I rarely take a game all the way to the end. If my ss is launched before other civs are making much progress on theirs, or if I'm completely dominating the world and down to one or two hapless civs, I find my self saving the games but rarely going back to them. Next time I start up I'll begin new game to try out some startegy.
Do you finish games?
- Thread starter NorvilleB
- Start date
Archer 007
Rebirth
Yeah, im lazy and stop halfway though.
Alice
Warlord
I try to finish, but sometimes I save the games and don't play for about a week (exams, work, etc), I don't really feel like going back to those games, so I start a new one.
I use to play my games to a point where I knew I had won. The end game was not my favorite part. I even sent some of my games to Ace since he liked to play when the more modern units were avilable. 
Terrapin
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
- Messages
- 505
Yeah, the end game consists of a lot of micro-managing. I only finish when it looks like a new high score beckons or the war for conquest takes an interesting turn.
Sometimes I take saved games and try playing them out using a different strategy. Mostly, I have been taking a bunch of the power democracy games which I won with spaceships and replaying from about the time of industrialization to see if I can conquer the world instead.
Sometimes I take saved games and try playing them out using a different strategy. Mostly, I have been taking a bunch of the power democracy games which I won with spaceships and replaying from about the time of industrialization to see if I can conquer the world instead.
There always comes a point where the writing is on the wall.GotM are about the only games I actually finish.Even scenarios often suffer the same fate.I think Civ3 tryed to extend the period of incertainty,but we all know how that turned out.
It is the ongoing challenge for game makers.
MP is great in this area,but finishing is a near impossibility.
It is the ongoing challenge for game makers.
MP is great in this area,but finishing is a near impossibility.
Ace
Emperor
Yeah, I agree. In most games you reach that point and unless its a really good game, its time to start a new one and keep looking for that "ultimate, perfect" game.
Like the Duke said, my favorite "age" is the modern era. (I grew up playing board wargames of WW2, D-Day anyone?) Unfortunately, the only way to get a balanced "fight" there is to let the AI survive until mobile warfare, robotics, and maybe stealth have been discovered. And long before that time, the AI is usually reduced to a pet city, or the game has reached that point where the issue is no longer in doubt and interest wanes...!
So, yeah, I rarely finish a game anymore. If fact, I don't think I have finished a single one this year!
Like the Duke said, my favorite "age" is the modern era. (I grew up playing board wargames of WW2, D-Day anyone?) Unfortunately, the only way to get a balanced "fight" there is to let the AI survive until mobile warfare, robotics, and maybe stealth have been discovered. And long before that time, the AI is usually reduced to a pet city, or the game has reached that point where the issue is no longer in doubt and interest wanes...!
So, yeah, I rarely finish a game anymore. If fact, I don't think I have finished a single one this year!
funxus
Orange Cycloptic Blob
I play for a while, and if it doesn't go well, I usually quit it. The ones that are going well I usually try to finish, but will have to force myself to do it when there's no question about my superiority. The fun part of the game is building up the civ, once that's done it kind of gets boring.
Hundegesicht
Manly Studmuffin
- Joined
- May 31, 2003
- Messages
- 1,638
Rarely, I usually quit at about AD 500 out of boredom/hopelessness because I wasn't careful in the planning the early game. If I have a good game (a chance at getting +100% rating) I'll usually go for a win... that being said, I've only won twice.
I have a 3rd one (Prince level this time) coming in soon, though. I'll probably have it by this Friday, asuming that I'm not too busy...
I have a 3rd one (Prince level this time) coming in soon, though. I'll probably have it by this Friday, asuming that I'm not too busy...
Old n Slow
Emperor
According to Myers-Briggs, Im an INTP, one who has been described as many things started, few games finished.
For Ace, I enjoyed the recent GOTM game on the world map by starting as an OCC, but bailing out. Developing a civ stating around 1500 AD (my second city -- bloodlust mind you) lets you have the tech to be competitive, but the rest has to be built up. Needed the howies to pull it off. I have the save when I bailed if you want a late start into the modern era
Of course that might also be a reasonable GOTM premise -- The duke plays until 1000 (maybe 1300) AD or so as an OCC, but bails (perhaps as a mole?) -- all the other civs have equal tech due to tech gifting, the player gets a reasonably developed SCC, but maybe has an atrocious reputation in an otherwise bloodlust game; natch Mike, Leos, probably JSB are all elsewhere
For Ace, I enjoyed the recent GOTM game on the world map by starting as an OCC, but bailing out. Developing a civ stating around 1500 AD (my second city -- bloodlust mind you) lets you have the tech to be competitive, but the rest has to be built up. Needed the howies to pull it off. I have the save when I bailed if you want a late start into the modern era
Of course that might also be a reasonable GOTM premise -- The duke plays until 1000 (maybe 1300) AD or so as an OCC, but bails (perhaps as a mole?) -- all the other civs have equal tech due to tech gifting, the player gets a reasonably developed SCC, but maybe has an atrocious reputation in an otherwise bloodlust game; natch Mike, Leos, probably JSB are all elsewhere
One fun thing to do when you hit that domination point is to hit the cheat menu and switch civs to the worst and see if you can 'come back' against your former empire.
SlowThinker
Prince
I finished 2 games already: the Mongol scenario and the Early landing game #2 at Apolyton.la fayette
King
Originally posted by SlowThinker
2 games is not much
... but I can testify that both are very good games (very difficult to beat indeed
)Well, contrary to ST, I play 'almost ' all my games to the end
(I guess it must be close to 1000 now)
SlowThinker
Prince
Do you think we trust you, La Fayette? 
la fayette
King
Originally posted by SlowThinker
Well, I hope YOU do
I started playing in 1996 and I am fairly sure that I played more than one game a week since then. This means at least 400 games. Did I play 2 games a week ? I think so, but I wouldn't swear...
(remember that early conquest can make for very short games, and I played a lot of those, such as the Rome scenarios where all records are well under 100 turns, not to mention DrFell's record of 40 turns with the Romans
)SlowThinker
Prince
So you must play fast (?) Or do you play one hour a turn like me?
