When do you decide to give up?

[CivIVMonger]

Hello forums. I've had Civ IV since 2006, played thousands of hours on it easily, and am unfortunatly now only able to beat Monarch. I bet I could have gotten a lot farthur by just playing to the last drop of blood rather than just giving up.

If a barb sacks a non-important city or kills a settler, I get so angry and just give up. If I get DoW'd when I am unprepared, I usually just give up. It's not only military mistakes that make me want to give up, if I get out teched or picked on by the AI, I usually give up. Highly irritating when I spend an hour or two building up a civilization, and then it gets destroyed by a few barbs or an aggressive opponent.

This is halfway a confession, for asking stupid questions in the past when I could just have played to my defeat and learned from my mistakes. Other players that I hear about that advance much more quickly I'm guessing do play to the end even when the going gets tough instead of giving up like me.

So, I'm curious, how many of you are like me, and just give up so quickly? Or how many play until they lose. I'll go ahead and post a poll, but please leave a comment/opinion as well!

~CivIVMonger~

 

[*Svart*]

i usually quit when something against odd AND bad happens... No problem if monty declares when i'm unready... i go mad if i lose 3 axemen against 1 single axeman or similar stuff. If it is in bigger contest (a minor problem in my sod, but not crippling for my war) i just go on, but if i lose a war for weird unluck i quit.

 

[none]

I quit when there is no possibility for victory although I've been completing games just to see how they would end out of sheer curiosity.

I no longer play continents because of a few games in which I discovered that I would never catch up with an AI that got a wonderful start and a continent so large that there was no hope for victory (going for culture after discovering what the landmasses are like and the size of enemy civs is not something I've managed to do so far as it requires setting out for that victory condition early).

 

[DreamworK]

I quit when there is no possibility for victory although I've been completing games just to see how they would end out of sheer curiosity.

I no longer play continents because of a few games in which I discovered that I would never catch up with an AI that got a wonderful start and a continent so large that there was no hope for victory (going for culture after discovering what the landmasses are like and the size of enemy civs is not something I've managed to do so far as it requires setting out for that victory condition early).

hmmm...on the flipside of the continents map setting--you also realize that in many cases you (the player) can be the civ that can grow to immense power/tech lead while the other continent is warring constantly in earlier eras.

 

[none]

hmmm...on the flipside of the continents map setting--you also realize that in many cases you (the player) can be the civ that can grow to immense power/tech lead while the other continent is warring constantly in earlier eras.

That's quite true, unfortunately if your starting continent is significantly smaller you will probably be at a disadvantage later on. I don't mind isolated starts that much provided there is room for expansion but it's annoying to play for hours (I like Marathon) and then find out that a civ has been carving out such a huge landmass that you can't possibly compete (especially when it is lead by a good techer).

Nothing wrong with a challenge, it's just that sometimes continents make for very unbalanced games (a better player than myself could pull it off, I find that in such situations I end up struggling for second place and that is just not good enough).

 

[CivIVMonger]

I hate that! It usually ends up being Darius or Shaka with the huge track of land on the other continent. By then, just be glad they included nukes in the game.

About the small continent thing... You could hardly develope even a small amount of land before optics, astronomy even maybe IMO.

 

[Matty R]

In the years I've been playing Civ4, I've finished very few games. By the time I have a decent sized empire with fully developed cities, I'm bored of the actual game (Civilization) and need a break from it, starting again when I come back.

 

[Iranon]

I only abandon games that are won but tedious and unspectacular to finish. Considering that it's possible to bounce back from ridiculous positions, especially on high levels as the game is a lot more volatile, I don't give up when I think I'm losing.

 

[JustinianVII]

I'm not in the habit of finishing many games. I've been in the position to win several games, but I get bored and want to start something new, usually around when the tech tree in Next War is about to run out. Though I have also quit many earlier games when I feel I'm not in a position to win, such as being aligned against an unbreakable religious bloc, or a clear AI leader who has been conquering the world and looks pretty much unstoppable.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Really none of the options on the poll completely describe when I quit. 90% of games I quit are because:
1) I get bored with the game. Sometimes about the time I get to the industrial age, conquer/domination/diplo wins are out of the option, and I'm not in the mood to drag it out into a space/culture battle
2) A series of frustrating and/or maddening things happen (usually bad REs and awkward AI DoWs) when the game has been largely mediocre in all regards up to that point.
3) I play with a random leader and end up as Stalin or Charlemagne. Those two I only play if I'm really, really feelin' it.

Otherwise I play it out to the win or loss.

 

[CivIVMonger]

What's wrong with Stalin? I can understand Charly...

 

[capnvonbaron]

Can't stand the traits. AGG is only useful to me if I have a second trait to bail out its suckiness... and IND is not that trait. I'm not going to try to wonderwhore AND conquer the world.

 

[CivIVMonger]

But you have to agree it helps to get out Kremlin (Russia ) and other warlike wonders. Not to mention the fact that conquering the world takes more than a solid military, and production from forges and other wonders might help you get set up for a war.

