At what point do you throw in the towel?

[Smokeybear]

I have yet to win a Prince game (giving up by 100 turns).
I do have a stubborn streak (very stubborn according to the peons in this forum), where I fight it out most of the time, but I do give up due to the following:

1) 5 or more. (89% chance);
2) Last in score for 100 turns (96% chance) or second last in score for 200 turns (92% chance);
3) Getting DOWed by an enemy (AI or human) that is one era or more higher than (98% chance);
4) Be last in science (100% chance) or be deficient in the budget enough to lose half the original science (75% chance).
5) Start with 0 resources, or a total of 0 luxury resources. (100% chance).

I'm sure there's more, but you can obviously tell I have almost no tolerance to a losing game and will quit instantly.

Therein lies your problem. You give up too easy. I never had it that hard in Prince, but on King, most of my starts sound just like yours, the first 100 turns or more. Except for the 0 lux/resources- I play with abundant resources as default, so that's never been much of a problem for me. But if you keep building and working your tiles and fending off the aggressive civs, and making smart choices to improve your science/tech and military base, you'll eventually even out and break ahead, by the endgame. The key of course, is making smart choices along the way, from the start- if you just poke along and hope for the best, you gonna die, fo sho. The best way to learn what those choices are, aside from reading and studying strategy posts on this forum, is to keep playing, don't give up, experiment a lot, and take your lumps on the road to success.

Oh, wow- I look really good in this cheerleader outfit...

 

[sav]

Bring back the retire option, so our failed experiments aren't a waste of time!

 

[pxpdoo]

I rarely ever toss in the towel, but I did it like half a dozen times when I first moved into King territory. I basically kept trying what I liked on Prince, basically passive-agressive expansion right up near rival borders. Gradually piling in units while also beelining for Wonders in my 1-2 largest cities, and usually spaced it quite well: Founding juuuust far enough away where I wouldn't get attacked.
Can anyone guess which rivals, even DoF's, are way more likely to attack in King? All of them.

 

[Rpger29]

To PreLynMax who talked about score: Never quit because of score. Score is a very poor measure of whether or not you'll win the game on anything but Chieftan/Settler. I'm betting you've already got enough experience to make a come-from-behind win of being at 1/2 score of the highest civ.

That said, there are definitely times to retire gracefully (ragequit) from a game. I will often do this if I've somehow become the whipping boy for every civ on the map.

 

[jbevermore]

Yeah, score means very little. Especially in Civ 5 now that vertical empires are so much stronger then at any other point in the series.

I've quit once, when after being two turns away from a science victory my three city empire got nuked back to the stone age by Ghandi.
I just couldn't take it anymore.

./still bitter
.//still burns India to the ground every chance he gets.
.///this was six months ago

 

[Kerosene31]

Sometimes if I get into a bad situation I will just try to survive until the end. Once that becomes impossible I usually quit. Once a massive army is carving through my cities and there's no hope there's no point for me to keep going.

Sometimes too I just get into annoying no-win situations. I had one game where France was running away and becoming massive but they were not on my border. Meanwhile all the smaller civs around me decided that my tiny empire was the threat, not France with an army bigger than all of us combined.

 

[sav]

Yeah, score means very little. Especially in Civ 5 now that vertical empires are so much stronger then at any other point in the series.

Really? I find the opposite. Looking at the graph at the end, whoever is in the lead around 1000AD is usually the winner, if not always - in my games.

In Civ4 I found it quite common for Civs half way down the table to rocket to the top and back down again even into the modern era. I usually played with a few mods on though, I guess.

 

[PreLynMax]

Really? I find the opposite. Looking at the graph at the end, whoever is in the lead around 1000AD is usually the winner, if not always - in my games.

In Civ4 I found it quite common for Civs half way down the table to rocket to the top and back down again even into the modern era. I usually played with a few mods on though, I guess.

I found it that whoever has the highest score is usually ahead in every average level. But before you doubt me, have you ever seen anyone last in score win a game? I haven't. Hence the high but understandable 92% to 100% chance of quitting when in behind.

