How often do you continue saved games?

[The googles do nothing]

I was reading https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/as-an-estimate-what-percent-of-your-wins-are-each-victory-type.646140/ and it made me realize how few games that I start I actually finish. For me I don't think this is because I don't like the late game. When i have made it to the late game I enjoy it. I has to do with being able to remember what I was trying to do, or not thinking I had played very well, or being in the mood for MP. I also like/need sleep and starting a game at 9 PM (21:00 military time ) doesn't leave much more then an hour time to play and get much done picking up a saved game.

 

[679x]

I very rarely continue saved games beyond the modern era, and I'm not entirely sure why as I don't particularly dislike the lategame. I think it comes down to the fact that once the game gets late enough, I'm just clicking things until it tells me I won the game. Maybe part of that has to do with the difficulty I play at, but I don't want to raise it or else the early game gets crazy unbalanced and I can't settle anywhere. So, rather than continue games right up until the victory screen, I just decide that I'm done with that one and create a new game as a different civ.

Now that I think about it, I did also do the same thing a lot in Civ 5. I dunno.

 

[CRK0116]

I made an account just so I could refute the sense of "by the late game I'm just clicking the next turn button until I win". In my opinion, it doesn't need to feel that way and if it is you aren't trying hard enough to challenge yourself.
If you have this type of feeling about Civ 6, I think it is because of one of two things:

-You've found a winning strategy at that difficulty and refuse to deviate from it. Either bump up the difficulty, try something different next game, or give up since you have mastered the game inside an out if you did the first two as much as you could.

-Sure, you will eventually win just by coasting along, but will you win as quickly and decisively as possible? Take the opportunity to really maximize your efficiency and might and you will have something to keep you occupied in the late game. If even while doing this you feel the late game is a slog, move on to a game like Factorio that will truly challenge your ability to be efficient, since apparently Civ 6 is just too simple for you.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I probably quit 75% of my games by the time I get to the modern era or slightly later, because at that point I'm just waiting for the spaceship to get there/tourism numbers to rack up/etc, but I usually do that in 3 or 4 sessions.

 

[Leucarum]

It depends on the game quite a lot. Games where I end up on an unusual map layout, wih an unexpectedly strong AI opponent... Or ones where I decided to try an unusual bunch of wonders or a strange religion setup are ones I'm more likely to go back to finish. Otherwise once you have taken the lead from the AI it gets less interesting.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

I do my best to try and focus on playing one game at a time. Otherwise, I'll end up starting something, saving midway through, and end up forgetting about it. So at least half my saves are not finished games, nor will they ever be. Plus, it's the same problem as loading an old RPG save: trying to remember what quests you did, what you had for goals, where you've been, etc., that it's just easier to start fresh

 

[Icicle]

Once I realize victory is inevitable I will finish the game if I can do it in the same session, but if I end up having to save and leave I have a hard time loading a game that I know I can't possibly lose.

-Sure, you will eventually win just by coasting along, but will you win as quickly and decisively as possible? Take the opportunity to really maximize your efficiency and might and you will have something to keep you occupied in the late game. If even while doing this you feel the late game is a slog, move on to a game like Factorio that will truly challenge your ability to be efficient, since apparently Civ 6 is just too simple for you.

Unfortunately I can't convince myself that winning faster is more of a challenge.

I do heartily agree with the second half of this though, it might just be the change of pace but I'm really digging EU4 lately.

 

[gooberman]

I finish all of my games because it would bug me not to.

That being said that's the reason why I play domination 95% of the time. I don't always plan it from the start but I end up going that way to get the game over quicker.

Science and culture just take to long clicking next over and over.

 

[Aldor]

I pretty much go for peaceful victories only.

When I get a reasonable start, I play until I have claimed all (or most of) the good city spots that I want (often including some early warfare). Normally at this point I'm somewhere in the middle ages, maybe early industrial. Then I realize that from that point on, it will take at least as long, maybe twice as long to get to the end as it took to get here (1-1.5 hours). That's usually when my drive to play implodes and I save the game.

