Do you struggle on or start over?

[baboonfan]

I´ve had some troubles playing my games till the end. I have started 20 games and finished none yet. One is very far though, but after browsing a forum like this, or just incidentally, I find that I should have had different settings or the map is plain boring etc.

You...?

 

[jalapeno_dude]

I've started at least one game with most of the original 16 Civs, and a couple others. However, in the 8+ months I've had Civ, I've finished a grand total of 2 games!

So I'm with you there.

 

[zerksees]

Go to a smaller map. The game will go faster.

I finish every game I start. I do have a huge map game that I want to milk the score on that has been setting for a month or two, but that is the exception for me.

 

[Chieftess]

I always play smaller maps, since that's what my computer can handle. Most of the games last 5-15 hours (on emperor) since I pretty much know what I'm doing (some of the micromanagement is pretty automatic now), and with 3 civs, I can be pretty agressive if I want, and I don't have as many civs to check diplomacy with.

 

[DBear]

I agree. I love starting games and the land grab, but the modern age is a death march for me.

 

[GenMarshall]

I usualy go for an early land grab. I am still learning how to make Micromanagement Automatic to me.

 

[Fixxxer]

I always end a game before I start a new one. Always Huge Map, always all 16 civs. But I think I need new challenge, so I will try hard to find C3C.

 

[Brewster]

I try to finish every game I start but tend to put some of the on hold when they become too boring.

 

[SLUGFly]

Every kind of game I play, no matter how bad I'm getting stomped I continue until the game itself straight up tells me "you lost! Get the *--* out!"

Incidentally, I've only just begun playing Civ3 and without reading any manual I lasted a sum total of 45 minutes, my leader was killed by barbarians and I was told that I would be remembered in history as "Alexander the Worthless"

gonna try harder next time

 

[morchuflex]

I personnally end less than 1% of my civ games.
First, some games are just too desperate. When you start on a small chunk of land surrounded by mountains, there is nothing wrong in restarting immediatly.
Conversely, I also quit when victory is very likely. Since I play smarter than the AI (better management, better tactics), then, when I can see I am ahead on the histograph, in research and in all relevant demographics (mainly pop and area) and I have access to all strategic resources, I see no point in finishing out the AI civs.
In fact, I quit whenever the challenge is too low or next to impossible.
Furthermore, I like early and mid ages better: exploring, colonizing, struggling for land... that's where the thrill is. I hate the lategame where you mainly stare at your computer screen waiting for the AI to finish its Brownian unit moves.

 

[AIL]

From my last 5 games I finished 4. The only one I did not finish was a Huge Pangea where I had 4 cities left after the last war. I wanted to observe what the AIs do after that but if you don't have anything to do in your turn and have to wait like 5 minutes before you can press enter again it's to boring to be finished.

 

[Alexnm]

I try to finish all my games too, but sometimes I just get bored and start again with a new civ, new settings... Currently I have 3 or 4 games in cryogenic sleep, just waiting for me to finish my most recent game (tiny map, 3 civs, lots of war and fun).

 

[Renfield]

I love the end game.

The wars with MA and MI. Bombing the AI's back to the stone age. Fleets of carriers and destroyers. Nukes.

So I usually play my games all the way out.

 

[IglooDame]

I finish about 1/3 of the ones I start, the ones I abandon are usually out of boredom because I find that I'm the only civ on an island or swamps everywhere, or something like that.

The game I'm playing now I'm dipping into some of the micromanagement techniques now that I'm in the Industrial/Modern era, and wow!! I've added about a hundred science beakers and lowered the number of turns required to build libraries/marketplaces in 100% corrupt new cities by anywhere from 20 to 80%.

I almost can't wait to finish this game (the end is nigh, but I enjoy playing even when my victory is pretty much a given) so that I can micromanage from the start.

 

[WarLust]

I try to finish most of my games, but a lot of times I don't need the computer to tell me I won. I know when I am going to win or not. If I am kicking much ass and see no challange, I quit and play another. I usually play domination/conquest games and if I am close to getting most of the land under my control, I'll quit and play another. Often I will have a really bad start, i.e., stuck in the mountains, hut pops hostile barbarians when my capital expands, killing all my villagers, etc., and I will just restart the game. I enjoy a good challenge, but when I am stuck on a little island with no strategic resources and everybody else is on a huge continent, I quit because I know it's hopeless.

 

[SesnOfWthr]

As a general rule of thumb, if I can make it past about 1000 BC, then I usually finsh the game. If I have a horrible start or it doesn't shape up properly, then I'll quit and start over. However, once i get into AD, I feel that I've invested too much time to not see what the final score is. In addition, as i am moving up the difficulty ladder, (currently on monarch) I find that the end game changes dramatically as I am no longer destroying pikes/muskets with my tanks and am seeing infantry and such, which makes me adjust my strats and keeps it interesting.

 

[CaptainCommando]

I usually have a bunch of "false starts" where I'll play teh game for like 10 minutes and discover i don't like my surroundings or something, then keep restarting until i get a game i like. But once i make a commitment to a game i see it through to the end.

 

[denyd]

If you'd like to try a game that you'll finish, try the GOTM.

The map is checked for a balance (no all swamp island starts with no neighbors) and since you get to compare games, the finish line is more appealing even after you have all the AI's on the ropes.

 

[Greyhawk1]

Only time I can a game is if I'm going down fast. I never can a game through bad territory.

 

[Giotto]

I almost never finish my games.

I usually end up thinking I'd have more fun with a different strategy and then trying a game like that...

one minute i'm starting a chieftain game to see how many cities I can make, the next minute i'm trying RPC, the next game monarch difficulty, the next game i try a tiny map, the next game huge map with all civs.... I always change my mind! It really drives me nuts and I think the main flaw with civ3 is it isn't very accomodating to people with A.D.D like me who can't stick with a map.

Maybe they should have somesort of reward system for playing different settings... like... win a game on a huge map with max civs on regent level or higher and you unlock a new civ or new leaderhead or new unit or something! I need a goal to strive for or else i'm lost!!!!!!!!!!!