Need more proof? Fall in behind and see if you can take anyone eras ahead of you military wise. You can't.
Wanna build that spaceship? Too late, they'd build the whole ship before you can build one part.
Social policies? No. They are almost done with that too.

Face it. Being behind in tech is extremely significant and is taken very seriously. With score I can determine my strategy and what not to go for.

 

[TPQ]

I quit when I can't keep up with unit loses and I know I can't compete with the AIs production and/or economy. As long as I can buy/build at least as many units as I loose each turn, I can usually prevail, but when I get heavily out-produced and see my armies gradually ground down and eventually become outdated vs the enemy, I know it's over.

Oddly enough, I usually quit when I know I can win, more than for any other reason. Once I know the game's in the bag, it's kind of pointless carrying it to it's inevitable conclusion. I'd rather start a new game than mindlessly click my way to victory.

 

[Becomedeath]

I found it that whoever has the highest score is usually ahead in every average level. But before you doubt me, have you ever seen anyone last in score win a game? I haven't. Hence the high but understandable 92% to 100% chance of quitting when in behind.

Need more proof? Fall in behind and see if you can take anyone eras ahead of you military wise. You can't.
Wanna build that spaceship? Too late, they'd build the whole ship before you can build one part.
Social policies? No. They are almost done with that too.

Face it. Being behind in tech is extremely significant and is taken very seriously. With score I can determine my strategy and what not to go for.

Erm, I win with low scores all the time, Science and Diplomatic victories don't require the large sprawling empires that breed large scores.

Scoring, in Civ, is a really bad way of determining anything. If anything, it's an overall power indicator but it doesn't mean anything unless you're aiming for a time victory.

Without trying to be rude, but in all of your posts you come across as being rather defeatest. Some of the most intersting games I've played I've been the underdog for most of it and pulled a last minute rabbit out of the hat.

The first 100 turns of your game are important, but they don't define the other 400 entirely.

I'd recommend just sticking with it and being more flexible with your strategies.

It's not as if someone shoots a family member if you lose a game!

 

[Becomedeath]

Oddly enough, I usually quit when I know I can win, more than for any other reason. Once I know the game's in the bag, it's kind of pointless carrying it to it's inevitable conclusion. I'd rather start a new game than mindlessly click my way to victory.

This, very much so. When you've got a lead that's clearly unbeatable or you most of the planet and other than an alien invasion you're not going to be knocked down, it's really a chore to carry on sometimes.

Although I have a game where I've turned off all the VCs just so I can stick to my own goals. Rather liberating really.

 

[Rpger29]

No VC games are fun sometimes. I find that I'm able to play on a higher than normal level and still have an entertaining game.

You can totally be in last place around 1000AD and still win. I just did that in a OCC game. I'm confident that it holds true for small maps. I'm not sure how common this would be on large/huge, because the number of civs would seem to dictate that at least one of them was mentally challenged.

 

[PreLynMax]

Low scores to me equal very, very high ragequit rates. You guys say it is irrelevant, but its the number one reason why I ragequit. Besides, I have never ever won a game when I'm low on score. Never.

I could never do a OOC... it just equal to an imminent ragequit.

 

[Becomedeath]

Play on a lower level then. Seems the only solution.

 

[vra379971]

Low scores to me equal very, very high ragequit rates. You guys say it is irrelevant, but its the number one reason why I ragequit. Besides, I have never ever won a game when I'm low on score. Never.

Then you need to try some patience - and read the War Academy.

You will NEVER out score the AI on higher levels, which is in fact a good thing - the top scorer tends to be a target.

To me, it sounds like you simply have no idea how to play the game, and know what tactics, build orders etc are applicable when.

 

[smallfish]

When I'm locked in a stalemate with a landlocked runaway civ, with little gold in reserves or per turn, and they have nukes.

This is why I'm so scared of having Babylon in any pangea game.