Stalin is excellent for an axe rush. He is aggressive and starts with mining. Meaning you can go straight for BW after a worker tech or two!

 

[FierceFighter]

I used to quit whenever something bad would happen like some war or expansion plan backfired, but for a while now I have started to enjoy playing on when that happens and I think it has made me a better player learning to get myself out of a bad spot

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I only abandon games that are won but tedious and unspectacular to finish. Considering that it's possible to bounce back from ridiculous positions, especially on high levels as the game is a lot more volatile, I don't give up when I think I'm losing.

I'm of the opinion that I can usually tell when it's not-winnable. I would be interesting if anybody could prove me wrong in games I quit. Usually this involves something brutal, like "oh, the AI just got the engineer from fusion at 1715 AD and I am just getting industrialism", or "hey look, that guy is 20 turns away from culture while the other guy is 30 turns from space, and I wont' come out of war vs the culture guy with enough units left to counter the latter's nukes".

Meeting a 30 city empire with 3 vassals (2 capitulated) that hates me on sight due to AI cheats (worst enemy map hack *is* a cheat) that is well ahead in tech (I was isolated) is pretty tanked too.

Rarely has anyone actually asked for a map where I quit saying "game over". In one of the rare instances they did, it was Dirk (one of our super deity players), who after attempting it simply agreed I'd dug too deep a grave to go climbing out...or rather on that map 30% land (about 5% which he earned) genghis khan simply got too powerful/advanced.

I rarely lose immortal without a cheap-shot from the game, but deity is far less certain. I can usually see the writing on the walls in both cases though, and will only quit when I know I can't turn it around...not with UN, not with AP, not with culture, not with space, and obviously not with military or there's NO WAY I'd quit.

 

[CivIVMonger]

If you are this unlucky so many times than how do you manage to beat all of those IU's and LP's? I know you didn't do so well with Boudica, but you've made like what, seven?

 

[Iranon]

But my people rely on me! Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down and all that.

I'll usually play the game to a conclusion while hoping for a miracle/opportunity for cheese. Sometimes it'll end with a respectable loss, sometimes I go down in a blaze of glory, more often I go down in a blaze of ignomy trying several harebrained/spiteful schemes at once.

To quote the motto of another game I'm very fond of, Losing is fun.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you are this unlucky so many times than how do you manage to beat all of those IU's and LP's? I know you didn't do so well with Boudica, but you've made like what, seven?

If the AI doesn't cheap-shot screw me, I do tend to win. I do very well in youtube games because I'm actually forced to think and describe what I'm doing rather than speeding about haphazardly. The Boudica game was some rigged settings (long, narrow, winding land with very little food for me, lots of AIs ~20 cities BEFORE settling the new world) with a sub-ideal start in terms of commerce and obviously no rush options to make use of her power traits. No food, no commerce, but lots of such land to contend is a formula for failure since the AI doesn't struggle to use it nearly so much.

I do have plenty of legit losses, but the ones that really piss me off are "map was decided 4000 BC due to a super AI born based 100% on start" and glitches in the game that lead to screw-jobs. I got really sick of worker micro while playing BUFFY for example, because workers will move next to barbs you can see at the start of a turn and then do an action ON that tile next to the barb they have seen from the start to make sure you can't back them away. In offline games (and if this bull@#$% happens in youtube, maybe even my LPs), I will simply worldbuilder the worker to exactly the spot it was at the start of the turn, this time without the game forcing it to suicide.

Well, the game as flawed as hell and I could go on for pages and have in the past, but obviously it still has enough going for it that I like it and keep playing it.

 

[Link]

In SP, I quit when something really bad happens. In MP, I'll fight to the death or quit ASAP. It depends whether I'm having fun or not.

 

[Mark Havel]

I tend to quit when I see nothing I can do will make me win or something too demoralising happen. On my very first game, I didn't know very well the game mechanics (I've made about 4 games so far, so I won't tell you that I know them that much better now), so I made a lots of mistakes and struggled heavily with those nasty barbarians, losing my capital, retaking it a few centuries later, losing another pair of cities to the barbarians and seeing them taken by the nearest AI. If it wasn't enough, one of these cities was the Shrine of some religion I founded. In the end, I got somewhat dragged into wars with far far away civilization who suddenly appeared and stole another city. In the end, I tried to play the rogue state and develop some nuke to have some radioactive revenge, but it became clear I wouldn't get far with it so I dropped it and quit playing.

During another hard fought session, a civ on the other side of the continent suddenly declared war on me, send a boatload of troops all the way back to me (he was on the south of the said continent, I was on the northernmost part), went through all my territory to snatch the capital which was sitting almost at the polar circle. I almost quit but rather decided to begin from the start with a more aggressive policy. Since I've restarted it, it counts as a quit I think.

So if I have the feeling things doesn't bode well for me or that the AI is a bit too nasty in my taste, I will tend to quit or restart the game (therefore using the advantage of knowing the terrain).