all if there is an outbreak of plague in my empire, or why I wouldn't mind if I suffer from civil war or religious schisms. So long as I know that it can happen to everyone else and there are reasonable steps I can take to try and prevent them (but not stop them outright).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rickb]

I always play to win, do you people play on warlord or something?

I play Civ 3 on either Monarch or Emperor myself (on Deity wayback in Civ 2) and use the Rise and Rule mod. It seems to me if all you cared about was winning you'd play on Warlord. I enjoy playing really challenging games, like starting in a really bad position or stuck on an island or whatever. I always play on 3 billion years and mod it so you can only build cities on plains/grassland/floodplains, 256x256 map, 16 civs, usually 70% water archipelago, random climate.

As I said, I have my own idea of "winning" the game and don't care about the narrow definitions the designer's put in. Usually when I get to the point I'm ahead of everyone else technologically and/or can handily kick any other civ's butt if they decide to attack I quit. I only fight quick wars of invasion to grab some resources and only if they started the war (unless the civ is small and has something I really need). In the modern age if some jerk civ decides to declare war, I just bomb them back into the stone age without invading until they decide to listen and sign a peace treaty.

I try to play the game as if I were a real leader and not some warmongering fool that invades countries for no reason.

 

[Karaman]

I play to win with Conquest Victory set only
I love to play on huge and small maps.
I love to play warlord without and SID with cheating

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

My definition of winning is to create a 'Model Society' which is at peace with everybody ! That is why I hate the Greeks and Carthaganians at the moment. I have signed an MPP with Carthage-in order to stay on their good side. Problem is that they keep starting wars with the Greeks and Mongols ! Then, as if that is not bad enough, the Greeks and Mongols won't listen to me when I attempt to make peace. This is why I will be so glad to have 3rd party peace deals and the ability to withdraw from MPP's in Civ4 !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.