I just realized that... The time it takes to complete one Civ game...

Not only do the games last longer, just think of the replayability. Even with the same civ on the same map with the same victory conditions, no two games will ever be the same. For me, it is the replay value that sets the Civ franchise apart from everything else.
 
Maybe on marathon mode. I seem to rush through my epic and above games in less than 5 hours.
 
Theodorick said:
Maybe on marathon mode. I seem to rush through my epic and above games in less than 5 hours.
How do you manage that, I'm playing a quick game on a small map and have about 10 hours into it and I'm in the late 1700's or early 1800's
 
Well... I'm a little over halfway through a marathon game on a huge map with 18 civs, probably have 10 hours into it. The first time I beat Final Fantasy III I beleive the total playing time was 70 or 80 hours. Depends on the RPG :)
 
The time it takes to complete a game is very dependant on the amount of wars in it. Peaceful games are usually much shorter than games with many, long wars.
 
Brewster said:
Not only do the games last longer, just think of the replayability. Even with the same civ on the same map with the same victory conditions, no two games will ever be the same. For me, it is the replay value that sets the Civ franchise apart from everything else.

Completely and utterly true. I am and always will be a Civ Addict
 
Lol.. 10 hours on quick and only at 1700?

You gotta get online and play some multiplayer. I can finish a quick single player game in 45 minutes.
 
I don't understand how people can finish games so quickly. On my current huge map, 8 civ, noble, epic speed game, I am in the late 17th century and have over 20 hours played. Admittedly, I am a micro-manager :lol:
 
I micromanage everything.

You just get super quick at doing things when you play blazing on multiplayer. When turns take 30 seconds, and you're micromanaging everything so quickly and thinking ahead.

Most of the time if there's no lag, I can manage 10 cities, all my units, all my workers (no auto), with under 30 seconds.

Single player just makes you lazy :)
 
I don't think it makes you lazy. I will sit and analyze a possible city location for fifteen minutes and work out how the location will influence specialization and create a growth plan for that city. I admit I am rather obsessive about planning and having everything completely perfect. I usually go through an entire notebook everytime I play a civ game.
 
wars make the game really long. One thing that makes the game way way faster is quick combat. I wouldn't suggest starting with it, cuz it's nice to see the animations and such at first, but they're repetitive and don't really add anything. You will be shocked by how fast the game is without them. At least for me, the game went so much faster with quick combat. If you play OCC Quick Game avoiding wars you can finish in around 2 hours. I think micromanaging is part of the fun of civ so by all means continue doing it, but automation is pretty decent in civ4. So if you want to sacrifice some of your micro for faster games, its definitely an option. One thing I noticed though is that the "time played" shown at the end of your games is massively understated. I've played a game in one sitting that took 7 hours and the time played says it took 4. Does anyone else notice this?
 
Arturus said:
I don't think it makes you lazy. I will sit and analyze a possible city location for fifteen minutes and work out how the location will influence specialization and create a growth plan for that city. I admit I am rather obsessive about planning and having everything completely perfect. I usually go through an entire notebook everytime I play a civ game.

Again agreed. My 2nd city is often founded to fit it with my planned 3rd, 4th , 5th and 6th. Its very comparable to a standard time limits Chess Game (but some people like Blitz).

Oh but I dont write anything down , I keep it all in my head, thats what Chess training does for you :)
 
It has a lot to do with whether or not you warmonger.

Peaceful games, especially cultural wins, I can wrap up a large map game in fewer than two hours. I micromanage, but in a peaceful game there just aren't that many things to manage. Many, many turns I just hit 'enter', and wait for my plans to develop.

Wars take a long, long time: a game where I've gotten to 1920 in an hour and a half can end up taking 6 hours if wars start breaking out, or if I'm forced to start invading my neighbors to retain the tech and production leads I need to win a space race.
 
Arturus said:
I don't think it makes you lazy. I will sit and analyze a possible city location for fifteen minutes and work out how the location will influence specialization and create a growth plan for that city. I admit I am rather obsessive about planning and having everything completely perfect. I usually go through an entire notebook everytime I play a civ game.

All those production, food, and commerce calculations for city placement can be done in just a few seconds in your head; the notebook does sound excessive.

I just use a +/- system in my head; you don't need to add up everything every time, just calculate net change.
 
"Oh but I dont write anything down , I keep it all in my head, thats what Chess training does for you"

Actually I am quite a good chess player and plan far ahead in my head. I find for Civ IV, because of all the new features, writing everything down allows me to have a greater understanding of the game mechanics. It also allows me to do an analysis of my notes and the game events after to learn from my mistakes in order to become a better player. I consider it a learning exercise. However, even once I think I have reached as close to perfection as I can, I still take a very long time to plan including planning my scout routes for maximum efficiency and utility.

"It has a lot to do with whether or not you warmonger."

I never fight wars.
 
... Is the time it takes 1000 monkeys sitting at typewriters to type out 'The Decleration of Independance.' :D
 
Back
Top Bottom