You ever single player rage quit?

[WillowBrook]

I don't think I've played them, but 'on paper' it looks like the Khmer are a Culture Victory civ, not a Religious Victory civ. I wouldn't think that failing to found a religion of your own would matter all that much.

Because of their ability to get relics from missionaries, I recently did a no- theater- square culture victory with them. I got a religion but not the reliquaries belief. I almost started over, but decided to push ahead. The game would have been much shorter with reliquaries.

 

[kb27787]

Barbs insta-spawn and the scout captures your settler that very turn.
Actually, all my ragequits (very predominant in Vanilla and RnF really) are from horse barbs... esp those that instantly pop up with the scout having immediate vision on your city and then the first horse spawns on the very next turn. Before 20 str barbarian horsemen became a thing, horse camps were spawning full blown 35 str horsemen (anyone remember those good ol days?).

 

[AsH2]

Name something that made you quit a single player match immediately in frustration, something that you didnt even want to begin dealing with.
..

There were not that much rage but I did leave (and did never pick up) several of my earliest games when I realized I had forgot some things I had planned and should have done (change policy cards, production, et c..) several turns before.

 

[blackcatatonic]

All the time. I don't really play to win any more, though - in fact, I can't remember the last time I finished a game. This means my bar for deciding I can't be bothered to continue with a map is pretty low.

If you mean actual ragequits... only if I get swarmed with no possibility to save the city (i.e. early game when there's a horse camp nearby), or if I gamble a lot of turns to build a wonder and lose.

 

[riddleofsteel]

Sure. I still find map generation and seeding to be pretty terrible, even after mods and updates.

 

[shaglio]

I should probably rage quit my current game. I chose Island Plates and Random Leader. I wound up rolling Norway and thought, "That's great, I can try for a Diplo Victory by conquering with my ships!" Until I started exploring the world and discovered that more than half the AI capitals are 1 tile inland But for some dumb reason I've kept on playing it anyway. Maybe I'll wait for Frigates and build a minimal army or something.

 

[EgonSpengler]

They're definitely a hybrid religious/culture civ in that you can pursue both paths at the same time. The more relics you get, the more faith (for RV) and tourism (for CV) you get. It's just best to go with Reliquaries for that strategy.

Because Reliquaries is a Follower belief, you don't need to have founded the religion yourself. Of course that's going to be trickier. I suppose if you survey all of the religions and find that nobody has selected it, then you're S.O.L.

Because of their ability to get relics from missionaries, I recently did a no- theater- square culture victory with them. I got a religion but not the reliquaries belief. I almost started over, but decided to push ahead. The game would have been much shorter with reliquaries.

Sure, but I would think not having Theater Squares made it a lot tougher, too.

Oh, founding a religion always matters much for a civ whose uniques involve holy sites. Big difference between running your own religion and just being an employee of whoever gets around to foisting theirs on you. Having said that, if you're competing for last place, then you're generally getting the dreg beliefs anyway, but the AI usually does leave Choral Music (shrines and temples produce culture) lying on the table, which is actually a damn good belief for any civ, not just one with a CV focus.

Yes, I think founding your own religion is always going to be preferable to not founding your own religion, I'm just wondering whether it's generally deserving of a restart for the Khmer. Of course in a single-player game, you can do whatever you want. I've restarted a game because I was a goober and moved my initial Settler when I meant to found a city with it.

 

[WillowBrook]

Sure, but I would think not having Theater Squares made it a lot tougher, too.

Of course. My point was that, while their bonuses are mainly to religion, they can be a really good culture civ - you don't even need theater squares to win a culture victory with them (emperor level).

 

[steveg700]

To me, even asking the question is bizarre.

The game is outrageous, and players are often confronted with poor design decisions. Of course players ragequit. That is a reasonable response to the outrageous.

Many games my civ seems set up for a strong start. Then I find that there are multiple neighbors nearby gobbling up all available space. And then I find that some of those neighbors are guys like Teddy or Genghis--civ's that FXS designed to have a significant bonus to every unit's combat strength against other civ's. This is an awful way to design civ's, and they seemed to know that in Civ V, which is why evern warmonger civ's did not receive sweeping combat bonuses. Bonus movement, extra healing, removal of certain penalties....Sure, fine. But don't just set up civ's to have +5 or +6 strength. As one incarnation of Aquaman used to say....OUTRAGEOUS!

