When should the game end?

[Lancer]

I think it should end with the discovery of industrialization. They went too far beyond the sword and should have focused even more on the pre industrial times and more realistic combat resolution. In Civ II you had ships crashing themselves into cities. In IV you have catapults going in first, unsupported. That's a tad odd.

So, when should it end for you?

[TimeTraveler]

On one hand, they did seem to focus more on advances of the last 200 years than they needed to. But that's because the modern and industrial era have gotten a bit crowded. If I was designing the game, the last era available would involve stuff that has yet to be developed by anyone. As in the more important things we might expect for the next 200 years. Or at least the next 100.

Of course, I'd also have it where when deciding the parameters of the game, one of the things possible to choose would be the first and last era available in that particular game.

[eris]

You get a "banana" vote from me because you did not even consider that there would be people who would not want the game shortened but rather lengthened if at all possible. That seems to me to be a significant unconcious omission, unless, of course, you really only wanted to talk to people who agreed with you. I am not interested in Sci-Fi scenarios, but a little more exploration of the post-modern era of politics, economics and combat could be very interesting.

[Fleme]

I for one would play the game with earnest even if they doubled the number of turns it takes to finish. Marathon is too fast. This is slightly off topic so to respond to your poll, I vote Banana but will also point out that I'm quite content with the way the game progresses and ends. You can win by 1000 AD but you can also play all the way to 2100. It's good.

[Supr49er]

I'm fine where it ends now.

[Modo44]

I couldn't care less. I usually stop playing once it is clear that the game is won/lost, which can be any point in time, really.

[jkp1187]

NextWar, baby! It doesn't end until every city has an arcology and Assault Mechs roam the world!

[Theben]

When the final hiss of life escapes the lips of the last heathen savage impaled on my bayonet.

[Jaybe]

Yet another banana here. I don't think I've ever gone all the way to a 'time' victory. In my games it has always been won by someone before then.

[rah]

Yep, never reached the 'Time' victory either.

[Jaybe]

I suppose I should try for a time victory sometime. A substantial challenge would be to (1) avoid other victory types, and (2) preventing others from those things.

They would all have to be enabled, of course.
And it could make for a long, boring end-game with the way I play. Possibly it would make it more rewarding.

[Fleme]

I wonder what the cinematic for a time win is.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by Fleme
I wonder what the cinematic for a time win is.

I don't think there is one.

[Cartimandua]

Honestly, I don't make it to the end of the game very often, in fact I almost never actually get a victory, but I don't lose either. My husband calls it an attention problem, I say nothing fun happens after 1900 AD. I just get bored and start a new game. I guess I have more fun at the beginning of the game than I do later.

[Blaupanzer]

Voted for "fine the way it is," but I like TimeTraveler's idea to be able to pick first and last eras at the beginning of the game.

I have won a "time" victory and the last hundred turns were spent racing to stop spaceship construction in two civs and seize one of the cultural cities to prevent another AI from winning that way. Might as well have gone for a domination win given the power I needed to generate anyway.