Do you ever quit without losing?

[Bonesy]

To be more specific, do you every quit a game after playing say to 1500BC and getting off to a bad start for whatever reason?

Also, is it common to "re-roll" the start if you don't like it?

In a backwards way I'm also asking at my level (monarch), is the game always winnable no matter the start, given best play? At what level would you say that poor starting positions simply aren't winnable if at all?

 

[ecuwins]

No metal, no horse, psycho neighbors. All three combined usually = :exittomainmenu:

 

[gorf37]

For me it's not bad starts, (they can be a fun challenge, and even if I crash and burn they're over quickly).

I quit when I realize that there's another continent controlled by a warmonger with a couple of vassals. I just don't have the patience for modern intercontinental warfare. Managing huge stacks makes my computer slow to a crawl, then trying to get the right troops on the right transport, when the timing is like: "Click........wait for it......wait for it....unit highlights!...Click......wait for it......wait for it......next unit highlights, but goddamn if the first one didn't deselect!......start again!....Click"

I guess a new computer would be good...

 

[ecuwins]

^ yeah, there's that too. That one sucks because you already have a good deal of time invested in the game.

 

[Orion071]

I'm probably in the minority, but I quit a ton of times between 3000 BC and 1000 BC. No horses or metals is a frequent reason, especially if I'm playing Persia or Egypt. Being on a peninsula with tundra on one side and desert on the other is a frequent reason. I also reroll my start a lot if I don't like what I see.

I'd say I actually get to 1 AD in less than 10% of the games I start.

 

[Little Faith]

I quit games for an entirely different reason.

I've graduated to monarch and I am working on my early expansion (the initial 6 cities) and there are a lot of games where I could probably achieve something resembling a win, but I simply can't be bothered to play it out. I'd rather try another early expansion lesson.

When I begin to feel confident I might begin finishing some games.

 

[strijder20]

I usually stop when I have no chance of winning, a chance of winning but have suffered serious bad luck or when it's dead obvious I will win.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Occasionally Pangea will dump me on the very edge of the continent on a peninsula. Usually this location sucks as if it were an afterthought.

Fractal often leads to some really dumb starts too.

 

[Lord Parkin]

To be more specific, do you every quit a game after playing say to 1500BC and getting off to a bad start for whatever reason?

Not usually. Sometimes I'll quit because it looks like I've already got the game sealed by that point, and it's not a particularly interesting map. But usually I'll play on. My quitting point - if I do so - is usually much later on in the game, if things are getting a bit slow and I want to get on to the next game. In the BC years things are usually still very interesting though, so I hardly ever quit there.

Also, is it common to "re-roll" the start if you don't like it?

I usually only reroll if a start is absurdly poor - for instance, one time on a Tectonics map where I had no resources whatsoever in my default BFC, not even food resources (no tile in the BFC would give more than 2 food unirrigated). Aside from crazy situations like that, I tend to just roll with what I get. I find it's often more fun (in single player at least) to play from a trickier start anyway, rather than one absolutely laden with goodies like Gems and Gold.

In a backwards way I'm also asking at my level (monarch), is the game always winnable no matter the start, given best play? At what level would you say that poor starting positions simply aren't winnable if at all?

It depends just how "poor" the poor start is. More than once I've had starts on some of the default map scripts (particularly in teamed continent type games) where I've started on an isolated 1 tile island - no kidding. That kind of thing probably isn't going to be winnable on any but the easiest difficulties (and even then, it's dubious).

Assuming "reasonable" poor start conditions - perhaps with a very small amount of land (enough for just a couple of cities), or lacking lots of strategic and perhaps happiness resources (not food), maybe isolated from other civs - I think most if not all "reasonable" poor starts should be winnable on Monarch, and maybe Emperor. Immortal is where it definitely starts getting dodgey, and on Deity it's certainly extremely difficult to pull off a victory with a reasonably poor start.

 

[Axios]

Never quit before lose.

 

[GGracchus]

No metal, no horse, psycho neighbors. All three combined usually = :exittomainmenu:

This. Utterly crappy land/boxed in also contribute to a decision to quit early.

 

[krikav]

I quit the instant I judge the game to be either won or lost.
No point playing on, when you know the outcome with great certinty.

I see it like staying in the movie theatre and watching the credits, just to "watch it to the end." thats just absurd...

I also reload frequently to try different things.
I regenerate the map when it is too good, too bad or too boring.


But then again, I am the only one I know, who rather reads the plot of a TV-series on wikipedia, rather than watching it. And I rather have a friend explain to me what a movie was about, than to see it myself.

 

[AJ11]

To be more specific, do you every quit a game after playing say to 1500BC and getting off to a bad start for whatever reason?

Also, is it common to "re-roll" the start if you don't like it?

In a backwards way I'm also asking at my level (monarch), is the game always winnable no matter the start, given best play? At what level would you say that poor starting positions simply aren't winnable if at all?

You are asking the Civ equivalent of "how long is a piece of string?"

The level depends on the player. A good, adaptive player would be able to withstand a bad start at a higher level than a player that goes by rote, all else being equal.

For example, I could probably survive an arctic start with nothing but furs in the BFC up to about Emperor, but I doubt you could (seeing as you are a Monarch player). It won't be a spectacular game, and I'd probably lose it, but I should be able to survive until one of the AI win a culture/space/time victory.

 

[Ormylar]

Usually I quit a game by the time the game progresses to Renaissance Era. By this time, the game just starts to drag on with all the cities to manage and moving a bunch of units (if I'm in war). The early game is much more exciting to me.

Other reasons have already been stated above: no horse/metal, being surrounded by civs who decide to expand towards me first instead of other civs, etc.

 

[Matty R]

I used to quit and re-roll alot, but now I don't do either. I'll play any start until the end. I'm going to play random Unrestricted Leaders at some point, and I'll do the same with that. I see it as part of the learning process.

 

[Rubio]

I never quit when ahead, because i'd rather challenge myself to see how early a finish date I can get...

If I have an absolutely horrible start, I'll usually reload, but most time I just deal with it. Often I've found that you think you have a really mediocre start but then you start exploring and realize you have actually tons of good land...

 

[Ghpstage]

I'm opposite to most, I quite often regen the map if i could a ridiculously strong starting site and often quit when I get to a position where i'm in a comfortable winning position.
If the maps hard i'm much more likely to play for the challenge.
I'm perfectly happy playing without horse, iron or copper as I tend to avoid early war, being happy to wait till Rifles.

In a backwards way I'm also asking at my level (monarch), is the game always winnable no matter the start, given best play? At what level would you say that poor starting positions simply aren't winnable if at all?

Outside of really ridiculous starts it should be possible to win anything at Monarch, and by really ridiculous I mean like having your first settler settle on an island in such a way that prevents you from building boats or other cities... (this has happened on the forum before!)

My first Monarch game was a serious uphill battle. I started on the end of a long tundra/ice peninsula with no grass tiles outside of my capital, I lost but went down fighting... saved the map and retried it when I was going to move up to Emperor, by which time I had learnt enough to be able to win.

 

[SamSniped]

I quit many games because (even on Warlord difficulty) Monty is a pain in the ***.

 

[Ormylar]

I quit many games because (even on Warlord difficulty) Monty is a pain in the ***.

 

[Ice_Tyrant]

Seems like usually when I quit is is just when Im' not really in the Civ4 mood and I end up quiting sometime in the BC's or early AD's and never go back to that game. Don't ever really quit the game based on other civs and such.