Your CIV quirks

[Lemon Merchant]

LM's wierdnesses:
1. I have ethical problems with slavery.
2. I never start a war, but if someone declares on me I hunt them to extinction.
3. I like to taunt Isabella.
4. I always play in a ratty old bathrobe and bunny slippers.
5. I drink too much wine when I play.

 

[wannabewarlord]

not so much a quirk than a major annoyance:

I almost always forget to switch my civic the turn I finished the pyramids!!

honestly, I am thinking "switch, switch, switch, representation, yummy" but then I get some "what would you like to build next" popups before I can access the civics screen and before I known it, I end the turn. then, many turns later I am like "D'oh!!"

 

[asbestosman]

not so much a quirk than a major annoyance:

I almost always forget to switch my civic the turn I finished the pyramids!!

honestly, I am thinking "switch, switch, switch, representation, yummy" but then I get some "what would you like to build next" popups before I can access the civics screen and before I known it, I end the turn. then, many turns later I am like "D'oh!!"

This happens to me all the time, and not just when I finish the pyramids. When I discover a civic-enabling tech I decline when asked if I want to switch right away, because I want to see the true research/build times at the beginning of my turn, not the anarchy times.

 

[ChristofferC]

I am too much in love with the creative trait. Building monuments is boring.

 

[roadie]

I always play as England, build Stonehenge and the Oracle to get CoL before setting up a cottage economy to build a huge tech lead. I'll then wipe out various other Civs with stacks of Catapults/Macemen, Canons/Cavalry/Red Coats and Modern Armour/Marines.

My early game is all about building rather than warring really.

 

[Bostock]

Due to the collateral dammage my destroyers were posting odds of around 80% in their favour. First 1 lost, second 1 lost, third 1 lost, fourth 1 lost,,,, (by now i am really starting to laugh at how rediculous the combat system is) fifth 1 lost, 6th 1 lost!!! finally by the seventh destroyer i actually wone, but by then the odds in my favour had gone up above 90%.

Of course this is just the tip of the iceberg of stories i have about how the odds do not run true in civ4.

Flip a coin a few thousand times and you will encounter plenty of "amazing", "unbelievable", and "broken" runs of tails...

...because of how random chance *actually works*. Runs of seeming nonrandomness are a natural part of randomness.

And multiply that by hundreds of thousands of civvers and you can even get whole individuals -- that is people -- that is maybe even you -- with exceptionally good or bad luck, and that's also normal, and says nothing about the odds not running true (except on a personal level for that lucky/unlucky individual -- for them the odds really will not run true).

Just because you see winning streaks in casinos doesn't mean the odds do not run true-ly in favor of the house.

 

[mystikmind2005]

Flip a coin a few thousand times and you will encounter plenty of "amazing", "unbelievable", and "broken" runs of tails...

...because of how random chance *actually works*. Runs of seeming nonrandomness are a natural part of randomness.

And multiply that by hundreds of thousands of civvers and you can even get whole individuals -- that is people -- that is maybe even you -- with exceptionally good or bad luck, and that's also normal, and says nothing about the odds not running true (except on a personal level for that lucky/unlucky individual -- for them the odds really will not run true).

Just because you see winning streaks in casinos doesn't mean the odds do not run true-ly in favor of the house.

But this is suposed to be a strategy game, not a test of luck! Honestly, luck has never been my freind in small things, i dunno why and always takes every opportunity possible to take another dig. I am the kind of person who will always manage to grab that 1 pen in 50 that dousn't work when i want to write down an important phone message etc etc.

My wish is that i can escape this torment of bad luck and let strategy be the judge - clearly civ4 is not the rite place for me in that respect.

 

[Clam Spammer]

Sounds like you would enjoy Total War (have you played this series before?) - that takes the luck out of combat altogether. Provided your computer can handle it, of course (mine can't ). I don't like the random element of the game either.

 

[Gwynnja]

I like to build cottages on flood plains

 

[NovaDream]

I build Stonehenge and the Oracle in my capitol and the Great Wall in my second city. On the purely quirky side, I like to have three cities with big cross borders up by the time the Great Wall completes. I like as much of my empire to be within the wall as I can get. Purely for aesthetics.

