Did I win or lose?

[Sir_Lancelot]

It is AD 2020 and nobody are wiped out, and no spaceships are launched.
I just got a question if I wanted to continue. What do you call this? A draw?
It seems that there is no possibility for a diplomatic victory like in Civ3.

I have not bothered to build the Apollo Program, I'm not ready to build SS parts because there is so much else to build in my cities. When an AI tries to build them I send spies and destroy their build. Same with the Manhattan Project, we don't need nukes.

It makes it easier for me when the AI is throwing so much effort into building wonders that never gets finished.

 

[caravaner]

I would call it an open ended end

You won. You survived the test of time. How was the score?

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

The score was 400-something I think. I have no idea how good or bad it is.
The percentage this time was 47% I think. I got 50 or 51% in my previous game, but that was on an easier setting.

I could probably get a better score if I tried, but my goal is to expand and build nice cities with nearly all improvements in each city.
I am not done here yet, there are still a lot of terrain that I will transform to grassland with a bonus shield, and here are a lot of grassland with no bonus shield that shall become hills or plains.

 

[Theov]

I wouldn't call it anything.

 

[jarhead_leif]

AFM, It's neither a winwin nor a draw.

Compare your score to your opponents. Who got the highest score?

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

AFM, It's neither a winwin nor a draw.

Compare your score to your opponents. Who got the highest score?

What means AFM?
My opponents didn't get a score, as far as I know only the human player gets a score.





I'm Sioux, my opponents are Celts, Babylonian, French and Spanish. In early and mid-game, Celts and Babylonians dominated, now they are almost as weak as the Spanish and French thanks to my numerous terrorists destroying their improvements and water.

Spain got a terrible starting location has only 3 poorly developed cities and for a long time they were "receptive" to me. I had never been at war with them (we are not neighbours) and we had been friendly. They had often demanded tech in tribute, I have always called their bluff and they have always backed down. Then I often offered them tech for free afterwards because they were so far behind.
Then they suddenly land two units on my island, we have a dialogue, they are still "receptive", I ask them to withdraw and BAM! They are so offended by my withdrawal request that they declare war. I can send Transports and squash them like a bug if I want to. Silly, silly Isabella of Spain.

 

[stoferb]

"Receptive" in civ2 means completely unpredictable. You want them to have a better or worse attitude and they won't be as prone to sneak attacks.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

Oops lol. I thought "receptive" was positive. But it was not a sneak attack, they declared war. (If the attitude is worse than receptive, they are even more likely to declare war.)

 

[stoferb]

Yes, my mistake. They aren't likely to attack you as "receptive" if you don't talk to them. But be careful to demand anything from a civ that is "receptive" in diplomatic negotiations. The "neutral" or "enthusiastic" will likely give in to your demand or change their mood (sometimes even for the better), but the "receptive" is even more likely to declare war than "uncooperative" civs if you demand any kind of tribute. I sometimes used it as a way to start a fight, since you can't sneak attack in republic/democracy without getting anarchy.

 

[nerdfighter13]

I thought it went: Enthusiastic, Cordial, Receptive, Neutral, Cautious, Icy, Hostile, Furious. Am I wrong?

 

[Ali Ardavan]

It is:
Worshipful, Enthusiastic, Cordial, Receptive, Neutral, Uncooperative, Icy, Hostile, Enraged.

 

[nerdfighter13]

Thank you. I must have been a little confused with civ 4. I also have the MGE edition, so I don't see the positive relations very much.

 

[stoferb]

I thought it went: Enthusiastic, Cordial, Receptive, Neutral, Cautious, Icy, Hostile, Furious. Am I wrong?

I forgot cordial, it's been a while. It reminds me of another peculiar thing with these moods. When you demand tribute from someone that's enthusiastic there's a chance that they somehow will turn out worshipful. Likewise when they are neutral there's a chance that they will become receptive (so that they can declare war on you the next time?). All the other moods work like normal: it goes down if you boss them around.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

Yes, my mistake. They aren't likely to attack you as "receptive" if you don't talk to them. But be careful to demand anything from a civ that is "receptive" in diplomatic negotiations. The "neutral" or "enthusiastic" will likely give in to your demand or change their mood (sometimes even for the better), but the "receptive" is even more likely to declare war than "uncooperative" civs if you demand any kind of tribute. I sometimes used it as a way to start a fight, since you can't sneak attack in republic/democracy without getting anarchy.

I forgot cordial, it's been a while. It reminds me of another peculiar thing with these moods. When you demand tribute from someone that's enthusiastic there's a chance that they somehow will turn out worshipful. Likewise when they are neutral there's a chance that they will become receptive (so that they can declare war on you the next time?). All the other moods work like normal: it goes down if you boss them around.

Receptive working this way sounds strange and makes little sense to me. Perhaps it's not supposed to work this way.

The Spanish (them who were receptive and declared war) was cash rich but very weak in terms of cities, population and production. Their three cities had relatively many units, but nothing compared to my forces. They were allied with the Babylonians who were somewhat powerful at that time, but acting this way against a human player is extremely risky! An AI who cared for their existence ought to be more careful.

 

[stoferb]

Yes, it's weird. But atleast it's how it work in my games. And the computer has no idea what is best for it. If I'm going for space I often keep one civ alive with one or a few cities so I won't get the other kind of victory. With sufficient fortification and spies and troops nearby to make sure it's harmless ofcourse. One would think that with one city versus 100+ and being technologically backwards it would never declare war, yet it does so quite often.

 

[Millman]

You retire and get your score. Winning the space race or conquering the planet gives you more points for the challenge you endured.

Though to be unfair my understanding went by leaps and bounds. My main problem was not expanding and learning the wrong thing.

 

[Sir_Lancelot]

I didn't know when my retirement year was, so I only had a 20 turn warning. It's over a year since I played the first time and I had forgotten when retirement is.

I'm satisfied with the game and how well I did. I didn't meet any of the victory conditions, but I didn't try to meet any of those conditions. I just grew my population and ruled the entire world from mid-game. It's my second game overall (not counting the 8 hours I played on someone else's PC) and the first time I play on King. I think this is the right level for me, Prince is too easy and I fear Emperor will be too much now.

Update: I did build my spaceship long after retirement and landed it on Alpha Centauri. When it had landed I turned cheat mode on. Instead of being the daily manager for dozens of Spies, I use "View All" and save myself some time. Instead of sabotaging the production in cities that builds nukes, I just switch the production to something they actually need.

Why is it so hard to quit? I always play 100-200 turns past the retirement date.