CIV burnout

[Dis]

the game just forces me to be a a-hole warmonger.

My nice sophisticated British troops got a lot of action last game. When they'd rather be just sittin' at the base drinking tea.

To be fair, I started the war with the Japanese in a land grab (couldn't fall behind in score). And the second time the Japanese had become a vassal of the aztecs (and I was too lazy to check the diplo screen to know this). So I had to fight both of them. Since my war with the aztecs, they kept declaring war on me every 15 to 20 turns after making peace. Eventually they had to be wiped out.

These civs certainly hold a grudge when you burn a few of their cities. the chinese especially didn't like it when I burned their holy city. I was lazy and forgot to check the religion screen. I burned a holy city with 31% coverage (it would have been difficult to hold though unless I completely wiped them out- which I later did).

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Bkeela
My Civ playing cycle goes something like this: I'll play feverishly for about 2 months, then I'll have a break for about a month. Having a valuable city sacked by the AI or having 2 or more AI nations declare war at the same time when I am unprepared is the usual trigger for a break.

That usually makes me want to play more, so I can protect myself and learn how to defend against more difficult opponents. When I am winning too easily in a game, that's when I need a break.

[ZEE]

.

[Virdrago]

Enjoy your break, but keep on posting!

Sounds like a vacation from work, not a game...

[Dis]

despite my frustrations mentioned above, I had an enjoyable game the other day.

It had been over 2 weeks since I had played (and probably over a month since my last complete game) and I was itching for another game. It's nice to take short breaks. As time goes on I may need to take longer and longer breaks.

And I still keep meaning to play those scenarios. . It's funny when Civ3 conquests came out I went right to the scenarios. And I had a lot of fun with those as I was already bored with the regular game. But with this game I still love the regular game, and haven't been too interested in the scenarios. I can't explain it (other than civ4 being better than civ3).

[Bkeela]

I agree the game forces you to be a warmonger. Time and time again I have tried to win consistently on prince level using random leaders and without conquering all my neighbours. But time and time again I have been trashed because of my poor power ranking due to needing to max out science research.

[rjwoer]

I've taken a bit of a break, compared to how much I used to play. But even when I'm not playing it constantly, I usually have one game moving along slowly which I'll put some time into every once in a while.

But I can feel my Civ addiction resurfacing. There's nothing quite like being totally immersed! I think Civ is one of those games that is most enjoyable when you are waist deep in a marathon game, skipping meals, and forgetting to shower. LOL!

[Provost Harrison]

I have been off work sick the past couple of days but have resisted. I know it is a slippery slope - once I get started it is hard for me to stop

[ZEE]

.

[Dis]

Another enjoyable game last night. I think 1 or 2 games a week is the limit for me though. Definately no time during the work week to play.

That may seem like a lot to you guys. I know you guys have 20 hour games and such. My game last night was about 9.5 hours. That was long for me. Only because I was playing marathon and doing the domination win.

I played Stalin for the first time, and yes I did do state property. I'm not sure how good it was. I seemed to do okay I guess.

[MJW]

Early war is the best idea in the game. This is because the AI gets big bonuses in the $ vector but small bonuses in the hammers vector. Abusing slavery is just icing on the cake.

[Dis]

just did a modern start. 1 hour and 9 minutes. wow, what a quick game.

It was much easier than anticipated. I should have played a higher level. The problem is there were no wars. There weren't enough negative modifiers for anyone to get pissed at each other. I gave into a few mongol demands, and never had to worry about them. Shows how those negative modifiers build up throughout the game.

Interesting there was one civ I hadn't met when I won a space race. . You'd think satellites would reveal the civs along with the rest of the map. And one of the top 5 cities at the end was unknown. . The other 4 were mine. . I love having most of the top 5 cities. I was a random civ (louix the 14 of france). My culture overwhelmed 2 cities, and the rest was agressive expansion and building factories early. that's all it took.

[Alexander I]

I agree that there's too much warmongering. It gets tiring. If you play with Montezuma, Isabella, or Tokugawa, you're pretty much guaranteed to fight them. (Shameless plug for 2nd leaders)

[Adampunch]

Another nod to warmongering here. i was playing a medium sized, noble, "lakes" game the other day, as Elizabeth. I was located on the northern edge of the world, with the incans just to the south. They were always at the bottom of the score list, and i was keeping them around as a buffer against the stronger nations, blowing off most of their requests. I battled the greeks on and off throughout the game, so I was keeping my army up to date. . . or so i thought. During peacetime, the incans suddenly declare war on me and show up on my doorstep with stacks of doom bigger and more advanced than my own. There was no way i could compete and my capital was captured in about 5 turns.

What really gets me is that they were such a small nation - 5 cities, spread out with the Arabs in between. Still, they amassed a major army and had superior technology. How could they support such a paowerful army?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Adampunch

What really gets me is that they were such a small nation - 5 cities, spread out with the Arabs in between. Still, they amassed a major army and had superior technology. How could they support such a paowerful army?

Easy, the computer cheats.