 

[steveg700]

Yes, I think founding your own religion is always going to be preferable to not founding your own religion, I'm just wondering whether it's generally deserving of a restart for the Khmer. Of course in a single-player game, you can do whatever you want. I've restarted a game because I was a goober and moved my initial Settler when I meant to found a city with it.

Sure, and conversely I've continued to play Indonesia even after exploration gave me cause to realize my coastal opportunities were limited. I managed to build Stonehenge AND Oracle, so screw it, I was committed.

Wound up sharing a continent with Phoenica and Georgia and eight CS's. Of course, they both founded a religion and wanted to do their thing.

I have no idea why, but I found that the other civ's were either not building wonders that game or were doing a really poor job of it. Hell, I even managed to build Machu Pichu that game.

But for Khmer, I dunno. Probably the civ most deserving of a second pass, and I can certainly see a lot of quits with them. Too bad. Those domreys are just too expensive. And they could have done so much more with the barays. Imagine unique aqueduct that has a regional effect of supplying water.

 

[Bitterman]

The only two times I remember was precisely with Khmer, and also precisely when trying to found a religion. The first I managed it but lost a close settling spot against the zulu. The second I also managed but got DoW'ed by Trajan and lost a city because of it. In between there were a lot of tries in which I never founded, but I don't consider them ragequits because I was just playing around to see which was the best strategy.

Khmer feel pretty dull without reliquaries.

 

[tedhebert]

Rarely... If I do, it's not really ragequit as knowing I'm just NOT gonna win that game... And it really doesn't happen that often.

You know, we complain and complain and complain about the AI being bad all the time... But then some of the same people that keep on banging that drum
say they restart most of their games in the first 15-20 turns, or when it's not going very well in the beginning of the game; Seems to me that always waiting for great starting conditions
is bound to make the AI seem worse than it really is.

NOT trying to say the AI is good, far from it. But honestly, my games in the last 3-4 months have really all been MUCH harder... Seems to me that land based
attacks from the AI are much better, harder to repel and prevent. That might be because I usually play huge maps and am now playing more standard or large maps,
but I don't think that's the reason.

Some of my more memorable games are when things DIDN'T go as expected. The first 50-75 turns are where this game can be tough and challenging, and being attacked on
2 front before I was ready for it, or having a horde of barbarians appear just when a neighor decides to attack me is pretty enraging, yes... but surviving
it is really one of the most satisfying emotion this game gives me.

As some mentionned, playing a CIV that has some of it's strengths dependant on terrain or strategic ressource, and NOT getting that terrain/strategic ressource
will sometimes lead me to restart, yes !

 

[The googles do nothing]

I've been playing deity lately to try and get better so a fair amount of rage quitting. I usually hit some dead end because of a bad decision or I didn't plan for it. I don't know the diplomatic system and don't want to win that way.

 

[steveg700]

Khmer feel pretty dull without reliquaries.

And it's important to note that being dull is worse than being weak. Building aqueducts to get a smattering of faith, food, housing, amenities...It ain't thrilling. There are other civ's that do more fun things with river adjacency, and seeking to settle next to rivers is hardly some offbeat, divergent way to play Civ. But all that leads to more of a "yawnquit" scenario.

You know, we complain and complain and complain about the AI being bad all the time... But then some of the same people that keep on banging that drum
say they restart most of their games in the first 15-20 turns, or when it's not going very well in the beginning of the game; Seems to me that always waiting for great starting conditions
is bound to make the AI seem worse than it really is.

Is somebody saying they're ragequitting because the bad AI is failing to clobber them in the first 15-20 turns?

That's when the AI is at the top of its game, because all they're doing is drowning the player with warriors and, shortly after that period, chariots. The AI does seem to want to zerg up the tree to Engineering, where it can build masses of catapults and build Machu Pichu, and that's where it's troubles often begin, because in doing so they forget to make a little detour for Archery, and will isntead amass a vast array of cats to get smashed by anyone who muster horses or swords.

 

[Sostratus]

I’m with @kb27787. Full strength Horse barbs were the worst. Not withstanding that spear men have always been awful units, the massive radius (6 tiles?) they can show up around a horse resource is way too big. I still see them too much.
Although we now have the 20 strength variants, I still hate them because they spawn in ruthless numbers.

The only other reason I will really ever “rage quit” is if I go in planning something very specific and I can’t get it, be it religion or a specific wonder or something. Occasionally I will have a situation where I plan out & build a bunch of districts and the dam is invalid on the tile in a way that’s hard to discern by looking at the tile.

