How often do you reload a save?

[Roxtar]

Having been raised on the Sierra games (King's Quest, Space Quest, Quest for Glory, etc), I save & reload frequently. Having played Civs 2 & 3 at Warlord, I now play at Settler. I reload for various reasons including:
1. "Heavy-finger-on-mouse syndrome"; that is, I inadvertently move a unit to somewhere other than where I want to send it (or move the wrong unit to a destination I do select);
2. I get a certain type of Great Person & want to see if, by going back a few turns & playing them differently, I can get a different type of Great Person;
3. A Wonder movie I just saw is so great, I wanna see it again!

Yet I also know that if I reload TOO often, the game will lock up during the loading process, Ctrl-Alt-Delete won't work, & the only way out is emergency shutoff/reboot.

 

[Helmling]

When you've invested more than a dozen hours in a game and something goes catastrophically wrong, then it's hard not to pull up an autosave. If you don't, then it's more than just a defeat, it's a lost opportunity to see your plans through to fruition.

So, yeah, I've been guilty of reloading.

I'd reached a point in Civ 3 where I'd always play Ironman--no reloads. But so far in Civ4, I've been learning the ropes, so I think I've been guilty of reloading on almost every game...except, my biggest Prince win just last night...I don't think I reloaded, but I can't remember for sure.

 

[atreas]

Nice points of view generally, but...

I really enjoy seeing "scientific" views blended with "lottary" decisions. For example, it is plain vanilla obvious that, whoever reloads a 95% lost battle seems just to ignore the fact that this percentage means to lose 1 every 20 such battles. Making it 100% by reloading of course alters the game (albeit it maybe improves the game fun for the player - nobody is happy when he loses such a battle).

Still, also interesting is the point of view of "rightful" wins in any level. Of course, it is more rightful without the reloads, but still the player usually has chosen a) a civ of his liking or that fits his style, b) a map style that fits his style, and c) other options (including victory options) according to his style. Don't tell me anything about defaults, because defaults also are options that may or may not fit with somebody's style.

Now let's see about the reloading issue. This same player is given a starting position and (let's make it a bit diverse now) in the first case he goes north and after 10 turns his scout is killed by a lion that appeared from nowhere. It was, according to the "Ironmen", a matter of skill to choose instead going South, where there were 4 village huts with 2 Techs (including Bronge Working!) and 80 Gold.

What I want to say is that, if you want to really test your strength "scientifically" in this game, you shouldnt just stick to avoid reloading. You should also always play random maps with random opponents (in number and in types), play no barbarians, eliminate village huts, and also probably disable tech trading. Only in this way it is only "your efforts and skills only", without huge amounts of luck.

But is this fun? After all, it's just a game!

 

[ellie]

Well i usually save before making a critical decision (war declaration is an example). Havent reloaded yet though. I have a bad habit of putting in 2 or three hours without a save though. Backfired when i got a CTP.

At the end of the day, if reloading helps people enjoy the game more, then great. If no-reloads makes people enjoy it more thats also great.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I never reload. I almost did once because my capital and its 2 machine gun defendrs were killed by 3 knights. Just as I gave thegame another turn I researched bio and got the quote from Darwin about adapting. I adapted and won a diplomatic victory a couple of hundred years later.

It is just that much more fun to try and jump onto a culture race mid-game when you realise the enemy is 3 times the size of you and has 5 times as many cities. In this game I was still at war for pretty much the whole game but I only defended and razed a few weak cities just to further infuriate Izzy. I ended up winning a cultue victory but because of the long campaign into enemy lands and then the constant repeling of invasions since compiled witht he fact I only started culture buildings when I was building cavalry the game went on for thousands of years (~2550).

I do however save frequently more for a bit of reassurance that if things go fataly wrong i can go back. I have been playing civ4 for about 3 months now and I have never reloaded a game (except when I stopped playing). Many a time things have gone wrong but each time I try to find a way around it or through it.

The best civ players are those who can adapt to any given situation. If you can't do that then all you can call yourself is a general, an economist, a civil planner, a patron of the arts or a diplomat. You will never call yourself a leader.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

Saving without reloading is like instilling a warrior with battle fevor. He can march forward knowing that if he should die his sacrifices will be remembered or his soul enritched in heaven.

If saving helps you send a unit into battle do it. But do not reload it ever. It is the same as putting your faith in what you cannot see. The uman race has done this since the dawn of time. Why shouldn't you if it makes a game more fun and if it pushes the envelope of your skills at Civ.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I apologise for 3 opinuionated posts in a row but I have just read the discussion on FPS and thought what the hell.

