Bliss Quit

That, for me, is one of the greatest strengths of CIV games: you always find areas to improve on, and every time you play, you learn new things about the game. Even if it's only subtle, every game is unique.

No argument with that! Replaying a game from the first move can
give remarkably different results, not just for your Civ, but for all
of the others, even though you don't meet some of them for >100
turns.

The only other game I have ever found that to apply to, is Magic: The Gathering, which I have (also) been playing for over 20 years...

For me it's Applied Maths and Computational Physics. After I got
hooked on those and made them into a kind of game, I didn't
have time for any others except Civ.
 
I'm not sure about "Bliss", but Civ6 is one of the very few games I can handle losing somewhat well. When I realize I am not going to win a game, or at least will be an extreme uphill battle, I simply concede. My rational usually being: "I KNOW I can do better next time, cause I made (errors X,Y,Z)."

That, for me, is one of the greatest strengths of CIV games: you always find areas to improve on, and every time you play, you learn new things about the game. Even if it's only subtle, every game is unique. The only other game I have ever found that to apply to, is Magic: The Gathering, which I have (also) been playing for over 20 years...

Completely agree. Learn and have another go.

Edit: Missed Ferocitus' post and expressed basically the same sentiments. Pared down comments to not seem so weird.
 
Last edited:
I think you've missed the point of this thread completely, i.e. that
you are happy and satisfied when you can see that you have
absolutely no chance of winning after playing for tens of hours and
hundreds of turns. :)

You should try out Rimworld if you haven't. It's possible to win on the highest difficulties, but most experiences end as you describe if you don't study the game carefully and micro very well.
 
I'd like to try against that many civs but just curious - why marathon? I don't think I have the patience for games that long especially when my system is being pushed.
 
I'd like to try against that many civs but just curious - why marathon? I don't think I have the patience for games that long especially when my system is being pushed.

Fair question, but the 2nd answer will make you wish you hadn't asked it.
1. I got used to that pace in Civ 5 and stuck with it.

2. A mathematical interest in "Artificial Life" methods of optimisation.
Marathon pace is one of the extreme parameter values of the search space in Civ
that I want to use for a variation of something called The Travelling Thief
Problem. I can use large maps with dead-flat terrain and then add obstacles such
as mountains, marshes etc to simulate certain features of the problems I'm
considering. There is absolutely nothing Civ related in those problems.

Still awake?
The search space, roughly speaking, is the volume of the hyper-cube with
vertices formed by combinations of the minimum and maximum values of the
parameters that participate in the optimisation.

For a 2-parameter problem, the hyper-volume reduces to a simple 2D rectangle.
The corners of the rectangle are co-ordinates, (x,y) say, where x is the number
of civs, and y is the pace. x can vary from 2 (the minimum number of civs) up
to 33 (the maximum number of civs); y takes discrete values in the set {fastest,
fast, epic, marathon}.

Still using the 2-parameter problem as an example, the bottom left-land corner
of the rectangle is (2, fastest); the top righthand corner has co-ordinates
(33, marathon).

Of course the "true" search space is much larger and far more complicated, but
you're asleep now. When you wake up you will remember nothing, except that if
you ever play against a player named Ferocitus, you will give him a gift of
olives and chocolate and ask for nothing in return.
Click!
 
Top Bottom