 

[steveg700]

I’m with @kb27787. Full strength Horse barbs were the worst. Not withstanding that spear men have always been awful units, the massive radius (6 tiles?) they can show up around a horse resource is way too big. I still see them too much.
Although we now have the 20 strength variants, I still hate them because they spawn in ruthless numbers.

Probably the top thing I would like to see a patch address.

Barbs currently do the following:

A) Spawn units at the bleeding edge of tech (and possibly beyond). Go to smash an outpost on a coast with warriors, and a couple of quadremes may immediately nuke you.
B) Spawn units in groups without regard for production costs.
C) Use resources that likely no civ has researched the means to use yet, and can even use the players' resources.

Something there needs to give.

Plus, I have seen numerous instances of AI civ units and AI barb units standing around ignoring each other. I've lost many a scout on auto-explore in the heart of an AI civ's territory because everyone was happy to mill about until they could jump my little doggy. It's not consistent though. The AI is something diligent about wiping out camps, and other times it allows them to sit on their doorstep. With pristine tribal villages to boot.

 

[tedhebert]

Plus, I have seen numerous instances of AI civ units and AI barb units standing around ignoring each other. I've lost many a scout on auto-explore in the heart of an AI civ's territory because everyone was happy to mill about until they could jump my little doggy. It's not consistent though. The AI is something diligent about wiping out camps, and other times it allows them to sit on their doorstep. With pristine tribal villages to boot.

I must admit that THIS is more than annoying... seems like 100% of the times, the barbs will chose one of my unit to attack, no matter that logic would demand they attack another AI's unit... lost many a unit that way ;-( Not just scouts on auto-explore, very otten in the thick of a siege

 

[Pure24]

Once. Was playing Victoria and started near Khmer on deity about 6 months ago. Tried being cute and made literally zero combat units. My starting order was something like monument, scout, settler, builder, settler, settler. Bought another scout, another builder, and a trader with the gold I'd accumulated.

My relationship with Jayavarman was in the green so I thought I'd be safe even if he kept refusing a friendship. Worst part was I wasn't paying attention to his Empire; most of his borders were hidden in the fog of war.
The inevitable surprise war came. I somewhat expected it, so I slotted in the unit discount card, ready to mount a defense.
What I didn't expect was to see about 8 or so heavy chariots coming out of his Empire! Moments later, the archers followed. And then about 6 warriors. My first city quickly fell. Then my second.

Met Netherlands, who immediately denounced me for not sending a trade route. I took a settler I'd just made - the fourth one - far enough away to survive the onslaught and settled near Wilhemina.
Next turn she declared war and showed up with five warriors...

 

[dagriggstar]

I play almost exclusively continents, huge, 15 civs. I will admit to saving, revealing the entire map and checking to see whether some parts of the world will be isolated (as in, one group of civs will be unable to reach the other group until getting cartography or is Maori/Vikings). I don't consider that rage quitting, more re-rolling though.

The other situation is play testing mods. Usually, something happens that I don't agree with and/or what I designed to happen doesn't happen. The last game I gave up on, the game situation did get taken into account somewhat though. The modding reason I gave up was because everyone was getting dark or normal ages (I had made it too hard to get golden ages basically). The game situation was interesting though
1) Rolled Freleanor. Founded capital, scouted out what I can only describe as a lush river valley about 8 tiles west of Paris.
2) Founded 3 cities in the valley area. In doing so quickly, neglected my military
3) Mongolia DoW from the North. I actually wasn't pissed off when I lost my capital, was good play from the AI (As I was about to begin snowballing into having an unstoppable economy, 10 turns later probably too late to be stopped).
4) While he did take a valley city too, it loyalty flipped straight back to me. Basically signed a white peace (classical era)
5) Focused hard on economy (As I'd now built proper defences due to having been at war). Began out-teching Mongolia. Was around 30 turns away from getting the UU and sweeping through Mongolia
6) The Dutch (to my south) call an emergency to re-take Paris. Basically, I was waiting until getting the UU then was going to call the emergency. I didn't like this behaviour as to me, if the player was human it would have understood the best time to call the emergency was later in the game. As it was, I wasn't really ready to attack, would only have been able to defend really.

 

[Icicle]

Once.

I had the most beautiful Petra spot and Nubia beat me by one turn and they built it in a city with two workable desert tiles. I decided it was time to head out.