How many of your games do you actually finish?

[Culture Bomb]

In my case, the answer is: hardly any.

I start a lot of games, and spend much more time than I should playing, but once I'm in a dominant position where I could easily get a military victory, then I tend to start a new game rather than actually grinding out the win.

It's not so bad if I'm going for space or culture, or can overrun the world with horse archers, but moving a stack of cannons one. tile. at. a. time. through enemy terrain gets tedious quickly, and it's even worse if I need to attack another continent.

IMO, one of the biggest flaws with all the Civ games is that war matters too much, but is not actually that interesting, especially with the large numbers of units needed in the late game. Civ IV is not as bad as III in this respect, but it's still enough that given the limited amount of time I have to play games, I'd rather start a new game and focus on the more interesting early part of the game.

 

[UnforcedError]

I do finish games in general but like you I also have many unfinished saves labeled "Peri IMM just has to take out Pac to win" or "Lincoln IMM needs 100 t for culture" etc. Some end games can indeed be boring as hell and I'm a real fan of the early exploration phase where you'd have to develop a particular strategy for the new map. For me space races / chain capitulation conquests are probably the easiest to actually finish, as the end game would be more interesting.

 

[lymond]

I recommend playing GOTMs and HOF challenges, if you are having trouble finishing games. The competitive aspect (both personal and against others) provides more incentive to finish.

With that said, I tend to start games, either forum or just random, that I generally play to a "winning position" and then abandon. Sometimes I finish them, but most of the time I don't. But I always finish GOTMs and HOF games unless I blow it.

I disagree about warfare there, for the most part. I find the warfare in CIV IV interesting, except when it involves excessive late game naval warfare. Mounted warfare is really fun IMO, and incorporates more tactics than snail armies. Gallic Warriors and to a lesser degree Jags have interesting tactics as well.

Oh...I also recommend trying Succession games - either the SG sub-forum to Stories and Tells or the CFC SGOTM (sub-forum of the GOTM forum). A new SGOTM (Succession Game of the Month) is starting up very soon...should be announced this week.

 

[UnforcedError]

@Lymond: I've been toying with the idea to try some BOTM / HOF games just for the fun of it and because I think it's actually the best way to improve my game as well. I'm just not sure about posting some games with outrageously bad finish times / scores (Never really tried to optimize time or score and I'm not even sure I'd like to focus too much on those aspects.) Shall I always envision the 'rotten tomato' medals then?

EDIT: btw I generally love early warfare (harassing / conquering the first civ). It's the general repetitiveness that makes me abandon games in the end. And I suck at wooden naval warfare.

 

[lymond]

@Lymond: I've been toying with the idea to try some BOTM / HOF games just for the fun of it and because I think it's actually the best way to improve my game as well. I'm just not sure about posting some games with outrageously bad finish times / scores (Never really tried to optimize time or score and I'm not even sure I'd like to focus too much on those aspects.) Shall I always envision the 'rotten tomato' medals then?

Well, I would give the BOTM's a try for starters. Don't worry about submitting games that don't stack up at first. The difficulty levels constantly vary from game to game and there are a full spectrum of players from super experienced to green. I tend to finish in the top tier now, but still have only medaled a few times. Starting out though I was at the bottom. I've enjoyed the process of improving my game and seeing myself rise in the rankings. Between GOTMs, Strategy & Tips forum and HOF it's helped a lot. BOTM's can have some fun maps and themes as well.

HOF is really a different sort of animal. The cool thing is that you can roll optimal starts for settings. It really is all about squeezing the best out of the situation and getting the fast win or highest score. However, it is also about getting on the HOF board regardless. You can qualify for Quattromasters or Elite without being tops. Just complete the different parameters like all the Map types, Leaders, Difficulties etc.

Ultimately, for both types, it all about playing and sharing with others. Talking about your games and sharing tips on how to win or handle certain situations. It adds a lot to the Civ experience IMO.

 

[UnforcedError]

^^ Thank you I guess I'll take a deep breath and try my luck then. Looking at the current BOTM I'll probably need it (and I smell wooden navy ).

 

[damerell]

It's not so bad if I'm going for space or culture,

Curious. I finish every game, but I see the problem the other way around; I end up shooting up the tech tree to launch the spaceship, when I had the game in the bag for some time and should just have stomped everyone into a pulp with Infantry.

