How many games do you actually finish?

I don't plan on moving up since I still lose games on my current difficulty level - monarch. I've even been barb rushed several times (with events off).

I play marathon as well which makes warring easier.

 

You, my friend, are ruthlessly efficient. People like me tend to wander with goals and strategies when it seems like the pressure is off.

For example, I could have a game going really well for me and could load up the galleons and head of to the other continent to finish the job with rifles and cannons. However, once I see that my whole continent has become a commerce/hammer generating powerhouse, I often tend to say to myself, "I'll just pick up combustion and flight before I head off to finish this game." By the time I do that, I've probably stopped building troops in many cities in order to "just add a forge to that newly captured city."

By the time I actually get around to the intercontinental invasion, I've wasted AT LEAST an hour of game time that could have been spent capturing the last bit of territory I needed for domination.

This stupid game always sucks me in with just one more thing to build, or one more technology to discover.

 

Well marathon is not really my thing, but ok.

What I do nknow though, is that by picking your techs more careful and taking a little bit more time deciding what to prioritise in each and every city and where to move your units, I managed to skip monarch alltogether. After reading Rusten's walkthroughs on these boards I jumped from prince to emperor just like that. When even taking in more tips from these boards I moved up to immortal where I still lose, yet I rake in wins as well on a regular basis.

Trust me, just because you lose now and then does not mean that you cannot get a level up. take your time to get adjusted a bit, and you will soon see that after a loss or two you can keep up just fine. You will start to win on a regular basis, and when you move back to monarch - if that is what you want to play - you will win pretty much as a given fact.

 

The only reason I quit a game is a total disaster in the beginning like losing one of 3 first cities to barbs. All other games I play to the end.

The TMIT's walkthrough of speed civving helped me a lot; however, to play a turn based game with the same time limitations as in an RTS still goes against me.

 

I second that from the bottom of my very soul.

 

I finish games. The end-game is what I've been building to since my plebs learned to bang the rocks together. The units are good and often well promoted, colonies are doing there own thing and lending a tech now and then and war is often a foreign adventure aiding an ally. Adding in playing with corps and monopolising every damn fish, crab and clam is also fun.

 

I finish games because I switched platforms recently and my Hall of Fame is pathetically short now.

 

If I am in the late game and i basically won a conquest or domination victory, i quit. I hate Mech Infantry-era warfare.

 

It is when the intended target has destroyers floating around the map.


I tend to be a little cautious, so in a situation like this I spend a good bit of time each turn scouting the ocean with dirigibles in case my target is coming to me, so each turn takes 5 minutes, which is how things add up to an hour or more to build a fleet or an army.

As to looking at high scores: If I have a high-score type game going, I probably would finish. The OP game was at Monarch and it was already 1875, so no particularly high score was to be had. Had I been playing at Emperor and the date been 1700 I might have gone for it.

 

You would only need to go scouting waters if 1) An AI was at a disposition where you are an eligible target 2) your power isn't already too massive to be a legit target (maxdistantpowerratio for a lot of AIs is reasonable, and if you control the continent you might actually surpass it) and 3) it is in WHEOOHRN.

If you are using BUG or BUFFY or whatever, you don't even have to check for 3. And seriously, if you're talking about a BLOWOUT game you're sure to win, why are you being cautious ?

Galleons/frigates vs destroyers is asinine. One option is to ship a huge gob and then declare (no reinforcements but initial hitter is enough to cap, then ferry more in between wars). However, one could just build wealth in their 30 cities to quickly get to combustion and possibly flight, then go on the warpath.

Massed fighters + anything does pretty well.

Alternatively if you're really runaway you can just spam end turn researching fission/rocketry and chain cap using nukes. This will give you a very late finish date but once you have nukes nothing can touch you.

Also, if you *must* use airships to scout constantly, rather than floundering about in your waters for 5 minutes every turn, go into AI territory with them, and do air missions until you find their stack (the AI will bunch its transport-based invasion fleet in 1 city). Stick a blimp on each of those suckers, and then you only need to mouse over to see if they moved out...but I don't see how that's necessary if you're checking war mode and know diplo.

 

No, I mean i find it boring. There's no variety; Tanks attack, mech infantry defend, that's it. In medieval times, you have to put a couple of pikeman to defend against knights, crossbowmen and macemen against melee. And of course, a couple of Longbowman. usually, 1 pike, 1 crossbow, 2 longbow.

 

Sure, if you choose to ignore available units and play poorly, it's "boring". If you think it's "tanks attack, mechinf defend" only you'd get utterly mauled by someone halfway competent or a high level AI.

Let's look at our options in medieval:

Mace
Xbow
Pike
Lbow
Knight
Treb

One anti melee, one anti-mounted, one city defender, one melee city attacker, one basic mounted that doesn't hard counter anything, and a typical siege unit. 6 options with some paper-rock-scissors to it.

Now let's go on to modern:

Tank
Infantry
Marine
Arty
Paratrooper
Tatical Nuke/ICBM
Fighter
Bomber
Anti-Tank
SAM Infantry

Mech inf and modern armor + gunships show up later...as do things like SAMS/MArty etc. but it's the same idea. Notably gunships take the place of anti-tanks however, and either they or nukes complement paratroopers very, very well.

So:

1 armor unit, 1 hard counter to an armor unit, 1 air unit better vs other air and naval, 1 air unit better for inflicting ground damage, one unit on the ground that counters air, 1 basic defender, 1 specialized naval attacker, 1 unit that adds speed/dynamic placement (paratooper), 1 typical siege unit, and the ultimate mass collateral unit in the game.

There are more unit types, more hard counters, and more strategic variance in modern times. We haven't even TOUCHED the difference in NAVAL warfare between the eras!

Anybody who can count should be able to see that there's MORE variety in later eras, not less...not to mention some strategies that are completely impossible until then.

 

sorry, im a noob.

 

I'm not trying to point noob fingers here (relative to some people, I am too). My point is that you're probably missing out . I mean, you just talked about modern era warfare without using nukes! Watching 50-100 units disappear in an instant for a sliver of their hammer cost isn't just fun...it's poetry .