secret to finishing games

Hydey · February 23, 2001, 07:33

I have found the secret to finishing games of civ MP.

Don't do very well.

All games I do well in seem never to be continued but games I really suck in, boy everyone wants to play those.

So the secret to getting games finished is to really suck and then all your opponents will play to the end.

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

Carolus Rex · February 23, 2001, 08:17

Amen!!!

Exactly my experience...

Carolus

finbar · February 23, 2001, 09:09

Yeah, Hydey, isn't it strange how we only ever get to play the games that Horse is winning?

------------------
Founder, ACS Pedantry Institute
Founder, ACS Gourmet Recipe Exchange
Troll & Hydey Wrangler
Mono Rules!
#33984591

February 23, 2001, 09:21

Moi? Winning? You are too kind

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

War4ever · February 23, 2001, 10:56

kenthur is about the only one i know whom will continue games these days

..... i too usually am leading most games, not all that i am in and they never get continued.......

However that isn't because all my opponents wont continue, we just never have all the same people around

sekong · February 23, 2001, 19:14

Hey, War4, talking about never have the same group of people together. I think that's my reason to join a tribe or so. When sb. is not avaible, he can have a team/tribe member as a reasonable sub. Just my 2 cents.

War4ever · February 23, 2001, 20:06

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by sekong on 02-23-2001 06:14 PM</font>
Hey, War4, talking about never have the same group of people together. I think that's my reason to join a tribe or so. When sb. is not avaible, he can have a team/tribe member as a reasonable sub. Just my 2 cents.
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Sekong i agree.... tribes are a good way to play, although i fear cheating as i have not yet learned all the tricks of the game and at times feel overwhelmed and uncertain........

February 24, 2001, 00:45

We try to finish our games. We even had a spaceship

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

War4ever · February 24, 2001, 01:18

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 02-23-2001 11:45 PM</font>
We try to finish our games. We even had a spaceship

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

since i have been back ...... i have yet to see round 2 other than in dip games

KenThur · February 24, 2001, 03:10

AMEN Brothers!
Good topic thread... to say the least.

3 thots i'll throw in on this overwhelming prob that is ruining Civ MP:
1> the "Won't play, because I'm not winning." = so true!
However, i'v challenged myself & i challenge any MP player that reads this; to REALLY apply the Golden Rule!
If U want people to finish games that U R leading in, then be willing(& honest enuf) to hang in on those games that aren't going so well for U.
Let's face it, re-starting another session of a game U R getting your butt kicked in or all the huts U found were hordes, is NOT everyone's favorite thing to do.
But U want it, U have to be willing to give it.
I'm trying to motivate myself via a BURNING DESIRE to play in the modern era (hell, i'd just like to get to the industrial age!). If i have to be the "loser" just to get to work with a crusier, airplane, research lab, stock exchange, freight... at this point, i'll DO IT. I'm good enuf to hold off total destruction, so i'll fight on just to see a plane fly!
-----------------------------------------
2> Volunteer to be a sub. Sure, it's not going to be the Supreme Power U sub into. But at least U don't have to wade thru all those centuries of the SAME OLD TIRED units, techs, & city improvements... for the 100th time! Don't U get sick of seeing games top out at crusaders & cathedrals!?
And remember the Golden Rule.
Think about how much U would appreciate someone stepping into a good game U were in. A game that can't get re-started because 1 or 2 flakes/whimps never come back & are off to start YET ANOTHER game they won't finish.
I here & now & once again, proclaim MY WILLINGNESS to sub/take over a humanless civ if it will help keep a game going for the joy of others(& the hope of playing with some MODERN units!).
If U see me up, just ask... if i'm not in a game i'll sub/take over a civ.
-----------------------------------------
3> Play no-wonder-except-Apollo games. The #1 reason games become un-fun/hopeless is because of the now-all-too-common boring formula some guys always use; build-a-bunch-of-empty-cities-get-trade-build-caravans-rush-build-about-4-key-wonders = "insurmounable" lead, everyone else quits. PUKE!!!!
The wonders truly distort this otherwise great, tradeoff-filled game. Tradeoff's BTW, are what make ANY game fun. Think about it, if U don't already understand game design.
Wonders were a catchy little feature Sid & crew threw in to add pizzazz for the mass market. This crowd is not mass market, we are devotee's!
MEN, we are FAR beyond playing with "wild cards" called "wonders" at the level we play now. Grow up & out.
The mutually-exclusive, I've-got-it-&-you-don't, nature of the wonders = pure crap at this point in this classic's product life cycle. THINK about it.
----------------------------------------
Scheduling will forever be a prob of MP, but some of the other reasons / execuses for not finishing can be eliminated or reduced.
So be a MAN, finish your games or at least have the guts & courtesy to say, "You win, i'm outta here!"

