Do you reload saves when things go bad?

[Defiant47]

My games of Civ can be broken into two categories:

Official Games:
I have distinct pleasure in playing a game "officially". This of course means HOF mod and no reloading whatsoever (so I'm extra-careful). Usually I'll try to make the situation as fair as possible. Examples: random leader, fractal, standard.

Just-For-Fun Games:
These are games where I modify the rules so much, that you would never accept that game as proof of anything (i.e. skills). But I don't care about those kinds of things for these games: I only play it for fun. I still won't reload to gain an advantage (since then the game becomes pointless). Examples: Darius of HRE, Elizabeth of Dutch on an archipelago, Boudica of Maya on a duel pangea with 18 civs, etc. (usually I play with no tech trading, and no barbarians, just because I like it that way).

So how often a person reloads depends on what they're interested in:

Winning a game as fairly as possible to behold to others as proof of your awesomeness, or playing a game just for fun, even with massive worldbuilder customization, if it means having fun.

And in the end, who cares how another person has fun? (as long as their version of fun isn't unfair to others, i.e. cheating in HOF)

 

[AfterShafter]

Nah... Restarting is like Christmas morning, so I don't mind doing it.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Voted for the middle option. In addition to reloading due to misclicks and the like, I do it when hit by bad luck caused by stupid mechanics that I feel shouldn't even be in the game. For example, losing a couple of 95% odds battles is just an unavoidable part of a combat engine like this; stuff will happen and I don't reload when it does. However, everyone who isn't a complete dumbass knows that it's ******** for your missionaries to be able to fail in your own cities. So if one of my missionaries fails to spread its religion in one of my own cities, I reload and save the guy for next turn.

<troll removed>

Moderator Action: Warned for trolling
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[mwdowns]

I used to reload games a lot in previous Civ incarnations. But since finding this forum and seeing stuff like the HoF games and GotM games, I've started cutting back on reloading. Now, as I voted in the poll, I reload only after those dumb "wait. wait. wait! I didn't mean to click THAT button" mistakes.

Mostly, though, I tend to just restart a brand new game (new map, sometimes new leader) rather than reload the game I'm playing. Also, like a poster stated upthread, I tend to lose interest in the game around the mid to late-mid point of a game. I really enjoy the initial exploration and land grab. I just lose interest when I've got my boarders and I'm just moving things around and building past the first stages of city development.

 

[Indiansmoke]

My games of Civ can be broken into two categories:

Official Games:
I have distinct pleasure in playing a game "officially". This of course means HOF mod and no reloading whatsoever (so I'm extra-careful). Usually I'll try to make the situation as fair as possible. Examples: random leader, fractal, standard.

Just-For-Fun Games:
These are games where I modify the rules so much, that you would never accept that game as proof of anything (i.e. skills). But I don't care about those kinds of things for these games: I only play it for fun. I still won't reload to gain an advantage (since then the game becomes pointless). Examples: Darius of HRE, Elizabeth of Dutch on an archipelago, Boudica of Maya on a duel pangea with 18 civs, etc. (usually I play with no tech trading, and no barbarians, just because I like it that way).

So how often a person reloads depends on what they're interested in:

Winning a game as fairly as possible to behold to others as proof of your awesomeness, or playing a game just for fun, even with massive worldbuilder customization, if it means having fun.

And in the end, who cares how another person has fun? (as long as their version of fun isn't unfair to others, i.e. cheating in HOF)

Agree completely....

 

[azzaman333]

How do you fix Shaka and Isabella acting like complete tards then attacking your least defended city the first second they get, while attempting to create a stack and march that forward through enemy territory?

You do not understand Shaka! There is no fix there is nothing to learn from except that he's a nutball and you need a stack of 10 in every single coastal city.

I understand Shaka. I understand completely that he is extremely unstable and will attack if he gets the chance, and Isabell will do the same thing if she is a different religion to you. Having more power than them and/or killing them before they have a chance (or really sucking up to them) will prevent them from attacking you.

 

[TheWilltoAct]

Hm... I'm definitely in the never reload camp, just because having any knowledge at all about the map totally ruins the game for me. If I mess up big and start over from the beginning that can actually be rather nice - it's a great feeling to start a fresh new game =D

 

[lauralaura]

I've only done it once: I had my massive stack of doom in a recently captured (at great cost) city, grouped it all up, and went to click the "fortify until healed" button, but hit "explore" by mistake -- leaving both the city and my injured stack unprotected. I reloaded after that.

Otherwise, no. Even that time when I accidentally upgraded every single one of my infantry to SAM infantry instead of mech infantry. That was really annoying.

