boring...

[funkeken]

hi i am a big civ. fan, but i only like the beginning.
you know, searching the world, building city's and wonders, beginning a little war etc.
but half of the game it's beginning to get boring. to many city's and army's is there a way to make a mission?
or a way to spicing up the game half way?
thanks....

 

[funkeken]

i have seen something about scenario's can someone tell me how that works?

 

[Dragonlord]

I have the same problem sometimes... with a large Civ and lots of micromanagement it gets too much like work! I'm looking forward to the new game types in PTW... regicide, mass regicide etc. Also, making scenarios and mod packs should be much easier with the new editor.
Scenarios: there is a thread for this, and there are usually descriptions for installing the scenario included with each one.

 

[MSGT John Drew]

funkeken:

The game will really get boring when you get to the point of having hundreds of units and scores of cities and having to research then sell techs every 4-5 turns. I would suggest that you put goals in your game to go to war when the time is right:

Start early wars with swordsmen + horsemen. If you can't do that then just build-up an army of horsemen.

When you finally have lots of horsemen, get Chivalry and start another war with knights.

When you've built up a sizeable knight army get Military Tradition and start your last middle-age 'cavalry' war before tanks come.

End the game in the age of tanks if you can (and before the AI can get Mechanized Infantry).

Going warmonger is really fun. More fun than seeing hundreds of Modern Armor in the modern-age who don't do a thing but rust. Also a war involving hundreds of MA and MI both sides is really not my idea of fun.

 

[Gothmog]

Do you play on a tiny map? This tends to squeeze everything together and you only have a few cities to manage anyway.

 

[Dragonlord]

Originally posted by MSGT John Drew
funkeken:

The game will really get boring when you get to the point of having hundreds of units and scores of cities and having to research then sell techs every 4-5 turns. I would suggest that you put goals in your game to go to war when the time is right:

Start early wars with swordsmen + horsemen. If you can't do that then just build-up an army of horsemen.

When you finally have lots of horsemen, get Chivalry and start another war with knights.

When you've built up a sizeable knight army get Military Tradition and start your last middle-age 'cavalry' war before tanks come.

End the game in the age of tanks if you can (and before the AI can get Mechanized Infantry).

Going warmonger is really fun. More fun than seeing hundreds of Modern Armor in the modern-age who don't do a thing but rust. Also a war involving hundreds of MA and MI both sides is really not my idea of fun.

I agree with all of the above - in fact, all the games I finished I played this way; I've yet to win other than by domination, sometimes even before the advent of tanks.
I only play on maps standard and larger, on Emperor or Deity.
The only real drawback: I seldom see modern units, never gotten beyond Modern Armor, never yet seen an ICBM od Aegis Cruiser...
I just don't have the patience involved in moving hundreds of units each turn, though it got a little better after the 1.29 patch. The new group moves and stack attack (however that actually works!) in PTW should improve things even further... I hope!
Maybe I should give tiny maps a try sometime, too..

 

[WildFire]

or you can download the DyP mod which adds some whole new twists and turns the game. It will take you a LOT longer to get out of the middle ages since there are so many techs

 

[Heffalump]

I never understood why Firaxis didn't make modern units more expensive or harder to support ... thus allowing for fewer of them. We don't need wars with 100+ armor on each side.

Games are more fun and less predictable early on because each battle is of importance. Lose one or two battles early on and you may lose a war. Individual battles are less meaningful when each side has dozens more where that came from. Not to mention the micro-management issue.

 

[ripcord_tx]

In between wars, I park all my offensive units in a single border town so I'll remember where they are, and hit Shift-Y to put them on sentry duty. Saves on hitting the spacebar 30 times per turn.

 

[civ_steve]

You could try the One City Challenge. This is generally the opposite of war-mongering. You only build one city, and attempt a victory this way. There is very little micromanaging, no 100's of tanks to move around. Diplomacy rules the day, and the game is probably over in 10 to 15 hours at most.

Typical victories achieved are city cultural or diplomatic. With planning and a good city spot you might achieve spaceship. And some pursue war-mongering; as a single city empire, this is tough early on (especially if there are multiple continents), and really tough later on. (Civ cultural and domination victories are impossible; histograpic victory is quite unlikely.)

 

[Chieftess]

You know, before I knew about micromanagement (mainly Civ1 & 2), I thought the game was more fun. But, MM can be interesting, too, and adds to the suspense when you're racing for a wonder.

 

[funkeken]

 

[Dr. Dr. Doktor]

Try playing on a tiny or small pangea map and go for a cultural victory. The one where one of your cities (usually your capital) has 20.000 cultural points. To achieve this you will need a lot of wonders in that city.
The challange is then that you can only use great leaders to rush wonders.
You will usually know whether you have won by the late middle ages.

I agree that early warfare is more fun than industrial or modern. And railroads really spoils the graphic representation.