 

[rah]

Yeah, with the exception of when I'm going for a culture victory, whenever I try another type I usually just end up killing everyone.

 

[wazzzuup]

one of every 4 games i finish!!
LOL

 

[Lord_Herobrine]

Yeah, I'm debating about whether to finish a game I have going now. Playing as China and have conquered from korea to france and about to conquer egypt, mali, and russia.

 

[Earth AD 2754]

I have the same problem. I can't seem to finish most games.

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

That's why I miss the old rules of being able to vote urself a diplo win in the pre BtS games. I always saw it as a "games over so just build UN so I can win and move on to new game" feature

Kaytie

 

[damerell]

Yeah, with the exception of when I'm going for a culture victory, whenever I try another type I usually just end up killing everyone.

Even with the culture victory, that's a risk. Unlike the AI, you're playing to win. Rival's close to a culture victory? Take their capital. Rival's building spaceship parts? Take their hammer cities. Rival might win a diplomatic victory? Take the AP city and burn it down. Most paths lead to war.

 

[s.bernbaum]

I always finish my games. I'm playing for the fun of playing the game, not to know that I would have won if I finished. I always pick one of the victory conditions fairly early in the game, often before I start or as soon as I see who my country and leader are (I always set that for random). I then actively avoid winning by any other victory condition. So, I will frequently have an army that could wipe out all the AIs, but only use it for defense or to take out an AI who is about to win by culture, especially since I only choose a military victory once in while, preferring all the peaceful ones. (Of course my idea of defense is that if an AI attacks me, it is a dead AI. )

 

[Culture Bomb]

I guess the problem is that I only find the game interesting as long as the outcome is in doubt. So if I'm going for culture but someone might declare war on me before I win, or I'm building a space ship and someone else is close to launching theirs or winning culture, then I'll keep on playing.

For military victories there comes a point where the game is essentially over, but there is still a lot of work to do in moving armies about to actually destroy/vassalize the remaining opponents. And I say 'work' meaning something I don't enjoy doing - this is a game and is meant to be fun.

Space and culture victories can get boring as well, if no one else is even close, but just pressing enter to end turn doesn't take as long as moving all those units about.

I guess I could keep the interest by aiming to win at the earliest possible date or with the highest possible score, but I find that less enjoyable than just starting a new map.

 

[GEFORCED]

yeah, game becomes a grind after 200 turns, if there's no risk of ruin in your decisions wheres the fun? I prefer multiplayer because humans concede when they are clearly defeated, the ai dont

 

[Tred]

On conquest games, I play until I have conquered two civs and am leading in 3 of the 4 most important benchmarks. There is no doubt about the outcome at that point. If I leave sooner than that, I wonder if I am declaring victory prematurely.

I wish the game had an "early" victory option when you get a decisive lead.

 

[Redcoat1]

I finish the majority of the games as I find I learn something from virtually every game. One of my recent games was lost as Sitting Bull sabotaged one of my SS components and went on to launch 2 turns before me. Seems I learn best from humiliation?

 

[Sanguivorant]

That's an interesting question.

As for me, I rarely finish a game. I've played at least 30 games and only ever completed five. However, most of the time I end a game in the late 1900s, when I can tell the outcome.

In the earlier steps of the game, up to 1700, I usually stay because of exploration. Terra or tectonics with old world starts are my favourite games to play, because of the colonization aspect that I find very fun to partake in. After exploration, competition keeps me in the game. I do enjoy seeing another civ having a score higher than me by a few hundred points and seeing if I can out-score that civ in any way possible. The only thing keeping me in the modern age is a "cold war" scenario, where there are only two main factions, me and a rival civ, competing for supremacy.

If I am at least 500 points ahead from the next AI, and I am doing good with economy, production, military, diplomacy and culture, i am most likely to stop playing, as there is no challenge then.

 

[Drakarska]

Depends on if we're talking base BTS or modded. If we're going base, then most of the time I rarely complete a game once i've assured my dominance as World Grand Pooh Bah At Large. However, I usually play mods, and I'm willing to bet that i've completed almost all of my games ( win or lose) that i've initially started.