Do you continue to play CIV3 after 2050 retirement?

PrinceBimz · May 6, 2003, 10:13

Alot of my games seem to be over just when things start getting good and I start really getting modern techs. I almost always end after the 2050 retirement and I never continue playing on. I am wondering if many of you do continue to play on afterwards? I think I am going to start continuing my games on to the very end. I would really like to get some of these high level techs that I have never been able to get. Some of you must really be good to be able to achieve a science victory before 2050. That is downright admirable!

Wittlich · May 6, 2003, 10:29

At 2050, I don't continue on since the score is no longer kept...so it's anti-climatic to say the least.

Thirgaral · May 6, 2003, 10:50

rarely, but it happens....

dojoboy · May 6, 2003, 11:43

Rarely get that far, but if I happen to --- game over.

TheArsenal · May 6, 2003, 11:57

I play two more turns to rain nuclear fire down on anyone left just to watch the chaos that ensues.

But seriously play? No. I play Huge/Large maps. 20 to 45 hours a game is long enough.

Cruddy · May 6, 2003, 12:45

Nope. I guess I would if the modern techs were a mystery to me - but they're not so there isn't any point.

Adagio · May 6, 2003, 13:01

I haven't played Civ3 that much, but back in the days (with Civ1 and Civ2) I always played on... until all Civs (but one

) was wiped of the face of this planet...

Arrian · May 6, 2003, 14:11

I can't remember the last time one of my games made it to the 1800s. That includes SS wins. My last game ended around 1500, and I was midway though the industrial age (researching mass production, I think).

I play primarily on Monarch. Since the AI gets bonuses (growth, production, research, AI-to-AI trading), the tech pace moves pretty quickly, especially early in the game, before I've had a chance to do serious damage to the AI

. Later, assuming things go well, I can chime in with a 4-turn tech pace by the industrial age. Players who go the "peaceful builder" route tend to finish even earlier, since they don't break the AI, so the tech pace is even quicker.

Emperor & Deity move even faster.

-Arrian

PrinceBimz · May 6, 2003, 14:11

On the higher levels I just can't get alot of those bloody modern techs. I normally check the year to see how I am doing and also of course the AI civs. For example when I am in 1940s I should have the techs for destroyers, battleships, carriers and aircraft. If I don't I assume that means I am behind on tech.

Romanus · May 6, 2003, 18:35

I selected the "Sometimes" option......which is fairly accurate. I generally play the game focused on winning via whatever victory condition I set, then once a winner is determined, I will play on based on whether I am enjoying the game or not. If I lose a game, I generally play on just to exact revenge on the winner. Im a major advocate of what I would call freeform or semi-freeform games. Give me the basic stuff to play a game, let me do the rest. Ive never liked scripted scenarios, missions or campaigns. Civ3, GalCiv, Moo3, IG2, and GTA3 are examples of games that allow for a lot of imagination and fun.

Alfonso · May 6, 2003, 20:01

That depends on if the game to me continues entertaining.

Frucus · May 7, 2003, 07:19

Never ... it's very boring

aaglo · May 7, 2003, 07:23

I've never seen such dates in my games. The latest I've seen is somewhere in the 1890's...

Spiffor · May 7, 2003, 07:54

I never played past 2050, because I often stop a game before victory. The modern age bores me because of the very long waitin times on huge+ maps (I know, I have it coming)

georges bonbon · May 7, 2003, 09:25

Quote:

Originally posted by aaglo
I've never seen such dates in my games. The latest I've seen is somewhere in the 1890's...

Always beaten at around 1900??????????????

lol

kring · May 7, 2003, 12:05

Sometimes, it depends on my mood and the game itself. Some games get so intense that I want to finish it out, even if it means that I go past 2050 AD. The score is not relevant to me. It's the challenge, or the thrill of finishing some goal(s) that I was striving to accomplish.

Alex · May 7, 2003, 13:41

I rarely do it, only when I cannot accomplish my goals before 2050.

I read somehwere on these boards that the game is bound to crashes if you try to play it long after 2050...

Panag · May 7, 2003, 14:38

hi ,

yes , why not , you have spend 6050 years and then all of a sudden you give up , ......

have a nice day

Andropov · May 7, 2003, 14:54

Sometimes I play after 2050 if it has been a tough game. I enjoy being able to use radar artillery, stealth bombers, etc. on the enemy. To me, the modern era warfare is the most fun, and the score is irrelevant...so occasionally I'll venture past the cut off date.

Paulypav · May 7, 2003, 18:09

I have occasionally played past 2050, but only a few years and then I become bored. One of these days I might go further if I'm really enjoying the game, but I doubt it.

Naiveplayer · May 9, 2003, 01:05

All the time, in fact - I almost never throw away games after 2050.

My colllection of still-running games

:

Naiveplayer · May 9, 2003, 01:09

Of course by this you can tell how skilled I am. (not very skilled)

In the 2559 Greek game, the tech pace was so slow. I have a note that says to sabotage London in 2200 because that was the turn before they were about to build the U.N.

And...I think the two Bismarck games are the same game...but were in different folders...

The 2223 French game was the ultimate game - I had to keep on disabling victory conditions: cultural, histographic, domination, diplomatic, spaceship. I used C3MT to uncheck the conditions and in 2049 extended the retirement date.

asleepathewheel · May 9, 2003, 01:21

No

I like to see my scores on the high score list. I am vain. I don't care so much after that. If I haven't won by 2050, I consider that to be a loss

Daz · May 9, 2003, 02:52

only if the game was very challenging until the very end....
Not if I'm the sole superpower.

MoonWolf · May 9, 2003, 03:52

Maybe my memory mix this with the other peaceful victories, but I continue only a few times, and that's to go totally warmongering with nukes

Alex · May 9, 2003, 10:14

If I'm playing in a map with plenty of opportunities for a good tactical war, then I try to play the game past 2050, just for the fun of it. As someone said, war is much more interesting with modern era units, so I may extend the game a little more just to use them (and sometimes to make use of nukes too

)

Aramis · May 9, 2003, 15:50

Rarely, and by that I mean only once. That was the only game that got that far. My other games are usually over in the mid 1700s. In the one game where 2050 retirement came I continued to play to find out what the other advances and units were like.
Would I play past 2050 again? I don't know. If it ever comes up again, I'll know.

bobbo008 · May 10, 2003, 22:04

i edit all of the games i play, usually trying something new. i like on huge maps having workers and settlers have two movement points and you can move over 5 "roaded" squares in a turn. i also make techs cheaper. this was in my current game, although the AI doesnt seem to be doing too well. on regent, on my own good-sized island. the map is 300x300 or more. i'm at combustion and the AI is at education. i have all the wonders. wonder what i did wrong...

pedrojedi · May 11, 2003, 00:31

Never... My games almost never get that far, and I think it is kinda sad to work a lot to not see it in the scores.

HazieDaVampire · May 11, 2003, 11:17

i keep on going untill i own the world, and i usualy nuke it untill its all desert too. MUHAHAHAHA