I rarely continue these games, it just takes too long for my taste. Sometimes I will continue a game that was particularly interesting, but usually in several more sessions instead of one long finish.

 

[WillowBrook]

Once I find a start I like for a particular civ, I'll keep playing that game until I win, with very few exceptions. That typically takes 10-20 play sessions over several weeks. (Scenarios are different; they usual only take 2-3 play sessions.)

I should note that "finding a start I like" can involve playing the first ten to sixty turns a few handful of times with a given leader and map settings. But not always. Sometimes I play the first roll.

 

[Naeshar]

I finish games on first session only very rarely. Saving is a must, but I only keep one game alive. Though I leave other savegames, I found that I never get back to them. I deleted all previous last Friday .
Either I finish the game or fire up new one and never finish the previous. Or never save, if I don't like what I played the last hour.

 

[Equilin]

a patch usually broke it so i usually have to start a new one, or a mod update

 

[Gorbles]

I start or restart games all the time. I like exploring optimal gameplay, so when I come up against an obvious blocker that's delaying more than a bunch of turns, I just restart. I know my win times on Prince, that's not the issue, I just like seeing what are map factors (resource allocation) and what are more environmental (barbarians have always been a sore point, but also what space I have to settle in and so on).

So I don't really load many saved games; only a few make it to a point where I'd consider saving them, hah

 

[CPWimmer]

I play a single game over multiple sessions (similar to @WillowBrook ) often covering a week to a month of time depending on how slowly/or how often I play. I also very rarely abandon games.

 

[Jkchart]

Earliest versions of the game (pre-Australia DLC) I was more of just messing around than finishing games because I was exploring the new features and content, and recognized that the game needed some polish. After Australia came out, I slowly began being more committed, and after R+F I've found myself playing the game a lot, finishing games after multiple sessions. I've finished 24 saves and am closing on a 25th; I'm trying to commit to playing each leader/Civ combo at least once fully, so finishing a whole game.

 

[shaglio]

Almost 100% of the games I save, I continue until I finish them. It's rare that I'll actually give up on a game before it's completed. And when I do quit on a game, it's usually right at the start (if I'm trying for a certain setup, but the map doesn't cooperate).

 

[Starwars]

It depends a bit on where I save. Like someone mentioned, if I'm well into the "yeah, this game is won" territory then I'll just start a new one the next time. Even with the additions and everything to the late game it's just not as fun when compared to the early game for me. There's nothing to "rival" that early exploration and expansion. IF the AI declares war later on it can be a bit of fun IF they actually manage to show up with an army but those are still pretty big if's unfortunately.

But yeah, most of the time I like to start a new game.

 

[Bagfran]

I only ever have one game on the go at a time, which I just resume between play sessions - so almost always, even when it's obvious that winning is just a matter of time!

 

[Malachi256]

I save games and keep playing, but I also rarely finish games. The early game is full of interesting choices and drama, while the late game is mostly an efficiency simulation with lots of annoying fluff to deal with.

 

[Deadly Dog]

I had to check my saved games before answering...I have a save of every victory, which adds up to just 16 saves in a graveyard of over 200 abandoned games. LOL. And I know there are many I don't even save, or have deleted. Only 3 vics since GS, all cultural! I have two saves of potential dom wins with Suleiman and Corvinius, but many turns of moving units would be involved.

To use the snowball analogy...I enjoy games when I'm pushing the ball uphill, but once the crest is reached and it becomes a downhill game, as in the snowball is rolling and growing pretty much on its own, I often lose interest. Maybe the games I finish are when that downhill part is still a little bit of a race with the AI, but also depends on the map.

I try to stay at the immortal/deity level and almost exclusively play Epic speed. Probably why I don't finish many, as full games last 350-450 turns (I'm not a very focused player and will pursue wonder/GP's that don't really advance victory but because I like them). Is there a general consensus on how playing Epic speed skews the difficulties?