am I the only one who gets bored when the end-game is pretty well determined and you're just playing it out to hit the victory conditions?
I've had games drag on 40-50 turns after it was pretty clear I was going to beat it, and after going through the motions 2-3x it just gets old. I wish there was a way to just hit "fast-forward" so I can get the credit for winning the game without having to keep punching buttons just to get there.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 02, 2012, 10:06:18 PM
am I the only one who gets bored when the end-game is pretty well determined and you're just playing it out to hit the victory conditions?
I've had games drag on 40-50 turns after it was pretty clear I was going to beat it, and after going through the motions 2-3x it just gets old. I wish there was a way to just hit "fast-forward" so I can get the credit for winning the game without having to keep punching buttons just to get there.
All too often, I get to that point and just start another game. True, I have few Hall of Fame credits, but eh....I'd rather be entertained.
Bump up a level. Or remove the victory condition that you always use to win i.e. Space Race.
Good for you. Only managed to win one Civ game in recent history (CIV IV).
The end game can be a slog, but I also find the tech to be the most interesting. If you play a little more "crazy," as in willing to fling around nukes, bomb the crap out of everyone with bombers, and try to conquer the world, the end game gets much better!
and I'm on my freakin' 8th damn game in a row of having the freakin' mongol horde right freakin' next door. Ugh!
gimme some variety instead of the inevitable damn war with these idiots!
^You sounded like MacArthur just then, Brant.
C'mon, now, Brant. You're a smart guy. Use the game creation screen to put someone else on the board and change your victory conditions. Or maybe the great Civ V doesn't have those options...
It has them. I tend not to set them. I set map size, my civ, and diff level, then hit "go".
What difficulty do you typically play on? And what victory conditions do you use? What about map size and number of civs?
Quote from: MetalDog on February 03, 2012, 09:12:21 PM
What difficulty do you typically play on? And what victory conditions do you use? What about map size and number of civs?
Typically playing on Prince.
All victory conditions available.
Usually play HUGE map, with max number of city-states and 7-9 other random civs.
The frustration lately has been that the Mongols are on top of me in *every* game. They've been "randomly" selected whether I've played as France, Rome, Persia, or England, and they're never on the other side of the map. While I explore a lot, b/c I tend to keep an eye on culture/happiness, I don't plant a lot of cities everywhere like my old Civ III land-grabs.
The Mongols, though, just throw cities up wherever there's a free space, and they're on top of you before you know it. They tend to fight like crap, and it doesn't take much to beat them with a halfway competent plan - their tech is usually far enough behind that you could almost brute-force them into submission. But it's just damned annoying to have to raze all their cities so you can go back and plant yours in the right spaces around where theirs were.
^
Ah, I see you called my Heinlein quote and raised me one...... ;)
I've had that Heinlein quote as my sig in email and online since, well since I got online in the early '90s.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on February 03, 2012, 10:23:34 PM
Quote from: MetalDog on February 03, 2012, 09:12:21 PM
What difficulty do you typically play on? And what victory conditions do you use? What about map size and number of civs?
Typically playing on Prince.
All victory conditions available.
Usually play HUGE map, with max number of city-states and 7-9 other random civs.
The frustration lately has been that the Mongols are on top of me in *every* game. They've been "randomly" selected whether I've played as France, Rome, Persia, or England, and they're never on the other side of the map. While I explore a lot, b/c I tend to keep an eye on culture/happiness, I don't plant a lot of cities everywhere like my old Civ III land-grabs.
The Mongols, though, just throw cities up wherever there's a free space, and they're on top of you before you know it. They tend to fight like crap, and it doesn't take much to beat them with a halfway competent plan - their tech is usually far enough behind that you could almost brute-force them into submission. But it's just damned annoying to have to raze all their cities so you can go back and plant yours in the right spaces around where theirs were.
It's my understanding that the AI is programmed to go for a Space Race win every time. That being the case, I usually take that out before the game starts. I also experiment with map size. I used to play Huge exclusively, but now I usually play Standard. I also choose who is on the board with me and try to theme it based on era or traits. And I play on Prince, too. The only victory condition I have fulfilled IS Space Race. Sucks to be me :-) And yes, the AI is a HORRIBLE city spawner no matter what game I am playing!
