When to give up on a game

[crdvis16]

In my current game I am playing as China. I went Tradition->Aesthetics and just opened up Rationalism. We're just entering the Industrial Era and I'm currently in the middle of the pack in terms of strength. Poland leads in policies by a few, Korea leads in tech by a few, but no one is a serious runaway (England/Songhai have the score lead) and I'm not terribly behind anyone as far as I can tell. Curiously, almost every other civ in the game went statecraft which suggests they are all competing for a diplomatic victory. I'm aiming for a science victory and consider Korea the biggest threat, though luckily he is a nearby neighbor who I have already taken a city from in a previous war so I imagine I might be able to hurt him enough to surpass him.

I felt like I was in a decent position until England DoW'd me when I was already in a war with the Shoshone and quickly scooped up 2 of my newer island cities with her superior navy. Losing those two cities (which were only ~30 turns old or so) probably isn't a huge loss in the grand scheme of things but usually in my experience, 'losing' any war was a good sign that the game was probably going to get out of hand. My initial inclination is to scrap the game and try again, this time making sure I have ample defenses for my cities, especially those that are founded far away from reinforcement.

However, it also occurs to me that trying to come back from losing a war would probably be more rewarding in terms of improving my play. Being able to adapt when things don't go as planned could help me learn new things. I don't always have a ton of time to dedicate to playing (as opposed to when I was younger and could plays hours upon hours each day) so I think this has made me more quick to starting a new game when I begin to perceive the game as lost, but now I'm wondering if I could have turned some of those games around.

This makes me curious how others decide when to scrap a game vs. when to keep going and see if you can win anyway. Trying to think about it more clearly now, I imagine losing one of your first few cities in a war might be pretty difficult to recover from as snowballing gets out of control. But losing a newly found city that was only founded later in the game might not be a big deal if your "core" cities are still safe (core maybe being your first 4-5 founded cities?). Those new cities weren't contributing much yet anyway and might never have greatly increased your power so is there really that huge of a drawback? Your policy/tech costs increased when you founded them but those should reset to the proper values when you unlock the next tech/policy, right?

Anyway- my question is: What kind of metrics do you guys use to decide when a game is lost?

 

[vyyt]

Your policy/tech costs increased when you founded them but those should reset to the proper values when you unlock the next tech/policy, right?

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but the tech / policy costs do not reset, they only increase. And if I remember correctly, both (or was it only the policies?) do not scale back even if you lose a city. The way how to deal with the increasing tech / policy costs is building your infrastructure and picking the right policies. It is a nice mechanics to drive you to expand at least a bit, but on the other hand to prevent a quick overexpansion (too quick is the keyword here).

 

[CrazyG]

A win is a win, so if you think you can get a victory condition I would keep playing. Science sounds possible if you are able to defend yourself and beat Korea (hopefully your religion has some science)

Usually I concede a game due to another civ's military getting me

 

[tu_79]

I usually play the time I can, until I win that game or a new release comes. The latter happens more often.

 

[Funak]

When it feels boring, I guess?
I mean I can't possibly beat boredom, so if a game gets boring it's lost.

 

[Grabbl]

In your situation, I would continue the game, perhaps aiming to conquer some nearby cities if possible (your Policy/Tech cost doesn't go down when you lose cities as far as I know, so you basically can acquire two more cities now which won't increase further these costs). I give up on a game usually when I can't compete at all with the AI (15+ % behind on techs, population etc.) and it doesn't improve even with spies/other efforts to catch up or as a result of losing "core" cities in a war. In my experience, you usually can recover from losing a few "minor" cities.

 

[crdvis16]

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but the tech / policy costs do not reset, they only increase. And if I remember correctly, both (or was it only the policies?) do not scale back even if you lose a city. The way how to deal with the increasing tech / policy costs is building your infrastructure and picking the right policies. It is a nice mechanics to drive you to expand at least a bit, but on the other hand to prevent a quick overexpansion (too quick is the keyword here).

