I can't stop starting new games!

[Xoon]

I have a problem. I don't know if it's attention span or ADD or what, but I love starting a new game. I like to expand, grow cities, explore, race for wonders. But sometime around the ind. era, it seems like it just bogs down, maybe in some unwinnable war or just that the entire world is pretty much built out, but I start to think "Hmmm, I'll bet it would be interesting to try Venice or those Shoshone Pathfinders look cool" and then I restart. I've probably started 6 civs in the past month only to build my first factory and start over.

I need help. Any therapists on here want to take a shot?

 

[docbud]

I do the same thing. By late game I usually find myself getting bored and decide to start a new game. I probably only finish 2 or 3 games out of ten.
But usually it's because I'm so far ahead that I don't doubt I'll win.
I don't think you need a therapist

 

[Sclb]

I do the same thing. By late game I usually find myself getting bored and decide to start a new game. I probably only finish 2 or 3 games out of ten.
But usually it's because I'm so far ahead that I don't doubt I'll win.
I don't think you need a therapist

You really need to play on higher difficulty. On deity it is actually possible to lose and AI can launch with a SV and also rarely CV.

 

[Finnagain]

True about higher difficulty, but there is certainly a type of player whose favorite part of the game is the exploring part. Count me among them.

Also, if you are one of them too, consider a game called VGAplanets. It has a huge amount of it, and I bet you can still play some starter games for free at VGAplanets.nu.

 

[EvilPocatello]

All I can say, Xoon, is that you are not alone. Like docbud, 8 out of 10 of my games fizzle out, I don't feel the need to see the win through to the very end. I love history, the closer I get to the modern era, the more I lose interest.

It's your game, and your experience. If you enjoy playing that way that is all that matters. I suppose it is good for you to know that many of us experience the game the same way.

 

[kamex]

I don't have this problem with Civ, but I do with almost every rpg I play. Example, getting half way through the game and wondering what it would have been like to get this far as a caster, or strength build, or tank etc. lol

 

[meatpardle]

Yeah add me to this list. BNW did a very good job of making the later stages more interesting that previous versions but it's still very easy to get bogged don once exploration fizzles out, especially if going for a SV.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I am in the same boat too. But for me besides getting bored if I am far ahead, it has also to do with the longer turntimes. I play on huge and with even longer gamespeed than marathon (2000 turns).

 

[docbud]

You really need to play on higher difficulty. On deity it is actually possible to lose and AI can launch with a SV and also rarely CV.

I probably should move up a level. But I mainly play to have fun. And one game can take me a week to play as I only play an hour or two a night. So by the third or fourth night, I'm tired of the current game and many times forget exactly why I did what I did the night before.

 

[darkimpaler]

You're not alone my friend, I like starting new games because I really like seeing the uncontamined world being settled and slowly built upon.
At the begin of Modern Era, I usually just go on with the game but without the appeal it had in the first part...

 

[Ninakoru]

To me, a big part is game flow design:

- After some point, building new cities is a big drawback, you get a higher cost for future policies and techs right off the bat, and a new city totally undeveloped in exchange. After about 100 turns (standard speed) is not a great deal.

- The game has some restrictions and regulations, but in the end there's an underlying snowball effect, if you get ahead the other civs, there's no way you can lose.

- As you all know, game combat AI is horrid, after the medieval era, provided you get a minimal defense group, and do minimum maintenance in defense units, there's absolutely no way they are able to beat you at warfare even with 20x more combat units.

- AI is also horrible at pursuing victories, usually unable to get a CV or DV due to YOU, and SV that doesn't depend so heavily on player interactions, can be easily disable capturing their capital. If you lose by game turns with other vics enabled you're definitively doing it all wrong.

 

[beetle]

I've probably started 6 civs in the past month only to build my first factory and start over.

Are you playing standard pace? I love the early exploration too, and the medieval wars, but I think the game starts to get really interesting about the time I am building my first factory!

...if you get ahead the other civs, there's no way you can lose ... there's absolutely no way they are able to beat you at warfare even with 20x more combat units.