In FPS I will always save at the start of each level and if I die I will resume from that location. The only exception to this is that with new games and more powerful computers more data can be loaded at once allowing for much larger levels. If a level would take say 45 mins to complete sucessfully I will save once in a location I see as being the middle (a central area or some description).

I also will save if there is some sort of annoying jumping phase where if you pres the jump key a millisecond too late or too soon you will plumet to your death I will save before doing them.

 

[goraemon]

What I want to say is that, if you want to really test your strength "scientifically" in this game, you shouldnt just stick to avoid reloading. You should also always play random maps with random opponents (in number and in types), play no barbarians, eliminate village huts, and also probably disable tech trading. Only in this way it is only "your efforts and skills only", without huge amounts of luck.

How does choosing random maps and random options somehow equate to "your efforts and skills only." If anything the luck factor should be increased because so many things are random and you don't know what to expect. Also it seems that many people recognize disabling tech trading as artificially making the game easier on yourself and frown upon it. Ditto for no barbarians.

 

[silentius]

the only reload action I use is regenerating the map on first turn, if your settler does start in a nasty spot.
other that that - Its more fun to face that battle plan turns upside down once in a while because you just had lost several units due to bad luck and have to redo your battle strategy

 

[TheNiceOne]

Personally, I almost never reload, but may do so when doing some clicking mistake etc. I'll never do it just because I was unlucky in battle or got surprised by an AI or whatever though.

The reason is simply that the games are much more fun to me when I know that my decisions really have an impact. If I just reloaded when my decision turned out to be wrong, then the game would certainly be less interesting.


Reloading isn't cheating though. For something to be cheating, you must actually break a rule by doing it. And there's simply no rule in cIV saying that reloading is illegal. In fact, the save/reload part is built into cIV, which means that it is a part of the game.

Some players may of course have an unwritten personal rule that reloading is cheating, but that doesn't make this rule universal, unless playing GOTM, or bragging of your score or something like that of course.

As for the golf analogy: As far as I'm aware, there are (written) rules in golf, and one of them is how to count the score. If you don't follow this rule, you're cheating because you break a rule - but there's no reload rule to break in cIV.

 

[atreas]

How does choosing random maps and random options somehow equate to "your efforts and skills only." If anything the luck factor should be increased because so many things are random and you don't know what to expect. Also it seems that many people recognize disabling tech trading as artificially making the game easier on yourself and frown upon it. Ditto for no barbarians.

It's very simple:

1. If you know, for example, that the map type is Pangea, you know very well that navy isn't very important at the early stages - so you can really focus on other techs. It's just as if you had "sneaked" in WorldBuilder and had a general snapshot of the world without even trying to explore it. So, it really is easier that way.

2. I think that the early phases of the game have enormous amounts of luck. I wouldn't mind to have (even tons) of Barbarians after 1500-1000 BC without any sign of them at the early game, but these animals really make the early exploration not a matter of skill, but a matter of simple luck. I think that Firaxis could have just another set of options (No Animals) and I would be more than happy with that.

3. As for Tech trading making it easier for the player most opinions in the forums really disagree and say the opposite (you can just check it - about 80% of the people rely on this to have some cash). But still, I dont consider "easy" or "difficult" - just how enormous lucky it makes the early game, without having to do anything with skill. I just think that any "outside" parameteres in the very early phases (that are by far very lucky) should be eliminated if you want to really check your strength. Again, the solution could be to have tech trading start later (perhaps, after Literature and not Alphabet). That way, for example, it would "normalize" better the very much "luck" factor of whom you have in your continent and who are in the other continents. But I am not absolute on this point (contrary to the others), and this is obvious by the original "perhaps".

 

[Rain]

Why do folks reload if they lose a battle irrespective of the odds? I mean if you feel you should win every battle or win every every high percentage one, its biasing outcomes in your favor. Do you reload if you win a battle you should have lost? Maybe the ai should get the reload option too...

 

[sirford]

i'm finding myself to save alot, but i almost never reload it because it just turns out semi-ok atleast in the end.

 

[punchandpie]

only if I make a major mistake, which is quite often.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

I now don't reload pretty much at all (not because it's suppose to be "cheating" but simply I've gotten better to prepare for a backup plan), but I think reloading is a great way for newbies to learn to prevent disasters they've experienced by going back and seeing how it could've been avoided, and why they should've done so.