I think (though could be remembering incorrectly) that tech/policy costs do reset when you conquer and raze a city. So I was thinking that if you had increased policy/tech costs for a city you founded and that city was then captured by another civ that upon unlocking the next tech/policy that the cost of further techs/policies would re-scale with your current number of cities. But it sounds like maybe that's not the case- perhaps this re-scaling only works on cities you capture/raze, or maybe not even then? If the tech/policies never rescale then losing a city is certainly much more harmful as you carry around that increased tech/policy cost permanently.

 

[crdvis16]

A win is a win, so if you think you can get a victory condition I would keep playing. Science sounds possible if you are able to defend yourself and beat Korea (hopefully your religion has some science)

Usually I concede a game due to another civ's military getting me

Yeah- I think a win is still possible in this game. I'm marching on Korea's capital currently (trying to beat England to it, as she has continued her island/coastal rampage on Korea).

 

[crdvis16]

I usually play the time I can, until I win that game or a new release comes. The latter happens more often.

Nothing worse than having a good game going but also seeing a new version get released that has something interesting in it.

 

[crdvis16]

When it feels boring, I guess?
I mean I can't possibly beat boredom, so if a game gets boring it's lost.

Boredom is a good metric, and it also works for games that have gone too well for the player and they've run away with it. I've definitely quit games once it has become clear that my victory is completely assured and just a matter of hitting 'next turn' for a while.

Though on that point, I think I've quit games that I've been behind in where I could have possibly come back. A good comeback is the opposite of boring so in those cases I bet I've short changed myself.

 

[crdvis16]

In your situation, I would continue the game, perhaps aiming to conquer some nearby cities if possible (your Policy/Tech cost doesn't go down when you lose cities as far as I know, so you basically can acquire two more cities now which won't increase further these costs). I give up on a game usually when I can't compete at all with the AI (15+ % behind on techs, population etc.) and it doesn't improve even with spies/other efforts to catch up or as a result of losing "core" cities in a war. In my experience, you usually can recover from losing a few "minor" cities.

I think you're right. I'm going to use this game to prove to myself that losing some minor cities doesn't turn the game into a lost cause.

 

[FoxOfWar]

I have a tendency to want to finish a game if it seems at all possible I can win it still. Granted, as victories are often pretty certain from a mile off (particularly culture), it's often a matter of finding something good to read/watch on my second screen. I should probably do more quitting while I am clearly ahead, really.

...incidentally, I just won a turn 1078 culture victory as I was typing the above. Heh.

 

[ShadedSkies]

I've never finished a game. Instead I usually set up short-term goals for myself and stop playing once it's reached. Like taking all the capitals on my starting continent before medieval on immortal. Or building a specific wonder on a small map with warmongers.

Honestly, I wish I could finish a game, but it just takes too long. I come up with other things to do instead, and if I try to keep playing at a later date the allure of starting an entirely new game is too strong. This is definitively a roguelike mentality I've developed, though it shows just how fun the Ancient/Classical eras are because you never quite know what you're going to get.

 

[tu_79]

I've never finished a game. Instead I usually set up short-term goals for myself and stop playing once it's reached. Like taking all the capitals on my starting continent before medieval on immortal. Or building a specific wonder on a small map with warmongers.

Honestly, I wish I could finish a game, but it just takes too long. I come up with other things to do instead, and if I try to keep playing at a later date the allure of starting an entirely new game is too strong. This is definitively a roguelike mentality I've developed, though it shows just how fun the Ancient/Classical eras are because you never quite know what you're going to get.

Then you are missing some cool changes that happen in industrial age. Suddenly, backwards civs became relevant, others are obliterated, some others become nearly unstoppable monsters. But weapons are so much better that you can make new progress much faster. Particularly planes. Submarines also change naval warfare. Or you can engage in archeological race or even world Congress contest.

 

[Enginseer]

I give up when things CTD or there's a huge bug inside one of my mod. Then I rage and make fixes and start my next game. Game is never lost until the capital is lost.