I would think the game is a lot less interesting if you cannot possibly loose. The sandbox empire building has some appeal, but I would think that wears off.

At the begin of Modern Era, I usually just go on with the game but without the appeal it had in the first part...

That is about the point in the game where I start to catch and the pace seem to quicken. I usually do not know if I am going to win (or not) until the VC (or archeology) screen pops up.

I probably should move up a level. But I mainly play to have fun.

Absolutely. How fun is it to be missing half what the game has to offer? BTW, are you playing standard pace?

 

[docbud]

^^^Hey beetle--yeah, I play on standard pace. I used to play epic, but games would take me a week-and-a-half.

I play emperor most of the time, though I sometimes drop down to king just to have fun and relax.

I find that on Immortal that I get too frustrated with the buffs the AI gets. I know at those levels one shouldn't try to build wonders. But it is frustrating when I've got a great salt and marble salt, and one of the AIs builds GL on turn 20.

 

[Sclb]

- AI is also horrible at pursuing victories, usually unable to get a CV or DV due to YOU, and SV that doesn't depend so heavily on player interactions, can be easily disable capturing their capital. If you lose by game turns with other vics enabled you're definitively doing it all wrong.

Yes AI is pretty bad for the most part, but it can actually win on deity. In order to prevent AI from winning SV, you will have to conquer their capital to slow down their science but it doesn't prevent them from building SS parts elsewhere since the capital is simply moved. If you take too long to do so they can still win.

Also AI can runaway with culture and actually win CV on deity but it is more rare than SV, usually if they have tradition/rationalism combo and able to build most wonders easily. It is impossible to stop AI from winning CV without capturing some culture cities. Great Firewall can be built but usually AI will be ahead in this case and build it before you can.

I've also seen deity Alex almost win DV since it is possible that they spend 500g to buy one CS each turn. Usually it works best for them to go gunboat diplomacy from autocracy since they can build tons of units. Deity AI also knows how to use spies to coup CS. Only way to stop them winning in this case would be to spend more than 500g on some CS and DoW immediately prevent them from making peace.

 

[Xoon]

I've been playing epic and maybe that's the problem

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I'm the same way. I rarely finish a civ5 game. The early game is good. I like figuring out where to expand to, dealing with barbarians, exploring, meeting city-states. But I quickly lose interest.

 

[darkskies]

Once I've eliminated the top one or to AI civs I usually get anxious to start a new game, just going around and defeating a bunch of weaker civs gets boring--also like others say the AI seems a little better in earlier wars. Once in a rare while I get the urge to tech up to nukes and drop a few though. I play marathon which also plays into not wanting to go much past factories if I even get that far (usually because I can't get to some distant runaway before then). I do like exploration part of the game the most which is why I often play island games in the hopes I'll get a two stage exploration game (the second after getting caravels).

 

[Sherlock]

The first half of the game is ten times more fun than the last half.

 

[Mesodius]

--also like others say the AI seems a little better in earlier wars.

Sorry to go a little off-topic here, but in my current game, where I increased the number of Civs to eat up excess space, I had two early wars with Rome. Their military was far, far superior to mine and by all rights they should have annihilated my civilisation (I neglected military getting early science/culture wonders), I still managed to defeat and hobble them because of how poorly they used their army vs. my tactical play.

Is there a mod which makes the AI better at warfare? I don;t want to further increase the difficulty because it feels like AI just gets better because of bonuses, but I was wondering if there is a mod which actually increases their tactical ability. Especially in the late game, the way to AI deploys their forces is just idiotic.

 

[darkskies]

@Medodius: I said a little better, that does not mean good. What level are you playing at? You can deliberately handicap yourself by inventing rules (like can't have more than one ranged unit per city you own) or try the one city challenge. I've played around with mods in the past but never found one I liked: for one thing if units are buffed you get them as well as the AI. Maybe something better is available now, but I think tactics are in the core game which means the developers would have to do the improvements not modders (but I haven't looked at modding the game for a few years I may be misremembering).