the ten minute game

[snifter]

I've been at this dangerous (addictive) game for a couple of months now and have developed a pattern and I'm wondering if it's typical. I play on monarch. I'll start a game and see how the first ten minutes to twenty minutes go. At that point, I'll assess and decide whether the game is winnable. If I've got decent land and a little room to expand (either via settlers or a winnable war), I'll stick with it, otherwise -- and this is most of the time -- I quit and start a new game. I would estimate that 75% of the time, I quit in the first twenty minutes. Of the remaining 25% of games, I quit half at about the end of the ancient era and another quarter before the end of the middle ages. If I make it that far, I'm either in the top three contenders or I've got a card up my sleeve (like a big tech advantage or a phat army waiting in the mountains).

I read other people's posts here and I get the impression that y'all just play through and usually win whatever scenario you get stuck with. tell me if I'm lazy or unprincipled. i can take it.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by snifter
I read other people's posts here and I get the impression that y'all just play through and usually win whatever scenario you get stuck with. tell me if I'm lazy or unprincipled. i can take it.

I won't tell you either of those things. Sounds to me like you play the game the way you like to play. The way that is the most fun for you. Unless of course you aren't having fun, in which case I would suggest trying something new. But if you're having fun, who am I to say you should play any differently?

 

[TheWatcher]

Actually most of my quits by 3000 BC.
Reasons:
I start surrounded by jungle.
Island with room for 2 cities.
All plains and no fresh water.
Other absurd land situations.
Can't figure out where to build city #2.

 

[napoleon526]

This is what I do, too. Sometimes I restart as soon as I see the crummy starting position I usually end up with.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

One reason I love the GOTM so much is because it forces you to play even crappy starting conditions. I find that challenge gives me some of my most enjoyable games.

 

[Apollo]

I don't play it out to see if it's winnable. Instead the first thing I do, before moving any units, I save the game with "multi" in the name. Then I load the game and since I can see the whole map I am able to see if it is playable or not. I usually quit if it's one of those arctic islands, or surrounded by mountains and/or jungle, etc. If I like it then I load the 4000BC autosave and play the game. This saves me the trouble of having to play those first 20 minutes just to find out I wasted my time.

So, yes I do restart if I don't like my starting location. Probably about 50% of the time.

 

[pnp_dredd]

GOTMs are the only games I every play out. However, I will usually play until about 200 or so AD just to try and "tune" my starting strategy.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by snifter
I've been at this dangerous (addictive) game for a couple of months now and have developed a pattern and I'm wondering if it's typical.

Typical. The game is almost impossible to finish. I play goal-oriented Civ, that is, I set a goal and see if I can accomplish it. It may be a great initial expansion, or the completion of a wonder, or the destruction of a hated enemy, or merely survival after an attack. Indeed, "winning" is hardly the point of Civ. However, if I reload because of a bad result, then I definitely lost. Time marches on, never back.

 

[Sir Yelof]

I'll play through a rough start, figuring that the computer might have it rough too. I don't usually quit quite as often or as fast.

However, I find that every game eventually hits a turning point, for better or for worse. Inevitably, you hit a point where either
- an enemy nation gang rushes you with an army that you can't fend off that takes more than 1/3 of your
- you solidify your civ's power base (e.g., capture an entire continent) and the other nations are totally behind you in tech

Each higher difficulty level makes it harder for you to get over that initial hump where the first possibility is most likely. But once you get past that hump and pull into the lead, there's not much the AI can do to really stop you. Then it becomes an exercise to finish the game -- sometimes too tedious an exercise.

The best games are the ones that are close right down to the wire. The third full game I played was like that and it got me hooked on Civ. Winning the space race 10 pieces to 8 to 8 to 5 will do that to you.
--Yelof

 

[damunzy]

I was the same way.....play for a litle while on Monarch and restarting...

I went back to Regent and have been happy. As soon as I "master" that difficulty level then I will go back to Monarch.

 

[BillChin]

All games on Monarch are winnable. For the best players (not me), Emperor games are all winnable too. In my opinion many Diety level starts are not winnable.

Winnable and fun are two different things. Some games look like a slug fest or a long frustrating game. Playing the game is about having fun. For some that means an easy start. For some that means a challenge. For most, fun is somewhere in between the cake walk start with cow and wheat, and the nightmare start with jungle and mountain. Enjoy.

I tend to play through the first age of every start. That is usually more like 30 minutes to an hour, rather than 10 minutes. The start of the game is the part I enjoy the most. Most of my finished games are GOTM and tourney games. I suggest that players participate in these to improve their play and have a common game to discuss with other players. There is an entirely different feeling knowing that you are going to finish the game rather than just play for a few minutes. Highly recommended:

April GOTM is Warlord level as India
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3gotm/

Apolyton April Tourney game is Monarch level as Zulu
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=46271

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by BillChin
The start of the game is the part I enjoy the most.

I agree with BillChin. The early game is the most fun, has the least lag, and usually decides the game anyway.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I've quitted a number of games too, 'cos the starting position has been all jungle, or 'cos I'm losing an early war.

However, winning from an "impossible" start is about as rewarding as this game can be. In my latest game, my start position was at the tip of a large, plains-covered penninsula, with the nearest river right up at the foot of the pennisula, where the Japanese's starting position was. In order to build more than four-five cities, I had to wipe the Japanese; not easy since they were biggier than me, and had Iron, which I hadn't. However, I managed to take their only source of horses in the first strike, which meant I could use my horsemen to wear down their troops, retreat, heal, and return to the fray. So, Japan eventually falls, but I'm behind everybody else in science and culture. We-ell, couldn't do much about that in the short run 'cos I first had to stop the Iroquois from invading my contintent - it was less than half the size of the other two main continents, and already the Russians, Greeks and Egyptians had empires bigger than my entire continent. And said continent turned out to have no Coal nor Rubber. Despite this, I finally managed to close the tech gap and win the Space Race. Hugely satisfying.

So, what I'm saying is; think a for moment before restarting because of a bad start. If you continue and get beaten, no-one can blame you, and if you win, the victory will be so much greater.

 

[simwiz2]

im usually really picky about where i put my second city. if i cant find a good spot to put it, i usually start over. and of course if i start surrounded by jungle, mountains, tundra i start over