Does anyone play CiV realistically?

[neutral_leader]

That's the only way I like to play. My people are on a civilizing mission to every world they are born into.

 

[nokmirt]

If you want to play to have fun, play for a max number of turns, with no Victory conditions checked. At the end of the turns the civ with the most VPs wins. However, if you playing just for fun, who cares? Just have fun. I do it sometimes when I play just to a certain era. Then you can go at your own pace. At least you won't have to worry about winning every turn.

I also play Total War games, I have all of them. They are great games. What I like to do is plan these massive military campaigns. Or, I just build up, pace myself, and work on strengthening my economy. The best thing is that even though you try to win, your not worried about winning every single turn.

As far as civ stories go, I am waiting for GnK to come out. With more immersion and depth added to the game, perhaps it will be easier to write an interesting story as the game moves on.

Whoops I hit save twice sorry about that.
Moderator Action: Fixed, deleted the other post.

 

[Kabloosh]

Yeah. The game does feel lacking.

Some things I miss were natural disasters and climate change. Especially if you went a little overboard nuking something.
If I want to play a war strategy game I'll play starcraft. If I want an indepth civ builder I want to play civilization.

 

[binhthuy71]

...However, if you playing just for fun, who cares? Just have fun...

Best advice ever. I've been playing Civ since the first edition came out on floppy disks. That makes 21 years' worth of Civving. These days I play for fun; Renaissance Era starts, playing on a Standard map and then deleting two AI civs in setup, playing a Large tiny islands map as Polynesia or the Ottomans,, playing at a lower level than the one at which I can eke out a win. And if I try something that isn't fun then I try something else. Life can be trying enough at times, no sense turning a game into another ordeal.

 

[gps]

When I play a game of CiV I'm playing it build a Civilization and try my best to create a story with it. I'm building my Civ not to win the game, but to stand the test of time.

I won't argue with the way you play the game, it's yours to do whatever you like - however many good stories end with the good guys (me) winning. Big time. And the best way for your empire to stand the test of time is by winning. Against powerfull opponents. How is your empire supposed to stand the test of time, if you don't really put it to the test???
Btw. - despite all the shortcommings Civ V might or might not have - the Civ series never was sandbox style open ended play, it always was about winning, getting to one of the given victory conditions in the available number of turns. You did not have to actually do it, but it always was about winning.

 

[Deggial]

I play to win. Of course I do - at the end of the game, I want to see the victory screen and my graphs to brake the ceiling. Losing is not fun and therefore it is not my goal, when I start a new game of CiV. So, am I one of these guys, that play *only* to win?

I don't know.

I like to role-play in CiV, too. I don't always choose the optimal SoPos, if they do not seem appropriate for the civ I play. (So: not the freedom/piety combo all the time).
I try to use different strategic approaches with every civ, based on their character (UA, UU) and not necessarily my well known "winning strategy" over and over again. But then, this might be the best way to victory, anyway.
I try to play with all available civs and not only with the one, I think is strongest.

So, what sort of player am I? Do I stand the test of time or am I just eager to win?
The only thing I know: I play CiV to have fun. And I do!

 

[Jayman1000]

This is something I was surprised about the more I started to visit the forums. While looking around everything that I see from the players here is all gameplay with the sole objective of winning, and that's it.

Maybe it's just because I'm a previous Total War/Europa player, but I almost never play this game just to beat the AI. However, it seems here that's the only way many of you play it. Now don't get me wrong, this is a strategy game, there is no shame in playing that way, but I thought CiV was different. When I play a game of CiV I'm playing it build a Civilization and try my best to create a story with it. I'm building my Civ not to win the game, but to stand the test of time. I love history and like to use CiV as a tool to in a way create it, or change it. Beating the AI can be fun, however I've found it more enjoyable to just see how my civilization lasts and builds in time. If it fails, it fails, if the conquers the world... well, I have a story to tell don't I.

To help with this, I've always set house rules for myself. Those are, well... all of the exploits many of you use. Now don't get offended, but stealth bomber spam and bee-lining techs with 6 saved GS are not everyone's cup of tea, some of us like different. usually I set rules that help the AI and make the game a more realistic challenging experience. I've found the AI may not be as bad as we think it is, it's just people exploit it so darn much (lol... nah it just sucks). If the AI can't do it, don't do it yourself. House rules are a fairly effective way at masking the stupidity of the AI. It puts you at a somewhat level ground with the AI, and it becomes much more than a war trying to overcome the insane cheating of the AI. Sure it's not the most strategic way, but maybe its more enjoyable.

