How often do you expect to win?

[Arrian]

I expect to win every time, yeah. I play on a lowish difficulty level, so I damn well better win. But I do not play simply to win. I play to win HUGE. If I fail in this, I consider it a "loss" of sorts, even though I would've eventually won the game.

-Arrian

[Krill]

Quest for ultimate power

[Arrian]

Quest for ultimate power

A good start, access to horses, marble/stone, non-protective neighbors and straight on 'till morning!

-Arrian

[Krill]

I'll just take the horse and a decent start. Tis cheaper to take cities that just built wonders than build them in the long run

[Krill]

I'd actually like to do a "Quest of Ultimate Power" AU game tbh. Anyone else up for a game like that? Get a nice start and the aim of the game is to win as big as possible. It's harder than you first realise...

[Harovan]

Truth to be told, I'm not struggling winning my games, I'm actually struggling finishing them. Since Civ4 was released, I started about half a hundred games (estimated) and didn't even finish a handful. I think I finished 2 vanilla, 1 warlords and zero BtS games so far, that's at least what my records say. I enjoy the games throughout the ancient and medieval ages, put a lot of time and thought in them, but my commitment drops like a rock in the industrial age and reaches zero when tanks come along, at the latest. I have a folder of unfinished games (although I purge it frequently), and usually the last save is somewhere between 1400 and 1800.

In most of them I'm in a winning position, seldom with an even or almost even opponent. So I guess I'm in the "always winning" camp, even though I seldom really win - I seem to abandon games when there is no more struggle in them, but I also can't bring it over me to step up a level. I fought my way up through the levels in Civ3 and ended in the gap between Emperor and Deity (that what later was called Immortal), but in Civ4 I'm rather in the lowish level camp.

[jkp1187]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Truth to be told, I'm not struggling winning my games, I'm actually struggling finishing them. Since Civ4 was released, I started about half a hundred games (estimated) and didn't even finish a handful. I think I finished 2 vanilla, 1 warlords and zero BtS games so far, that's at least what my records say. I enjoy the games throughout the ancient and medieval ages, put a lot of time and thought in them, but my commitment drops like a rock in the industrial age and reaches zero when tanks come along, at the latest. I have a folder of unfinished games (although I purge it frequently), and usually the last save is somewhere between 1400 and 1800.

In most of them I'm in a winning position, seldom with an even or almost even opponent. So I guess I'm in the "always winning" camp, even though I seldom really win - I seem to abandon games when there is no more struggle in them, but I also can't bring it over me to step up a level. I fought my way up through the levels in Civ3 and ended in the gap between Emperor and Deity (that what later was called Immortal), but in Civ4 I'm rather in the lowish level camp.

If you're always in an impregnable position in your games by the end, why not just take it up a level?

[Robert]

2/10
I want the game to be a challenge.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by jkp1187
If you're always in an impregnable position in your games by the end, why not just take it up a level?

Because that would worsen the IMO best part of the game, the ancient and medieval age. At higher levels you start in a "hole" (even though that has become less in Blakes AI) and climb out of it in the later game. I would artifically handicap myself the ages I enjoy most, to break even in the ages I don't enjoy.

I don't like the inflationary increase of hammers, gold and units in the late game, because that devalues them. Early on 10 axemen are an asset. If you lose them it takes a while to replace them. Hence you have to put thought into your campaigns. Late on 10 tanks are nothing because they're your empires per turn output. You can freely laugh at their loss. Mass and not strategy decides wars.

And I don't like the short-livedness of the later ages - science goes way too fast. Whatever you build will be obsolete a few turns later.

Probably a mod that ends in the late medieval age would be my favorite.

[LDiCesare]

I already voted, but it would but worth noting that my 9year daughter expects to win all her games. And I would expect it, too, onsidering she plays on settler and uses WorldBuilder to encase all other civs in mountains after changing the land into desert. But she's nice and usually lets them have one lake in their little box.
Of course, she uses the World Builder again to free them from their peaks prisons when she's ready to conquer them (i.e. she settled the rest of the world unimpeded).

[Arrian]

Because that would worsen the IMO best part of the game, the ancient and medieval age. At higher levels you start in a "hole" (even though that has become less in Blakes AI) and climb out of it in the later game. I would artifically handicap myself the ages I enjoy most, to break even in the ages I don't enjoy.

BINGO. I too rarely finish games. I do usually manage to at least get into the industrial age... somewhere in SR's 1400-1800 timeframe.

I'd actually like to do a "Quest of Ultimate Power" AU game tbh. Anyone else up for a game like that? Get a nice start and the aim of the game is to win as big as possible. It's harder than you first realise...

One problem would be to properly define UP. I myself have only a vague definition (one that probably involves a lot more wonders built than your definition would).

Another problem is that I think many players would get bored playing such a game... even I rarely finish them (I get to a point at which I've attained UP - or gotten as close as can be for that game - and I'm tired, so I go to bed, never to reload the game).

A nice start involves more than just the capital radius. In order to really know if you've got an "UP" sort of start, you need to play it out a bit (to see the surrounding terrain, and the location of your targets, aka "neighbors"). The next time I get ahold of a really good one, I'll try and keep the 4000bc save and maybe it could be turned into a course.

The other option is for someone (me?) to edit a map to turn it into a great UP start (w/o going overboard, which is trickey). But I'm not very good with the WB, and I'm lazy

-Arrian

[=DrJambo=]

About 7 out of 10, although I play to win every game.

If I get into the situation where I'm winning game after game on the trot and the margin of victory is large enough that the end game was tedious, then that's when I move up a level.

This just happened to me with Monarch level. I've had 5 wins on the trot, with several easy domination victories, so that means it's time to move up to Emperor....

[Wiglaf]

Re: How often do you expect to win?

Originally posted by Blake
This is a topic I've bought up before in various contexts.

I make the assertion that SP players tend to choose a difficulty where they usually win, rather than one where they win about as often as any other AI in the game.
.

No, you've made the assertion SP players always expect to win. And almost no one wants to win as often as the other AIs. It's obvious people expect above average but not guaratneed odds of winning, unless they are 9 or stupid.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Blake

Funnily enough people have always thought I'm being judgmental when I say that "most people want to win every time".

I think that what most people want is winning, but what people is judgemental about is not really how much people like to win or not but rahter wether the A.I is functional or not. Theese matters easily seems to get confused and mixed togheter when discussing.

I remember a heated discussion regarding this from the time BtS was released when some players, including me, considered the normal A.I too passive and gullible to offer any considerable resistance at any level.
You replied by claiming that most players want to win their games out of the box, witch might be correct. However, to me, the logic seemed thus that, if the A.I has flaws, then people are happy because they will win more often!

Of course, the easiest way to win, is to play against an A.I that does not do really do anything at all
(ala Heroes of Might and Magic IV).
Then everyone will always win, and thus be happy.


I am very, very, pleased and grateful that you, Blake, perfected CIV4 by providing an A.I that truly is able to provide a challenge whitout heavy cheats (like free workers & settlers etc & extreme discounts .. )
I just hope you are not going to use the results of this poll to make the A.I worse in the future by crippling it in order to make winning easier.
I am certain that everyone who desperately needs to win, already is able to do this, even if only on the Settler-level.

[Slade Wilson]

9.9999 out of ten. However in SP i reserve myself the powers of GM, narrator and roleplayer and edit the game sometimes, even on the fly. I do not consider the AI to be competing with me, as a boxer does not compete with a punching bag. Like a punching bag, the AI in civ is an inanimate object that carries out its directives over and over again....