 

[Artanis]

2. I think that the early phases of the game have enormous amounts of luck. I wouldn't mind to have (even tons) of Barbarians after 1500-1000 BC without any sign of them at the early game, but these animals really make the early exploration not a matter of skill, but a matter of simple luck. I think that Firaxis could have just another set of options (No Animals) and I would be more than happy with that.

I disagree with this. Animals only make early exploration a matter of luck if you outright blindly refuse to build extra explorers. If you actually break up the early Worker/Settler spam with a few Warriors and/or Scouts, losing one to an absurdly lucky Lion is nothing but a marginal (if irritating) setback.

Dealing with Barbarians is also largely a matter of skill. Yes, there's luck involved, but if you approach them properly, you can tilt the "luck" so far in your favor that any "unlucky" hits from them will be relatively minor and easily repaired.

 

[goraemon]

1. If you know, for example, that the map type is Pangea, you know very well that navy isn't very important at the early stages - so you can really focus on other techs. It's just as if you had "sneaked" in WorldBuilder and had a general snapshot of the world without even trying to explore it. So, it really is easier that way.

Pangaea is about as standard as Great Plains or Archipelago are standard. There is more of an inherent randomness in Continents. Notwithstanding any of that, though, don't even compare using worldbuilder to choosing a general map type.

2. I think that the early phases of the game have enormous amounts of luck. I wouldn't mind to have (even tons) of Barbarians after 1500-1000 BC without any sign of them at the early game, but these animals really make the early exploration not a matter of skill, but a matter of simple luck. I think that Firaxis could have just another set of options (No Animals) and I would be more than happy with that.

Now you're just talking about nonstandardizing the entire aspect of the game. Look, standard options are standard options for a reason. You're free to play or want to play the game however you want, but in a strategy forum standard options are kind of a common denominator; it's one of the signs of legitimacy for a strategy (People don't have a lot of respect for a strategy that works only on duel pangaea for example). No barbs, no tech trading, etc. take away from that.

And you keep saying how this or that is "lucky" - puhlease! Much of this game is about how you adapt to what the luck of the draw hands to you, especially at the beginning. Adapting well is a sign of skill. Eliminating or minimizing that luck factor in the beginning is hardly a more accurate representation of skill.

3. As for Tech trading making it easier for the player most opinions in the forums really disagree and say the opposite (you can just check it - about 80% of the people rely on this to have some cash). But still, I dont consider "easy" or "difficult" - just how enormous lucky it makes the early game, without having to do anything with skill. I just think that any "outside" parameteres in the very early phases (that are by far very lucky) should be eliminated if you want to really check your strength.

I know at least one example of a strategy article written for this forum for emperor (the guy called it "emperator") where the guy depended on no tech trading to win, and admitted he couldn't beat it on default settings (been a while ago so he might be able to beat it now, haven't checked). I'll provide it if you want. That's at least one instance of hard evidence against your not-so-firm stance. And once again, you keep treating luck and skill as mutually exclusive - they're not, for reasons mentioned above. Just as an analogy, think of a game like poker, where there is enormous luck every single round of betting, but it's a skill-intensive game because you have to adapt to what the draw hands to you amongst other things.

 

[eric_]

Lets say I have a tough shot near some water. Normally my safe routine is to lay it up short and get to the green after. Hell we are playing CIV *save* lets go for the green on the first shot just for fun. Whack into the water. Well I thought that was going to happen, I am not good enough to make that shot yet. *Reload* alright lets stick to the safe shot.

This is a good example of how I use a reload (that and thinking I'm moving one unit but I actually move another, or if I accidentally let go of the mouse while checking odds). But when I reload this way, I reload a few times, trying to figure out how different approaches affect the outcome. Trial and error does have its place in the learning process.

 

[eric_]

As for the world builder, I had no idea how powerful it was until I opened it once out of curiosity. Damn...that's the last time I go in there

 

[TacNuke]

The only time I reload in CIV has been when I group a setter and warrior and accidently end up only moving the Settler, who then promptly gets killed by the lurking barbarian wolf/lion/axeman etc. Other than that I have not really seen a need to reload.

Now, in Civ 2 I reloaded all the time, especially when I missed completing a wonder I had been working on for the last 20 turns.

Anywho, I say to each his own as to reloading, heck use the Civ 4 discs for coasters for all I care, you purchased the game.