 

[Smokeybear]

Low scores to me equal very, very high ragequit rates. You guys say it is irrelevant, but its the number one reason why I ragequit. Besides, I have never ever won a game when I'm low on score. Never.

<snip>

To me, it sounds like you simply have no idea how to play the game, and know what tactics, build orders etc are applicable when.

^^^
This. QFT. If what you say is true, then you'd better stick to Settler difficulty, because on any even slightly-difficult setting, you will always be on the lower end of the score chart during the early-game turns. Being the human player is like a slow-starting thoroughbred horse at the Kentucky Derby- you're looking at tails and horses-behinds out of the gate, but where you shine, is in the long haul and the final stretch. Without patience and study, you'll never learn to win. And just because other horses are ahead of you, even way ahead of you, out of the first turn... doesn't mean they'll be the ones crossing the finish line first. Unless you just give up, of course. I played a very interesting and fun game the other day, where my 'score' remained in the bottom 2 or 3 out of 10 civs throughout the game, yet I won handily with a Culture VC despite the fact several other civs were hugely dominant in science, military, and economics. I think my score was like 750, and the highest was around 2500. If I had just been using the scorecard as a yardstick for how well I was doing, I'd have given up on turn 10. What others have said is true- the ingame score is a really, *really* poor measure of how well you are doing. Listen to them- they know how to win.

 

[Kerosene31]

Low scores to me equal very, very high ragequit rates. You guys say it is irrelevant, but its the number one reason why I ragequit. Besides, I have never ever won a game when I'm low on score. Never.

I could never do a OOC... it just equal to an imminent ragequit.

Demographics are a better representation of where you are. You should at least be solid in tech and military, at least for the lower level player. With me, if I am way down in tech, that means my military probably is too small, or I am spending way too much time building inferior units.

The way I learned prince is to not play to necessarily win but just to survive until the end. Just focus on tech and a defensive army and just stay alive. Just manage your empire and ignore any specific victory conditions. Eventually, when you get good at managing your empire that the elusive victory will be right there. Once you learn to manage your economy and happiness, you'll suddenly start winning. That's how it was for me anyway.

 

[jbevermore]

Demographics are a better representation of where you are. You should at least be solid in tech and military, at least for the lower level player. With me, if I am way down in tech, that means my military probably is too small, or I am spending way too much time building inferior units.

The way I learned prince is to not play to necessarily win but just to survive until the end. Just focus on tech and a defensive army and just stay alive. Just manage your empire and ignore any specific victory conditions. Eventually, when you get good at managing your empire that the elusive victory will be right there. Once you learn to manage your economy and happiness, you'll suddenly start winning. That's how it was for me anyway.

Tech is everything. I've done a few OOC before just for kicks and giggles. It was very hard before, but nowadays with the way social policies work (more cities=higher cost) and city states giving bonuses it can be done pretty easily. Doing those I have won being rock bottom on score.

Normally if I'm going for a peaceful win I'll be tied for first or a close second. The reason is that conquest=score and there will almost always be a warmonger running around with a high score but a crappy economy.

 

[timtofly]

I have been just trying to get the achievments and have fun and this is not about giving up a "lost" game, but after getting a victory I continued to see how long it would take me to take over the world. I am not a fighter and mentally would never be able to get a domination victory. I was surprised that 600 "more" turns after the first 500, I managed to win a domination victory and also got a handful of achievements in the process. That game also gave me two victory screens and two chances to take "one more turn". The game suddenly got borring though with no one left to fight, but a new capitol of a liberated civ, that was still in the ancient era.

That game showed me that I could survive without CS's (eventually) and the AI get tamer when every one is on the same page tech wise (future) tech. It is funny though to see the AI move their spaceship parts all over the map without a clue after the first victory left them in limbo.

I did not have save policies enabled so it got fun after a while being in anarchy every third turn. I was to the point that obtaining policy cost was 155,000 and I had 404,000 available. Switching between groups did not use points, just caused anarchy for one turn.