------------------
"Hm-m-m, doubt me you will?"
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by KenThur (edited February 24, 2001).]</font>

February 24, 2001, 06:26

*horse scours his hard drive looking for a save where Hydey is doing well*

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

CommandoAndy · February 24, 2001, 08:33

Just wanted to throw in my two cents worth.

The main problem I have personally found in trying to finish a game is scheduling. A regular day and time helps. It's better for working things around the family and such.

As far as finding oneself in a hopeless postition, I am probably the resident expert in that. I'm not really all that familiar with the "tricks of the trade", as most of you are. What works relatively well against the AI, does not work against human opponents. So I often find myself slightly behind and somewhat down on the all mighty power graph. But you know what? I don't care. I play for fun, and you can call me a freak, but I relish the underdog roll. I particularly like taking over less than stellar civs for the challenge of trying to bring them around. But again, that's just me.

I would particularly enjoy one of those long running "diplomatic" games, as that is really why I bought the MP version in the first place. And the only way you'll be able to get me out of a game is if you wipe my pathetic little civilization off the face of the earth.

Quitters never win, and winners never quit.

cavebear · February 24, 2001, 10:35

CommandoAndy hit the main point. I think the most important thing about getting a game to finish (or at least get deep into the modern age) is to have a set day and time to play it.

That means getting players together *first* who all have a reliable playing time, and then deciding on the settings etc. It seems to me that used to be much more the standard than it is now.

Advertising for a "Sundays @ 4pm EST" game, for example, instead of a settings-oriented game, is more likely to result in a longer-lasting one.

Rasputin · February 24, 2001, 10:51

Well I for one wouldnt enjoy playing a game to conclusion if I had obviously won but we were simply playing through the motions just to get to Modern ERA. If you want to see those type of units play Single player they look the same.
It would be better to concede defeat in a friendly manner early in game rather than playing for many more hours, days, months just to placate an apetite for modern era units.

However a game that is unknown in who is winner is defiantly worth finishing....

War4ever · February 24, 2001, 14:20

Advertising for a "Sundays @ 4pm EST" game, for example, instead of a settings-oriented game, is more likely to result in a longer-lasting one.[/quote]

so true Cavebear..... one of the reasons i joined the dip game...... people are showing up on a regular basis..... i am actually waiting all week for this game with ants in my pants

cavebear · February 24, 2001, 14:48

Apolyton News Post and Gazette Feb 24, 2001

CaveNews (R) - War4ever agrees to long-term games! KenThur and others support this radical new proposal!

Long a proponent of such, War4ever reiterated his support of long-term games using the "preset time/day" system of old in an interview today. Stating that "games just don't continue to the really intersting parts", Mr. War4ever announced his full support for the idea.

In a related interview, KenThur also supported the proposal. Responding to a question on "Modern Weaponry", Mr KenThur related his difficulty in gaining experience with Mobile Warfare and Women's Suffarage, stating "I never get that far before other players quit the game. Just once, I'd like to see the game go farther".

Other players are not so sanguine about the idea of advanced years. Eyes of Night, a regular player of many names and some skill declared "If my opponents make it to 500 BC or so, it would be all over for me", adding "but they never do, so they are all my ******* anyway. It's a cr*p-a$$ mute (sic) point anyway."

Still, the concept may spread, as many players seem to be in the doldrums these days. As one player, Nap, said "You think I am good with triremes and chariots, you should see me with stealth tech".

Markusf, when asked, merely smiled and said "We are attempting to address that issue now."

The debate rages on.

War4ever · February 24, 2001, 15:23

ROTFLMAO

well done Cavebear...... your up for a pulitzer with that article...... other candidates include..... Alexanders Horse's "building on Mountaintops is a cheat" ..... Capo's "I am the biggest ***** @ Apolyton"..... EON and Markusf piecess on "I am the greatest player in the world" and last but not least ....... Agharta_ID and his piece titled ...."My settings only" .....

Stay tuned for the winner and whiner

Hydey · February 24, 2001, 19:31

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 02-24-2001 05:26 AM</font>
*horse scours his hard drive looking for a save where Hydey is doing well*

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Try looking in your recycle box, for you probably delete games you are not winning.

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

KenThur · February 24, 2001, 22:22

Thanks & let's hope so Cave!

Raspuke'n: You slobber...
"...just to placate an apetite for modern era units."
No wonder the other Auzzie's talk about U the way they do.

And as for "Play by yourself, if U want to see modern units."...
Yeah, like the AI knows how to conduct an invasion supported by air & naval units that blitzkriegs it's way thru the heart of your civ using armor & RR to strike deep into your wonder city.
Or is it, that your fellow Auzzie's havn't blessed U with that sort of baptisum that can happen ONLY in modern times.
Perhaps because they, how did U say it? They all "politely surrender" after U get Mich's & Leon's?
GAG! Choke! Whimps!
As we say in auto racing... to finish 1st, 1st U have to finish.
Even my dull little mind has started to figure out that "Eyes of _____" win-by-intimidation tactic. Rush thru the start as above & hope that your competition capitulates when they see a rush of some wonders completed. If not, then as Eyes figured out long ago, the rush builder had better get out of game, because the solidly built Civ's are going to rule in the end, huh? But as we are discussing herein, are you MAN enuf stick it out?

