Do you lose?

[Sarxis]

I am just wondering, do you players of cIV and/or Warlords really ever lose to the AI?

I don't mean as a beginner, but now as an accomplished vet.

[Tattila the Hun]

Well, if I'm being beaten, I tend to quit before the end... So I don't technically lose.

[Will9]

Lose? Oh, you mean what happens to all those civs I destroy.

[Brael]

I haven't lost a game yet, but I've gotten really close a couple times and can attribute winning to luck only. Atleast this means I'm getting challenging games. I had one game where 1 turn prior to winning I was behind in score thanks to 2 civs forming a permanent alliance. However, I had ALOT of nukes stockpiled. I ended up nuking their cities to rubble expending my entire nuclear ordinence, it was something like 145 nukes. Anyways, the result was their population dropped enough that I was able to win the game through score by 2 points.

[Virdrago]

Lots. Sometimes I know I'm losing, and I still want to try certain victories (5th in score, behind in tech, why not try for a cultural victory?/At war with many people, Frederick ahead on other continent about to build spaceship, maybe I can hope to Vassalize my whole continent in 15 turns for Domination?).

In the end, I still lose. But it's fun to try, most of the time.

[LDiCesare]

I do. If I never lost, I'd up the difficulty one notch. When I do, I usually lose because I don't take enough care micromanageing, though I happened to quit once because I had no oil on my continent, including in the waters, we had reached the modern era, and I couldn't see anyway of taking out the opponents without oil (tanks and decent ships).
I also lose often when experimenting new civs/stuff/strategy. I can't figure out losing on monarch with no barbs though.

[sparkyal]

At first, I lost a lot. I tend not to be behind in score, but the Space Race can sometimes come up and get me.

Now, I don't loose much at all. this tells me it's time to move up a level. so, I think I've got Nobel beat, so I go up. I expect to loose more on the next level, but once I can beat it consistantly, I move up.

Nobel is supposed to be the most balanced, so how are you doing on that level? If you are having trouble beating Nobel I may suggest a couple of things:

If you are getting beat to space, build a large army and 4 spies. Find the enemy cities that are beating you to the space race and invade. Just raze the cities and move on. you can also try for domination and see how it goes. For that, I would suggest a civ like Rome, or some other one where the UU is rather powerful (the Redcoat had my vote until they unfairly made it a wimp, the Russian Cossak was also made into a wimp...not fair to history). The panzer (Germany) is also great. It is useful even against modern armor, now that is cool. Another good one is the Japanese Samuri.

sparky

[phlucas]

I tend to quit when I am in a bad situation. I rather try again to work out a better strategy for the Ancient/Classical Eras than try to work myself out of a hole in the Medieval Era. But when the situation is tight, I carry on, and so I might experience a loss.

When I lose, it's most often by Diplomacy. Normally, I do not play out Conquest or Domination losses; and I have never seen the AI get a Cultural victory.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
If I never lost, I'd up the difficulty one notch.

Exactly.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Well, if I'm being beaten, I tend to quit before the end... So I don't technically lose.

ditto.

though sometimes I feel if I'm good enough, I can maybe turn things around, but I'm not patient enough for that.

[Saurus]

On Emperor, I actually lose most of my games... but then again there would be no point in the game unless it is a real challenge

[Addled Platypus]

lose often enough

but I keep coming back

[TheArsenal]

Sure. But a more accurate question is: do I crawl up from my initial losing position to win? Which I do a fair amount of the time. The AI, due to its advantages, jumps out ahead and I spend the game playing catch up. More fun that way.

[Dis]

Usually what happens in my games. It's usually impossible to lead in the early game. But I usually catch up. As I develop my infrastructure earlier than the AI.

What I find interesting (and sometimes annoying) is how the AI is able to catch up in score (which is what I base my winning or losing on- whatever that's worth). I get real worried when I see them catching up in score. I fear I'm going to lose.

By the same token I do quit games when I'm behing in score, and I'm not closing the gap. Even though those games might actually be winnable. I give up too easily. It's true, I'm like this in other aspects of my life as well.

And I place too much emphasis on score. What is the real indicator on if you can win the game?

[Velociryx]

I lose frequently, so don't feel bad.

I'm *forever* experimenting with this or that type of play, opening strategy, or refinement. Sometimes, they blow up rather spectacularly--like the uber rush...building a second city from turn one, then conquering all my near neighbors...6-8 cities captured, plus the two I built = total economic meltdown--and sometimes they're just not fast enough to be viable--like trying to build ALL the ancient era wonders before putting anything stronger than a warrior in my city garrison queue.

I get eaten by the Barbarians a good bit of the time too, but it's all good. Always a learning experience...even the really STRANGE plays I try--like one game I played, intentionally avoiding any tech that would give me a better unit to build...just to see how long I could hold out with warriors only on the defense. Needless to say, that game ended...badly.

-=Vel=-