LOL
And Brant posts all kinds of Civ V AARs now...guess the game grew on you, eh? ;)
I get war declared on me after a modest number of turns. I can kiss their ass, give them trade, make nicey-nicey, just doesn't seem to do much good.
Quote from: DennisS on August 11, 2017, 02:26:09 PM
I get war declared on me after a modest number of turns. I can kiss their ass, give them trade, make nicey-nicey, just doesn't seem to do much good.
Yeah the diplomacy vs AI in Civ games always seemed wonky. Didn't matter how much someone liked you if you didn't have a strong enough military they would declare war and take what they want. To me the games end up being a balancing act between growth and military might.
Quote from: jamus34 on August 11, 2017, 02:34:58 PM
Quote from: DennisS on August 11, 2017, 02:26:09 PM
I get war declared on me after a modest number of turns. I can kiss their ass, give them trade, make nicey-nicey, just doesn't seem to do much good.
Yeah the diplomacy vs AI in Civ games always seemed wonky. Didn't matter how much someone liked you if you didn't have a strong enough military they would declare war and take what they want. To me the games end up being a balancing act between growth and military might.
My play style has always been one of research and expansion. I create poorly defended, lovely plums for the AI to come conquer. I know, I know...need to work on that.
Quote from: DennisS on August 11, 2017, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: jamus34 on August 11, 2017, 02:34:58 PM
Quote from: DennisS on August 11, 2017, 02:26:09 PM
I get war declared on me after a modest number of turns. I can kiss their ass, give them trade, make nicey-nicey, just doesn't seem to do much good.
Yeah the diplomacy vs AI in Civ games always seemed wonky. Didn't matter how much someone liked you if you didn't have a strong enough military they would declare war and take what they want. To me the games end up being a balancing act between growth and military might.
My play style has always been one of research and expansion. I create poorly defended, lovely plums for the AI to come conquer. I know, I know...need to work on that.
Yeah Civ does really allow for that type of gameplay. I always preferred to play as high technology and use the military tech advantage that brings to field a smaller military. Problem is you need enough time to get that science advantage
Jon Shafer (lead designer for Civ V) --
"Nobody finishes games of Civ! Nobody does! That's the biggest challenge that Civ has: trying to make the game work and be fun from turn 1 to turn 500. Turn 1 to turn 200 is great, but turn 200 to 500 hasn't been all that great in any Civ game.
The reason it's such a challenge is that you're trying to map history onto this game and the fun part of 4X games is in the two first Xs. Exploration and Expansion. In almost every 4X game you're done with those two things around half-way through. The Exploitation is less interesting because you're not getting a lot of new things, you're just adding to the stockpile you already have. So you're losing the most enjoyable 60% of the game by half-way through. I'm not sure any Civ has figured out what to do with the second half of the game."
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/05/17/jon-shafer-on-designing-civilization-5-joining-paradox-and-making-strategy-games-better/
I always thought the beginning 1/4 of the Civ games were the most fun. The closest I ever got to finishing one, was Civ III, and that was only about 3/4 of a game. Over the decades, I guess I've had enough Civ fun. The last installment I purchased was Civ IV.
Quote from: Slick Wilhelm on August 13, 2017, 05:17:47 PM
I always thought the beginning 1/4 of the Civ games were the most fun. The closest I ever got to finishing one, was Civ III, and that was only about 3/4 of a game. Over the decades, I guess I've had enough Civ fun. The last installment I purchased was Civ IV.
I have finished games in all Civ I-V series (not all games obviously), but I agree with the general consensus that they are less fun after playing for quite awhile, and the iterations after Civ 3 were even less fun, if not so slick in appearance as Civ's 4-5.
I really enjoyed a variation of Civ - Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and the expansion. You could develop different weapon systems in the workshop as technology advanced. It seemed better thought out than the usual Civ games.