------------------
"Hm-m-m, doubt me you will?"

Rasputin · February 25, 2001, 05:37

As one of the easist beats in the competition I fully understand people not wanting to waste time in MP games that they stand no chance of winning...

However I also fuly understand that some egomaniacals wish to utterly destroy their opposition rather than let them concede i na favourable surrender... Many Real world leaders of old had the same mind set so nothing unusual in this. But I would hope that in modern world all palyers would realise that with REAL LIFE to take care of Time is too precious to waste on an obvious loss..
But as you also say, jsut becuase some one rush builds wonders is no reason to give up. But if you are down to your last few city sand the opposition had more than 10 times your city numbers and many more times your techs and units then perhpas you need to rethink your oppurtunitys and redo your strategy in next game.
I never concede based jsut on Powergraph as to me it is totally irrelevant , I know the strenghts and weaknesses of my own civ and I know if I can withstand the onslaught of the other civs.

As to your point of AI modern warfare, in most single player games I paly, the AI uses many Tanks and Howitzerrs in a Blitzkreig type attacks, the only differnece is their lack of railroads. But they do target my Engineers building railroads to its citys so it seems to understand that risk (or maybe it just targets weak units) But then again I am not upto your standard and abilty to eqasily defeat AI pre modern warfare units..

I just feel that people should accept taht they have won the war when the oppsoition concedes, not only when the opposition is dead....

February 25, 2001, 09:16

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Rasputin on 02-25-2001 04:37 AM</font>

However I also fuly understand that some egomaniacals wish to utterly destroy their opposition rather than let them concede i na favourable surrender...
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

Muwahahaha!!!!!!

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

Rasputin · February 25, 2001, 09:55

Damn how did he know I was talknig about him

Hydey · February 25, 2001, 17:04

I don't think anyone has a problem with people leaving when the situation is impossible, (5 cities & 10 units against 50 cities & 300 units), it is those who leave when the game is still in the balance, perhaps one player has a slight tech lead (1 tech

) or has 2 cities more or that wonder that is wanted, they are the problem players. SHlT I don't want someone to keep playing until I destroy every unit they have but just until it is obvious they can not stop me from doing that.

------------------
I am the real Troll
A.H. is a nice guy
Sooky Sooky La La

War4ever · February 25, 2001, 17:11

Mikes and SOL don't guarrantee victory...... calvalry vs phalanx's.... thats a different story.....

KenThur · February 26, 2001, 01:33

Totally agree w/ that Rasp.
It is a waste & the game obviously is unwinnable & someone has given it there best shot, both time (schedule) wise & playing hard, fold your cards & call for a new deal. Valuable time is a'wastin'.

If the "crush'm to the last unit" type player wants to, they can save & do it alone later.

carnide_ · March 1, 2001, 21:53

How about a ladder for finished games?

rah · March 3, 2001, 01:25

Amen Hydey,
Yes that is the most annoying. I won't name names, but I've had people send a hoard to attack me and when the army loses, they just quit. (some without any warning or even a good night.) And you're right, the worst is when the completed wonder message pops and someone quits the next turn.

Granted, I too will concede when it becomes obvious, but I'll at least finish the session to let the leader have some fun. But even if they are obviously stronger, I'll hang in there to see if I can cause some trouble.

Unfortunately it is easier to continue games when you're getting your ass kicked.

RAH

cavebear · March 3, 2001, 18:46

Rah, I agree there is value to continuing games you are losing. There is a lot to learn from defending in hard circumstances. Besides, quitting losing games is just a child's way...

March 3, 2001, 20:34

I think there is a point where a clear winner emerges and there isn't much point going on. I think its better to concede than play to the last in some circumstances.

What I find odd about the play of some of my regular partners is how passive they are when behind. I think you might as well come out with all guns blazing.

------------------
Chaos, panic and disorder - My work here is done.

Hydey · March 5, 2001, 06:06

<center><table width=80%><tr><td><font color=000080 face="Verdana" size=2><font size="1">quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
</font><font size=1>Originally posted by Alexander's Horse on 03-03-2001 07:34 PM</font>
I think there is a point where a clear winner emerges and there isn't much point going on. I think its better to concede than play to the last in some circumstances.

What I find odd about the play of some of my regular partners is how passive they are when behind. I think you might as well come out with all guns blazing.

<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></font></td></tr></table></center>

If you feel that way , why don't you ever do it?