The term "house rules" seems almost nonexistent on these forums, same with stories of peoples CiV's. When you visit the Total War forums for example, you find people explaining how their empire started from it's small roots and came and did the impossible... or failed. There are some incredible writing with the stories of their empires, and they are a joy to read. But it's mostly about how to win the best way it seems for CiV players, and I never knew this until I started coming to the forums more.

It doesn't help that CiV makes all of the diplomacy so gamey, and has all the CiV's so concentrated on victory. The comments about how one CiV hates how your trying to win the game or about how your their favorite city-state really demolish this realistic building a Civilization feeling. I like to feel as we are Civilizations testing human existence and the leaders are mere symbols for them... not just 8 people sitting in front of the computer screen slurring insults are each other on their way to victory. However, it seems CiV has gone in the direction of winning is the main objective, and the Civ's respect this with their comments. Many may like this since they are much more into winning it seems, but it's not my personal preference. This being my first Civ game, I wonder if the older ones were like this.

Anyways, is there anyone else out there who plays for the building a civilization experience rather than a strategic victory? This being a strategic game I can't expect people to play this way, however I was rather shocked by it.

Thats the reason I dont play CiV, the only 'fun' thing is to win the point up to that is kinda of a bore. Except for the first 30 hours of gameplay, those were actually interesting hours of CiV because it was all new and shiny...

That CiV is like this is also the reason I still play Civ IV. Civ IV never gets old, you can constantly change the variables, and there are so many many varibles to change, and it is so easy and quickly done too. While winning was definatly a key part og Civ IV it was most certainly ALOT of other things too. If I was getting too strong I could pop into the world builder and give a lot of nukes to the enemy, or perhaps lots of great people, or give one of their cities all wonders. Or make barbarians capture half of my cities, or make everyone hate me and declare war etc etc. The possibilities were (are) endless.

I would so have wished that CiV would have included this possibility for complexity, variability and replay-value. But alas...

 

[Buccaneer]

I only play to win (as oppose to playing to lose or dragging it out for no reason) since Civ is truly a 4x strategy game, not a role-playing game. Nothing is more rewarding than winning a challenging game. Nothing is more educational than losing a close game and learning what to do better next time. Nothing is more humbling than getting taken over.

 

[nokmirt]

Best advice ever. I've been playing Civ since the first edition came out on floppy disks. That makes 21 years' worth of Civving. These days I play for fun; Renaissance Era starts, playing on a Standard map and then deleting two AI civs in setup, playing a Large tiny islands map as Polynesia or the Ottomans,, playing at a lower level than the one at which I can eke out a win. And if I try something that isn't fun then I try something else. Life can be trying enough at times, no sense turning a game into another ordeal.

Well you have me beat. I first played Civ 2 in 1999 on the playstation. My brother and I played that disc so much we wore it out, and the playstation along with it. Night and day when we were not working. We did the same with Civ 3 except we had pcs by then. Oh what wonderful times those were. I still get that civ 2 music stuck in my head now and then.

When I play CiV to win, I usually try for domination victory, or a spaceship victory. Lately though, I have been playing to certain eras for so many turns just to relax and have fun. I've been working on micromanaging cities better and using specialists properly to get the most out of my empire. I play on emperor, but I am always trying to gather more experience. If I can get the fundamentals down, then I can concentrate on other aspects of the game. This will be especially useful, because Gods and Kings will bring in new features religion and espionage to deal with again.

Nothing is more humbling than getting taken over.

You got that right. This is why I have decided to go back to the basics and work on fundamentals. Like you said I lack experience, you were right. I am working on getting better.

 

[Jayman1000]

I only play to win (as oppose to playing to lose or dragging it out for no reason) since Civ is truly a 4x strategy game, not a role-playing game. Nothing is more rewarding than winning a challenging game. Nothing is more educational than losing a close game and learning what to do better next time. Nothing is more humbling than getting taken over.

why would anyone ever drag anything out if there is no reason for it? Consider that perhaps alot of players want to drag things out exactly because there are reasons for it

 

[budweiser]

I love to role play the civs. Its more important to me than winning. If I play France, which I often do I will resign if I dont get Notre Dame, Louvre and Eiffel. So, needless to say, I am pretty good at getting those wonders.

 

[binhthuy71]

I only play to win (as oppose to playing to lose or dragging it out for no reason) since Civ is truly a 4x strategy game, not a role-playing game. Nothing is more rewarding than winning a challenging game. Nothing is more educational than losing a close game and learning what to do better next time. Nothing is more humbling than getting taken over.

