How many games do you abandon?

[Gengis Khan]

Originally posted by zerksees
I should probably be insulted by this If you've spent 144 hours on a single game then you can be a good judge of this.

Been there, done that. My average game is probably from 60-80 hours, I gotta agree with the overkill statement but it's my method.

Good to see not everyone takes themselves too seriously here & some actually understand *shock* a joke.

 

[collin_stp]

sorry, duplicate, and I can't seem to get delete to work

 

[collin_stp]

I quit many games after they are decided if there are many turns left.

I think there are two reasons for this. First of all, I should play at a higher level. I can usually wrap up my strongest opponent on Monarch when I get my artillery going. Second, I shouldn't get so damn addicted, and then get hit by overkill. If I spread the game out to an hour a day (not five or more hours on a weekend day), I may keep more interest.

The problem, though, with modern wars, is that they take so much longer. The early swordman wars are usually quick, but I guess part of the fun of the game is the different types of warfare you get to use later in the game. Only if they had a way to fire multiple artys at once, or stack airplanes, that seems to be the biggest bore drain on me.

 

[hawai_74]

quite often, when things turn too bad for me i quit...i don't want to suffer for centuries cause i've not enough time to play at CIV, i don't want to waste my time.

 

[Pook]

Originally posted by zerksees

The short answer: Attention to detail, and the CFC web site
The long answer:
.....I then found CFC, and started learning. I am a systems analyst by day, so I put these analyst skills to work to learn about the game and devise a plan to beat it. I spent a lot of time looking at the CFC web site...Love that war academy......
I don’t play a lot of games because they take so long, but I put my best effort into the games I do play. I always decide what my cities are going to build, I control the workers manually for a good part of the game. I handle diplomacy fairly well. I avoid fighting wars by myself until I have at least 2/3 of the power bar (this makes the game sooooo much easier). I take advantage of AI stupidity whenever I can. So far I have never quit a game due to a bad map at the start. This is part of the challenge..... Every game requires adjustments to the conditions of that game – what is important in that thread is how many times I adjust, not necessarily the detail of the adjustment, since the detail of adjustments will vary from game to game.....
I don’t think my approach is good for everyone, because many gamers just don’t want to be bothered with the details. I am not even sure how much of my approach is overkill.
I am serious about winning so I pay attention to as many details as I need to win.

Zerksees, I thought alot about your post and I read the full threads you listed about that tremendous comeback from a game that I would have abandoned as hopeless. I found your post both an inspiration and a challenge to myself. It left me thinking "What is he doing that I'm not? Why do I abandon 3/4 of my games at emperor level?- surely it's not just a "bad map". Where are my shortcomings?"

My conclusion-
It's not a lack of IQ.
It's not a lack of education or experience in military strategy, logistics, decision theory, wargaming, or the game itself-
I've got plenty of all of those.
It's not a lack of commitment/obsession with winning.

I think my answer is what you pointed out about the gamer who only took 2 hours 18 minutes to get to that point of history. I do the same thing. My emperor-level domination wins have taken between 40-50 hours each. I simply don't spend enough time micro-managing cities and refining decisions as to "what to do next". This is a surprising finding to me, since I like the ancient period of the game best, so why am I rushing through it? In any case, I'm going to go back, check my cities every turn, thoroughly micro-manage the early game, and see how much it improves my gameplay.

Thanq once again for an inspiring post about never giving up.

 

[DS_Legionary]

I will generally 'abandon' about 70% of my games. It's not because of a bad start, and most times not because I lost (I like to play losing games because I learn more fighting an uphill battle), but I abandon due to lack of interest. Usually by the end of the Middle Ages I have about 50% of the earth, the largest military, and a fairly large tech lead. Which in turns means the challenge is gone. With no challenge there is no reason for me to continue. I guess I should try moving up another level, maybe that will solve the problem.

 

[microbe]

I never abandoned any game. I've won hopeless games in the end.

 

[AncientPlayer]

I have limited hours I can invest in any game and Civ3 isn't going to get all those. So, I have a simple rule--I play for fun--any game that isn't fun, gets killed. And what 'fun' means varies from day to day. Sometimes that means I want a challenge and I'll quit as soon as the threat of losing is gone. Other times its just the opposite--I'm looking for something easy and relaxing so if it looks risky then I'll start over.

Overall, it's actually pretty rare that I'll play a game all the way to thru the tech tree much less to a spaceship win--just takes too many hours of (to me) not very interesting play. I'd guess that I actually play 1 in 5 or maybe 1 in 10 to any kind of victory. I suspect the majority are abandoned because I know I'm going to win and just don't feel like putting the hours into finishing it--more fun to be had in starting a new game.

 

[Homie]

I see some guys saying that they usually abandon games because they have already won it (though not technically) in ancient or medieval. Then maybe it is time to go up a difficulty level or 2? If you usually know that you have won in ancient or early medieval age you are definately playing a level that is below your capabilities.

 

[homeyg]

How come people abandon games that they know they are going to win? I wouldn't do that, I would just win the game and abandon games I know I'm going to lose.