 

[lauralaura]

Shaka likes to throw his entire stack at random cities of mine for absolutely no reason at all, every single game. If I have to stop everything I'm doing I will reload. I put him on the same level as Charles Manson. He's going to spazz it's just a matter of time, and there is no rhyme or reason to it. If there are any tips to appease him please let me know for he is a game destroyer.

Kill him. Kill him with fire. He and Monty are kill-on-sight if they're my neighbors.

 

[MrFrodo]

Here is another reload moment:

Early Rush with Impi's. I have the entire stack selected, when I thought I just had one injured impi I want to be the medic for this stack, then I click to upgrade to Medic I. Now I have a huge stack of Impi's that were supposed to get the +25% vs. Archer or City Attack upgrades, that are all Medics. Since the healing doesn't stack, and I serisouly need the extra +25% to wear down archers in city/hills, this is too big a waste/blunder to continue with

 

[Diamondeye]

Kill him. Kill him with fire.

LulzlolLOL

Seriously, that's my reply to everythin; fire. Or eighty. Or Poland.
But fire fits best here.

 

[ImperialGuard]

One thing that always struck me as "funny" is that when the game starts "we're a wandering tribe that decides to settle down" ....
but when the map is displayed, we know nothing about the terrain around us !

I've rationalized to myself that if we've wandered around, we'd know the area in the vicinity of our start position, so I usually explore around for 5 or 6 turns, get the "lay of the land" and decide where I would want to settle...then I restart and settle in that location .

I mean if I'm a wandering tribe, I'd know a little bit about the area I'm in, and would decide to settle in the best place for my city wouldn't I ??

 

[Lightwave]

One thing that always struck me as "funny" is that when the game starts "we're a wandering tribe that decides to settle down" ....
but when the map is displayed, we know nothing about the terrain around us !

I've rationalized to myself that if we've wandered around, we'd know the area in the vicinity of our start position, so I usually explore around for 5 or 6 turns, get the "lay of the land" and decide where I would want to settle...then I restart and settle in that location .

I mean if I'm a wandering tribe, I'd know a little bit about the area I'm in, and would decide to settle in the best place for my city wouldn't I ??

I've had the same thought. I always chalked it up to "Well, that's all they remember." Or at least, the part I can see is the part they were wandering in.

I've also had the thought that the plot I set my settler on should be one of the best of the surrounding territory, but with CivIV the map scripts do already make adjustments for starting locations if only for some play balance. So, it is usually beneficial to settle very near your starting location.

That said, I have lately been occasionally "adjusting" my starting location by one or two tiles with some nice success even verified by the world builder later or after discarding the start (one of my small CivIV vices). I had a fantastic start where I added a horse and a pig to two gold, a stone, and a sheep by moving over one square. I was very fortunate in that case because I did not know about the horse until later, and I could not actually see the pig when I settled.

Ironically though, I lost several scouts and popped no techs for this game which basically balanced the gold advantage out for a while. Later raging barbarians attacked in force and knocked me back into the stone age. I had ignored archery for a while even though I was towards the center of a big continent, and I also wasn't aggressive about going after the copper although it was not very close. I deserved the beating I guess.

 

[lutzj]

i give up and start another game

 

[Airefuego]

Restarting is like Christmas morning, so I don't mind doing it.

yes so true! ... probably my favourite moment of the game is right before Turn 1...

that, and pressing "smite" on my first axe rush

 

[Quintillus]

Only if I screw up on input (wrong key/ended turn right at the beginning) and it's a really big screwup, like I forgot to move defenders into my capital and five-wonder city and it only had a 2/10 Knight defending it that subsequently got owned by a Pikeman when I had five troops right outside just about to move in to reinforce.

Minor mistakes, like hitting the wrong numpad key and not sinking a Frigate with my Battleship because I sail right by it, I don't consider that important. Can always get it back to the way I wanted the next turn.

In short, "grevious errors" like Powerslave said, that are accidental. If I meant to do something and it turns out to be a huge mistake, though, too bad, citizens.

I'd say very rarely, but never would be an exagerration. I just don't find any fun in reloading because of bad luck or bad decisions.

 

[Roxlimn]

It's hard to tell which decision is a bad one unless you reload the game on that decision and do it the other way.

This is how you eventually come to understand that war is inherently a risky endeavor. Even with all the factors in your favor, bad luck can simply rip you a new one. While you think it's just bad luck on your part, you can't tell that unless you reload the game and do it again.

 

[theKurgen]

Reloaders should be shot. Survivors shot again

Seriously, I just couldn't live with the shame if I was lame enough to reload because my attack failed to capture a city or a lion ate my settler or some other pathetic reason. It's no longer a game if you play in such a way. You might aswell just go into the worldbuilder and gift yourself some tanks in the ancient age, then congratulate yourself on your hard fought victory?