 

[Sero Sed Serio]

If I have a 300-500 point lead by around 1000 A.D. I usually get bored, feeling assured in my win, and quit the game.

I always start getting bored as soon as grenadiers make their appearance.

I have a thing for the underdog, both saving them and being one, so when I get a weak start, with few soldiers and fewer cities and somebody goes to war with me it usually ends in the destruction of their civilization. Take that, bully.

It’s annoying to me when I play continent maps and I find the other continent covered in highly advanced barbarians and many precious resources. It creates in me the same sort of anxiety that the early game rush to expand does.

Isabella and Huayna Capac are always on my s--t list. Either they're doing poorly and nagging/attacking me, or they're doing well and nagging/attacking me.

 

[gash]

I usually get a civilization to like me before I declare war and raze their cities.

 

[mystikmind2005]

Sounds like you would enjoy Total War (have you played this series before?) - that takes the luck out of combat altogether. Provided your computer can handle it, of course (mine can't ). I don't like the random element of the game either.

I have never played total war. What sort of game is it?

I was just thinking how combat outcomes are not nearly as prone to episodes of 'bad luck' as what they are in civ3 and 4 compared to all other strategy games i have ever played. And then when i look at the way combat is calculated in civ4 it realy should follow the odds much more reliably but somehow in practice it simply refuses. I dunno, perhaps civ4 has developed some level of 'sentience' and like a rebelious teenager it says "Those combat odds don't controll me buddy, you think your going to win that battle? Take THAT, and THAT and THAT and just to make sure i have proved my point, take THAT as well!".

 

[Clam Spammer]

Total War is not a single game, but a series of games. In many ways it is similar to Civ, but the mechanics of cities, borders, battles etc are very different. Plus it doesn't have the same time span or random maps (so replayability suffers somewhat).

When you encounter an enemy army in Total War, you enter a 3D battlefield where you control your units in real time, and you can use your stronger army and superior military tactics to defeat the enemy. The only downside is that it takes forever, especially if your computer isn't up to it. Of course, there is always the option to let the RNG decide. However, rather than fighting unit by unit, it takes into account the strength of the entire army.

 

[GooglyBoogly]

I never use nukes and ban them whenever possible, even if I am the only one that can build them.

 

[Kevie]

I hate when mountains get into your fat cross.
I hate overlapping in the fat cross.

 

[mystikmind2005]

Total War is not a single game, but a series of games. In many ways it is similar to Civ, but the mechanics of cities, borders, battles etc are very different. Plus it doesn't have the same time span or random maps (so replayability suffers somewhat).

When you encounter an enemy army in Total War, you enter a 3D battlefield where you control your units in real time, and you can use your stronger army and superior military tactics to defeat the enemy. The only downside is that it takes forever, especially if your computer isn't up to it. Of course, there is always the option to let the RNG decide. However, rather than fighting unit by unit, it takes into account the strength of the entire army.

That sounds similar to Lords of the Realm2, am i rite? Well aside from the complexity and the fact that it has cities!

As it happens, i do enjoy Lords of the realm2, so it is likely i would enjoy that game as well.

 

[Clam Spammer]

It sounds similar, from the Wikipedia article at least (I haven't played or even heard of this game before). I'd recommend Rome Total War rather than Medieval 2 - it's much less demanding in terms of resources (in other words I can actually run it at full speed on my comp ) and it has fewer bugs. Plus it's older so you can probably get the Gold edition cheap.

 

[mystikmind2005]

It sounds similar, from the Wikipedia article at least (I haven't played or even heard of this game before). I'd recommend Rome Total War rather than Medieval 2 - it's much less demanding in terms of resources (in other words I can actually run it at full speed on my comp ) and it has fewer bugs. Plus it's older so you can probably get the Gold edition cheap.

Thanks for that, i am always interested to check out new games.

 

[RandomPerson]

1. If I ever do something the AI doesn't like, I give them a free (usually out-dated) tech.
2. I never declare war, but when I go to war, I never declare peace until the other guy is wiped from the face of the planet.
3. I usually try to play a leader who suits my personality, but for maximum compatibility, I need to eventually get BtS for Pericles (of the Americans).
4. If I go to war, I try to unite the entire globe against my enemy.