 

[RX2000]

Originally posted by Ribannah
I am abandoning most games now in 1000 BC. At that time the game has usually been decided. There is no way I can lose, it's clear what to expect and how to proceed, and the remainder is just tedious work, so I'd rather start a new game.

I'm pretty much the exact opposite. I cant stand the beginning of the game. Its all planning where cities need to go and fighting wars with swordsmen and horsemen...... /Yawn

I thrive on the modern age. I really like Cold War type games where its me and 1-2 other dominant civs left on the planet. I love having nuclear arms races and knowing that if the other big civ messes with me too much, I have the nuclear option available.

I usually abandon a lot of my games (say 70% or so) in the ancient age if I'm too crowded or I have really crappy terrain.

 

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Homie
I see some guys saying that they usually abandon games because they have already won it (though not technically) in ancient or medieval. Then maybe it is time to go up a difficulty level or 2? If you usually know that you have won in ancient or early medieval age you are definately playing a level that is below your capabilities.

At a higher level than deity, the game is derailing, i.e. the number of things that can happen is rapidly diminishing. It's not civ anymore.

 

[zerksees]

Well I may have to up my loss count to 4. I am in my first C3C game (patched to 1.15) and the Chinese have me "on the ropes" at monarch level.

I may be able to get it back but since he and I are the only ones left, I don't have much room to work.

 

[SesnOfWthr]

Originally posted by zerksees
Well I may have to up my loss count to 4. I am in my first C3C game (patched to 1.15) and the Chinese have me "on the ropes" at monarch level.

I may be able to get it back but since he and I are the only ones left, I don't have much room to work.

I'm sure you can still save it, we've all seen your previous work.

I'm not sure if I'm more surprised you're "on the ropes", or that you finally caved and bought C3C!

 

[Beeblbrox]

I'll usually abandon in Modern Era - as has been mentioned once you've made it that far you generally know you've won. Not that I find the game itself tedious then - my PC can't handle it as I play mega-maps, time between turns goes up to an hour I'd love to actually finish them off, but I only have so much patience - the thought of a nice fast moving restart is just too tempting though.

Technically speaking I will restart a few times when starting a new game for a reasonable start location, but I wont abandon a game once I'm playing it until either the enemy is knocking on my palace gates or until they have no hope of doing so.

Edit: Just occured that I also abandon if I find I'm isolated on an island with no other land visible. I've yet to find a recovery from that position possible for my map setup personally speaking.

 

[zerksees]

Originally posted by SesnOfWthr
I'm sure you can still save it, we've all seen your previous work.

I'm not sure if I'm more surprised you're "on the ropes", or that you finally caved and bought C3C!

Thanks. I was surprised I caved too - I just wanted to learn it so I could have something to contribute here. If I hadn't been so stubborn I probably could have bought it a lot cheaper when Amazon had the sale.

Overnight I have been analyzing my position - realizing what I had done saving other games as you said. What is different this time is I have to get out of a bad situation that I created! I'll probably start a thread on this game in the HOF threads - as the game is a HOF thread. China is at least 4 techs ahead right now, but he just entered indutrial age. As soon as I can get peace I will regroup and find a way to remove him of all those troops (can you say artillery stack?).

 

[alamo]

I abandon about 80% of my games.

Generally it falls into the can't loose or I'm toast categories. Occasionally there are those moments of complete disgust with the gameplay due to culture flip (3 starving but angry farmers vs 8 cav), bogus string of losses (invincible capital defender), tech trading civs (monarchy, republic and construction for your map? sure!), etc.

Sooner or later you get lucky and get a great leader from a warrior. Those are good games.

I seem to be stuck between levels - Reagent and Monarch(?).

With a decent civ and start I can pretty much own half the world by the time infantry come along. The rest is just slogging through the stupid AI tactics.

Then there are those starts on the tip of a desert penisula on a continent with Jerxes and all the other agressive early UU civ's sitting on cows.

 

[Archer 007]

I have never finished a match.

 

[Ementio]

Most of the time I play for fun, and if a game isn't fun, then I'll just dump it. Sometimes, though, I play for a specific challenge or to experiment with a new strategy, and in those cases may persevere even when it gets tedious.

I probably abandon about 1/3 to 1/2 of games because I lose interest, or because I've screwed up and all the other Civs attack me and it becomes hopeless (that rarely happens nowadays). Also, if I don't like a starting position, I'll start a new game unless I've set myself the specific challenge of persevering no matter what.

I've been playing Monarch for about a year and like that level. Emperor is almost a completely different game and I just don't find it as much fun.

My favorite part of the game is the beginning through, let's say, Replaceable Parts. By then, it's usually clear that I'll win and it's just a question of how long. If I do play a game all the way to the end (Domination or Spaceship), the games usually last 12 to 15 hours, but the Modern Age takes at least 4 or 5. For this reason, I find the Modern Age almost a drudgery and don't usually finish--it's just not as fun as attacking with knights and cavalry. But to each his own--I know a lot of folks are just the opposite. That's what makes it a great game; but I also agree with others that Firaxis should tinker with the basics in Civ IV to make the later part of the game more captivating.

 

[Ultraworld]

How many games do you abandon?

90%