Do you play to the bitter end?

[Abaxial]

This has probably been asked before, but I was wondering - how often to you play right through to the victory screen, when it's obvious that you are going to win fairly soon? Cases like where:

- You are leading in every category
- Your score is more then twice that of the second rated civ

Do you say, "Well, that's won", and start a new game?

It can be a bit tedious when you have 20 cities to micro-manage in a game where it makes no difference what they build next.

Actually, I had a dream last week in which there was a new victory screen that came up when the player was so far ahead that all the AI players collectively decided to resign. The new screen showed an image that was almost completely filled by the chest of a burly soldier in a blue uniform, the figure cropped at neck and waist, and at the left you could see the head of HM the Queen peering round his shoulder with a big smile on her face. Dreaming of Civ VI means playing far too much!

 

[comatosedragon]

Not Usually.

I have only finished (to the victory screen) maybe a half dozen games since Civ VI came out (I was a day one purchaser). I only have 550 hours so far (far, far less than civ V by this point in its lifespan); so I would say the average number of games is finish is right around 0.005% of games started.

 

[bonafide11]

I actually complete more Civ VI games than I did Civ IV or Civ V so that says something good about Civ VI. I don't always play to the end, but maybe about half the time.

 

[Bradypus]

More often than not I don't play to the end. Once the result is given in advance, it's just a tad less interesting to continue.

 

[Searing7]

I play maybe 1/3 of games until the end, with the remaining 2/3 being games where I completely ran away with it, or where I rage quit for some reason.

 

[kaltorak]

I may finish 1 out of each 10 games
CIV6 is the one I finish the least, since its city spam OPness makes it more chore at endgame than previous versions.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

This has probably been asked before, but I was wondering - how often to you play right through to the victory screen, when it's obvious that you are going to win fairly soon? Cases like where:

- You are leading in every category
- Your score is more then twice that of the second rated civ

Do you say, "Well, that's won", and start a new game?

It can be a bit tedious when you have 20 cities to micro-manage in a game where it makes no difference what they build next.

Actually, I had a dream last week in which there was a new victory screen that came up when the player was so far ahead that all the AI players collectively decided to resign. The new screen showed an image that was almost completely filled by the chest of a burly soldier in a blue uniform, the figure cropped at neck and waist, and at the left you could see the head of HM the Queen peering round his shoulder with a big smile on her face. Dreaming of Civ VI means playing far too much!

I was thinking about how there needs to be a declare victory button and the same can then make a decision if you win or not. Like when you are 20 techs ahead and have half the science victory finished.

 

[Tech Osen]

9 out of 10 times I finish a "won" game.

 

[Jkchart]

Personally, yes. I would rather finish than not, even if it has become obvious.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Always. If I'm going to spend 4-5 hours on a game, I want to see the 30 second victory movie!

 

[EgonSpengler]

I haven't technically finished a game of Civ in something like 2 years. When I lose, it's usually early, jumped by a couple of neighbors in the Ancient or Classical Era, due to poor start position, or because I was [mess]ing around and didn't build a sufficient early army. Conversely, when I win, it's usually the middle of the game, and of course I know that once I'm in position to win, the other Civs won't lift a finger to stop me, whether there are 20 turns left or 200. It's rare that a game is still "in the balance" past the Renaissance.

 

[Socrates99]

Most of the time. I kinda like achievements for no apparent reason. There are definitely times where its tedious as hell. Religious and dom especially. Diplo is so random and unsure it can be pain to finish too.

 

[Krajzen]

Civ6 tried to shake up things a bit past medieval era via dark ages, loyalty and disasters but all of them is not enough if the game doesn't have courage to massively challenge its player in the second half of the game, make him face danger with high risk and no easy escape route to even more bonuses (yes I am criticizing design of dark ages).

Civ6 also has another problem - it has so many features and potential layers of bonuses that cautious player can stack bonuses to crazy combos unreachable to AI. Civ5 already had problem of tactical combat system being very hard for AI to handle, but at least its economy was simple enough for AI to challenge human by the late game. Civ6 by unstacking cities made economy much more difficult for AI to optimize.

 

[Finvola]

I am at the moment, but I've only recently started playing VI and I'm going for achievements. I have abandoned a few, but for the most part I will play to the finish so I get the cheevo for whatever it was I set out to do.

 

[MrRadar]

Yes, whether it goes one way or another. I play more for historic dimension of the experience and I want to know full history of the current world and how it all ended, even if it is pretty much obvious.

 

[TomKQT]

I don't play very often, so most of my games are the first game as that civ - and in that case I always finish it to get the achievement for wining as the leader. And even without the achievement, I would want to finish at least one game as each leader, for my own feeling of completeness.

And I finish also the other games, unless it was just something set up for a specific achievement - in that case I would quit as soon as I get it. But I don't really count those games as real games anyway.

If I'm not mistaken I've maybe stopped playing 1 "normal" game so far - because it was boring a bit and I didn't have too much time to play it, so I was making several-days-long breaks and then I didn't feel the need to come back anymore and finish it.
And one other game, which kept crashing at one specific turn But that was shortly after the release of vanilla Civ6.

 

[Sagax]

With Hall of Fame and me chasing to light up every leader - yes, I finish them all. Luckily, leading in every category means you are probably about to win CV anyway, which is fast and doesn’t require as much unit management as DV and RV.

 

[JacquesChabrac]

I don't play very often, so most of my games are the first game as that civ - and in that case I always finish it to get the achievement for wining as the leader. And even without the achievement, I would want to finish at least one game as each leader, for my own feeling of completeness.

I'm pretty much in the same boat. I might get to play one or two games each month and I play them to completion - partly to get the achievement (something I also did in Civ 5), partly for my own sense of closure. I'm quite surprised to see so many people abandon their games in this thread.

 

[kaltorak]

I'm quite surprised to see so many people abandon their games in this thread.

Why? What is more fun, discovering new land? planning your cities, fighting for the terrain, doing early wars for cities when you have few cities and units, or spending 2 hours moving my troops from one part of the world to the other annhilating the AI bc of how bad it places its units, but still needing a lot of time bc of the ammount of units it has?
I dont care about achivements and not much about a victory screen once the game is won.

Starting new games is so much fun

 

[kaspergm]

I usually do, just to unlock the achievement for winning with the civ. My current Eleanor game is a real drag, however, and I think I'll lose it. But I guess that'll be an achievement also.