Work v. Play

[korossyl]

I'm kinda new here, so this may have been (or is being discussed) here, but:
Far be it from me to judge someone else's idea of "fun," but near as I can tell, everyone (or a least the great majority here) seems to play Civ as some sort of massive puzzle, figuring out concepts such as "ring building" and calculating the exact stat differances between King and Deity. I mean, it never even occured to me to try to figure out the corruption and waste matrices, I hardly ever have more than 3-4 cities. I play on Warlord, and never have more than 1 military unit per city. I win about 50% of the time. I guess what I'm asking is: do any of you play Civ just for fun, or for the thrill of living history, or taking over the world? Without trying to build a mathematically perfect empire?
Maybe the problem lies in that this is "CivFANATICS."
Or that I lurk in the strategy forum.
?

 

[Qitai]

To answer your question. Is chess fun? Why is it fun and not so fun to different people? Some people just enjoy thinking and coming up with the perfect strategy.

 

[Hawkster]

hi korossyl and welcome to CFC!

As someone who plays for fun ( I don't have time to get too involved in the game mechanics) I can understand what you are saying. However at this site there are players of civ for all sorts of reasons. Some people do like to try and understand the game in great depth - and then share their results with everyone else here - and why not - saves us fun players from doing it.

Personally even when I play I don't get too worried about perfection - I don't bother with all the sophisticated strategies (OCP, ICS or whatever) - I tend to go with instinct more - which probably explains why I am not a great civ player.

The greatness of a game like civ lies not in just one way of playing but in it's multiplicity of strategies / reasons fo playing and different outcomes.

 

[USC]

I think part of the reason is many people's urge to play at and beat higher and higher levels. At these levels, at least some kind of optimization of playstyle is needed to succeed.

Note however that you don't need to use all of the strategies you mentioned to win, even at the higher levels. In fact, "fixed" city placement strategies like RCP are often IMHO less effective than a placement that takes maximum advantage of terrain, available sites, luxuries, resources, etc.

On the other hand, it IS very hard to succeed on the higher levels with just 3-4 cities. While it's true that there are people whose favorite playstyle is the one-city challenge (OCC), these people often do more micromanagement on their one city than you probably do on your 3-4 cities all together. But then, these are people who find micromanagement fun... yes, such people do exist. I'm actually one of them, although I'm not nearly good enough to play a OCC.

Unity Scout Chopper

 

[zurichuk]

I play for fun, I want a game to finish in a couple of days not weeks and therefore cannot be bothered to spend time micromanaging the game to death. That's the beauty of the game, many people here, myself including can win on the extreme levels if we wanted but I would rather relax a couple of levels down. I think you can ignore the major strategies anyway until the top 2 levels.

However I do have a higher level game going on but I only spend a few turns a day on it but to me the top 2 levels becomes a different game with too much emphasis on trading, micromanaging and exploiting the AI. (probably get criticised for that statement).

 

[USC]

Nahh, you're right on the money.... especially with the exploiting the AI part. Ever since Civ I, beating the top levels has been about playing Judo with the AI... using its superior strength against it. Let IT do your research has always been part of the paradigm (though it used to be simpler -- let IT do the research and then just steal the research practically for free). Now that's been joined by let IT found your cities (it just doesn't know they're yours yet), let IT fight your wars, and let IT be your barracks. (Gotta stop using Quick Reply dangit... there should be an evilly grinning Devil icon here!).

USC

 

[Nazgul]

There's more of us then you realize.
I am the same way, I would like to learn a little, but either lack the time (2 kids at home ) or the brainpower

That's the great thing about Civ III it has enough puzzles to keep the hard-core intertested, but it can be playeds by those of us who just get a kick out of seeing ther IBM's come crashing down
:saiyan:

 

[anarres]

It is possible to play "solve the mathematical puzzle" and for it to be fun!

I play several hours a day and if it wasn't fun I wouldn't do it. It is worth noting that I also enjoy puzzle solving in other forms, so I don't feel like too much of a freak.

Originally posted by USC
In fact, "fixed" city placement strategies like RCP are often IMHO less effective than a placement that takes maximum advantage of terrain, available sites, luxuries, resources, etc.

I take it you have never used RCP then? It certainly is more effective than any other placement strategy in 90% of games (there have to be exceptions of course). As someone else commented in another thread "it's like your civ is on steriods!"

 

[Superevie]

The game is incredible because you can play it hard core or just a little. I used to try and figure everything out myself, but got nowhere. Some of these people's hard core tricks are so amazing, that they change the game. The fanatics analyze the game so deeply, that it is simply not a game anymore. It's kinda like a way of life: Wake up, eat, school, exercise, conquer the world.

Welcome to CFC BTW! Your journey has just started.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Thank goodness for the mathematical perfectionist players!

I have learned a lot from them and have improved my game. I play for fun but do appreciate all the hard work that some of the players have put in and shared with us all.

Thank you for your hard work! It is appreciated.

You have helped me to go from winning 0 out of every 10 games on monarch to winning 2 out of every 10 games on monarch. May not sound like much but for me it is very satisfying.

 

[Yaype]

It all comes down to what your idea of fun actually is. If it is relaxing and pressing enter to end a turn within a minute or two of starting it, then you probably won't take the time to do all of the micromanaging and calculations that are necessary for truly dominant play at higher levels. On the other hand, if you want to challenge yourself and have the most difficult challenge there is, then you do do that stuff. It just depends on what you think of as fun. I don't think anybody here plays the game like it is a job--or at least I hope not....

 

[Oystein]

Figuring out the rules of the game is fun. I could spend time finding a way to exploit weakness in the AI and never use this exploit because it ruins the game.

 

[korossyl]

Hm. Interesting. Thanks, everyone!

 

[apparition]

I play for the fun AND have lernt a lot from reading stratagies

Where cna I see more about OCC. I never imagined you could survive a game with one city. In my current game I've just pushed america into the sea to secure the area.

 

[USC]

Anarres wrote:
I take it you have never used RCP then?

--------

OK I'll be a man and admit it... I haven't. The causes are several. First, one of the first changes Civ III brought in my city placement was weaning me off of a patterned-placement paradigm (OCP), so I'm wary of starting to work with another, even "semi-patterned" placement. Second, I know RCP will be taken out in Conquests, and I'm hopin' and prayin' that Conquests will be released here in the Czech Republic. Third, RCP just feels unnatural to me. Fourth, I have trouble suspending my disbelief when I see what I could get in game X by placing cities "here, here, and here" according to things like their 9-tile terrain and consider that probably no RCP setup would fit that placement. I mean, I know there are top players who use it all the time, so it must be good -- but like I said, I just have trouble suspending disbelief. And hey, with any luck in a couple of months I'll just be saying "RCP? We don't need no steenkeen' RCP? We got Conquests!"

UnityScoutChopper

 

[anarres]

I agree that removing RCP in Conquests will be one of the best improvments in the game. I just wanted to point out that it is unbalancing even when you have to place cities in what appears sub-optimal spots...

 

[Scandinavians]

Well I don't vote for any of the 3 you posted. I vote it because it's like online chess, and the fact that it has to do with knowledge, strategy, and simulation (strategy and simulation r also two of my favorite game types).

*me and others dance to the music heard when you win/lose a game in PTW*