Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Lincoln3457, Apr 8, 2009.
Would you quit if you lost 3 wars and your biggest city?
I would certainly see if any avenue to victory was still open. If there was a possibility of a space-race victory or a cultural or diplomatic victory than I would continue to play. And even if there wasn't... I would probably still stick around just to see how many problems I could cause for everyone else.
I'm a chronic quitter, so yes.
Probably, since if I've lost three wars, there's probably no way to win.
I would go out fighting. Once, i was 100% sure i was going to lose, because my cities had started a Revolution (playing RevDCM), and i was terribly behind in tech. I built up an army, massive army, then declared on everyone.
You can't "actually" lose in a game. You may be hopeless, but because the AI is so stupid, you can easily work your way back up. The Internet makes it all the easier.
I was in the classical era with axes while the AI had longbows and some had maces, while i was boxed in and had 3 cities. I was pretty much screwed at that point.
Don't know about you, but I would count it as a loss if you loose your last city. The description of what we are voting on isn't exactly clear, 3 wars lost could be okay if it were over 300 turns, loosing your biggest city can be overcome if you are playing a huge map and have 50 other cities to take over.
I would assume that the real question asked here is, when would you quit?
I will gladly admit that I'm a sore looser, if I had to spend all my time just surviving beating back wave after wave in wars never ending because you never get the time to build up and as such will never rise high enough on the power listing to actually stop every semi-warmonger out there DoW you. Yes, it might be possible to actually pull a win off but its usually a slim chance and you are going to invest quite a lot of time in it.
So I would quit after loosing 3 wars (if relative soon to each other) though the loss of my biggest city would probably just inspire some kind of vendetta against the AI, but then again I play on huge maps so 1 city isn't my entire empire
Your definitely correct, but I was talking about in general, when you lose, it's mainly because you up'ed to a new level. When you playing the same level again, and you face difficult enemies, like Shaka, you know how to approach him. You know he's a backstabber and he will attack you. So you build a bunch of Longbowman and he takes a few cities before you hold him back. At this time, your severely crippled and you think you got no chance to catch up. A lot of people quit at this time of game (at least I think so), and so do I. Its not a matter if I'm going to lose or not, because I won't, its the enjoyability of the game. Then again, this is my opinion, and it may be contrary to the majority's opinion.
Have you never had the AI pull a quick Diplo or cultural victory on you? If not, go up a level
I did have an AI launch his ship against me in one of my first Monarch games, but that was mostly due to me getting tunnel vision near the end of the game and not paying enough attention. I couldn't build nukes and couldn't get to his cap in time. Most dissappointing loss ever. But it does suck when you get lax on diplo and someone gets a couple of vassals and-poof-you lose via the UN. Luckily I've never lost to an AP victory before, but I'm sure that happens too.
I can't imagine triple-war in SP unless I was going out of my way to entice that. I find other ways to lose, though. Usually a super powerful AI dowing me while another goes for culture or space does the trick. It's rare that I lose any other way, so it does get a bit old losing the same way over and over...I try not to lose at all .
Losing three wars, hmm. My interpretation of losing a war is if the enemy captured at least 2 of my cities and they have somehow decimated my war stack and my cities have only 1 or 2 defenders.
My idea of a war was you lose 1 or 2 cities, most of your army, and diplomatic relations with whatever country you were at war with.
Definately. I play to absolutely win on Monarch dificulty and to survive in the lead on Emperor and above. Then again, if there is a possibility of winning then it's not worth quitting.
Yea the definition of loss is to vague but losing 2 good cities stack decimated and being forced to beg for peace is a lost war to me.
I have quit after one war lost. New level and I was tunnel visioned for infrastucture. Didn't even have mining yet and Boudica sent an axe/spear stack and took my best city my capital. I didn't even have horses. Only had two other cities and with out even mining yet it seemed like a death blow so I took it as a well learned lesson.
The first paragraph I quoted you on sounds like the mid-game I go through every single time. I usually end up with a Domination or Conquest when this occurs (largely because I get peeved at the AI and chase them to the end of the Earth to eradicate them). The only time I get a peaceful victory is when I'm not dogpiled and attacked like a raw steak by a rapid pack of wolves.
The only times I have quit a game are after I've lost interest or it's been a month since I've played (if you call that a loss), or if I've just moved up a difficulty level and I got smeared. In that case, I lost half my empire and the 3-5 AIs still wanted cities for peace. In retrospect, I might have given up too quickly, because in recent games I have somehow scraped and actually held onto all my cities despite AI dogpiles.
I play small maps too, so when you only have 5 cities, losing a couple good ones is pretty severe. I'm guessing it's a lot different for the Large and Huge map players.
If it was the future, and I could just blast them with Stealth Bombers / Modern Armor / Howitzers, no.
If it was the ancient era, and somebody sacked my capital, and a few cities, and the rest of them had no trees around to chop out a death legion to take it back, most likely.
One time I was screwed when the barbarians sacked my capital, and I only had a size 1 city left. I quit pretty quickly. lol
Did it drain all of the fun out of the game? That has happened to me sometimes when I lost a highly promoted GG. I just saved and never resumed the game, because seeing how far I could take the unit was the "One More Turn " factor. In my current game, wonder, tech, and exploration races are the factor. Sometimes it's random events and quests.
Sometimes surviving to the end of time is a victory as far as I'm concerned.
Your case reminds me of my first game of Broken Star scenario, I decided to write off the game and turn it into an experiment. I reloaded at the turning point, and World-Built 2 mechanized artillery with barrage promotions into my stack. It made all of the difference.
Anyway, I voted no because for me, it's not how well or badly the game is going, but how interesting it is, that determines whether I see it through to a victory or defeat. If the game gets as dull & predictable as using a shovel, I'll probably save it before I go to bed, and never resume it.
I never quit, but continue to play until victory or bitter end.
Once, playing at Prince, I was defeated late in the game, lost 5-6 cities and had to give away another one for peace. But in the end I won that game, with cultural victory. I guess the fact that I disabled time and space victory helped . You can see the details here.
That makes a huge difference, because I never disable victory conditions.
Separate names with a comma.