Very appropriate for my current games. I'm playing the Budweiser Challenge - Aztec OCC . In the first game at my normal level I was beaten before my cultural boundary spread to the second ring. I dropped down a level and almost won. Having to step down and then losing anyway was indeed humbling, but that game was one of the most instructive and fun that I've played in a long time.

 

[BranjoHello]

I played my every game in CiV to win. I like playing in relaxed-building tempo (the way I played Civ3 and CIV on difficulties below Prince) but on higher difficulties its just no way to go. So after I finally beaten Deity I told myself that I'm going to play Gods&Kings in more easy-going way in lower difficulties and advance to higher only when I'll be able to beat the game without loading after bad moves.

 

[Loucypher]

I play to win, but in my own way. I don't do all the min-maxing, perfect settling spots, etc etc. I build things the way I want to, on the pace I want to, ending up creating a beautiful empire in the way I like it.
That's the beauty in Civ. You can play it any way you want to. Yeah there's a group that plays just to win by exploiting anything the AI gives them, but to each their own, no?

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

I've played 2 3 4 and 5, 2 and 4 you can easily play a diplomatic game, 3 I did not enjoy and I'm debating if 5 is worse, the mechanics of the game for being enjoyable on a political aspect does not exist, trying to keep cities happy so they don't leave you, trying to keep other civs off your back for attacking someone as opposed to being attacked. In 5 I'm being yelled at for taking out a nation I had to survive three unprovoked wars with. Can't really simulate any politics in this game. Get a resourse if they like you they want it without pay, can't negotiate can only give it willingly or basically make them mad by saying no and than try to renegotiate later.

 

[CharlieM]

Always seemed to me like trying to mix realism and a Civ game was a recipe for utter frustration.

Civ is a turn-based strategy cake with a historical-simulation frosting.

 

[Jayman1000]

I've played 2 3 4 and 5, 2 and 4 you can easily play a diplomatic game, 3 I did not enjoy and I'm debating if 5 is worse, the mechanics of the game for being enjoyable on a political aspect does not exist, trying to keep cities happy so they don't leave you, trying to keep other civs off your back for attacking someone as opposed to being attacked. In 5 I'm being yelled at for taking out a nation I had to survive three unprovoked wars with. Can't really simulate any politics in this game. Get a resourse if they like you they want it without pay, can't negotiate can only give it willingly or basically make them mad by saying no and than try to renegotiate later.

That is what CiV does, it punishes you. Besides that, the AI is both schizophrenic and totally insane. Ironically this can almost be an entertaining feature in itself, however unintended it may be. None of the AI can be trusted and they are bound to stab you in your back, even when they clearly will gain nothing from it or when a war would clearly mean their doom.

 

[binhthuy71]

You've highlighted what is, for me, one of the most frustrating aspects of CiiV 5; the AI's tendency to DoW no matter what. This particular early game scenario repeats itself so often that it's ridiculous:

1. Neighboring Civ X DoWs in the early game.
2. Civ X gathers together all of the loose units it has and throws everything from Warriors, to Pikes, to a couple of Archers and maybe a Sword or two, at me.
3. My carefully placed Archers destroy the attackers.
4. Civ X then offers a Peace Treaty in return for all of my Gold, some GPT, and all of my Resources. I refuse.
5. Civ X attacks again with a much reduced force. Again it's destroyed.
6. Civ X offers Peace Treaty under the same terms as 4, above.
7. Now I have to divert from whatever else I'm doing and build Siege then take Civ X's nearest city. If Civ X is Greece then Alex will still offer peace under the same terms as 4, above after you've taken his city.

If you're the peaceable type, and I used to be, and you take the first Peace Treaty then Civ X will use your Gold and Resources to build an even bigger force which will land on your borders on the turn that the treaty expires. Unless you're a very skilled player and/or you have a great starting location you will inevitably find yourself at war if you play above King. Rather than building an empire that can stand the test of time I now build an empire that can beat the hell out any attacking force.

 

[Shurdus]

OP is TLDR.

If you like to make up stories with a game and play for the playing rather than winning, may I suggest Europa Universalis 3 to you? It is a very nice game with lots and lots of depth, without the need to actually win games.

 

[Calouste]

Rather than building an empire that can stand the test of time I now build an empire that can beat the hell out any attacking force.

How do you think empires stand the test of time? For example, where is the mighty, but gunpowder-less, Aztec empire these days?

At least in Civ5 you can fight a decent defensive war with a smaller military or one that is missing certain resources. In Civ4 you were a sitting duck until Gunpowder if you didn't have any metal.