At what point do you restart a game?

[NFIH]

I know there are players out there who will restart from turn one until they get a an optimal starting point for their first city, but what about well after that? At what point do you decide the game is unwinnable or otherwise headed for an indefinite stalemate and simply restart?

Here's my situation: In a recent game on Noble (yes, feel free to laugh!), normal speed, continents (I think), normal size map, I had two other civs on my continent. I was playing as Ethiopia. I immediately took out one of the civs (don't remember who), leaving me with only Boudica's Celts on my landmass.

But I was unable to position myself for any kind of knockout blow, even though I was ahead of her. The problem was she had more than enough strength to blunt any attack I might make, and if I did attack and didn't immediately win, she would almost certainly have been able to roll over me.

So by the end of the Middle Ages--say, early 17th century--I was still ahead of her and could have stayed that way indefinitely (we had since met another civ from across the water somewhere and he was far ahead of both of us). But what's the point? I hadn't earlier positioned myself to go for a cultural win so that was out. I didn't have a particular edge in religions so that was out.

So I decided to just quit, although I'd spent ages in this game already. It would have been just a tedious click-fest with Boudica and I probably just losing to the overseas Civ on points or space race or something.

Should I or could I have done something different? Should I have restarted well before even this age?

(I just find that it's really hard to take out more than one enemy civ early on, but the effort spent waging war on the one I did knock out allows the unmolested civ to all but guarantee that I won't actually be able to take him out later anyway.)

[rah]

If you were ahead of her. And got gunpowder before she had knights, your special muskets would trash her.

But yes sometimes that lightbulb goes on in your head. "i'm not going to win this one and do I want to waste my valuable free time continuing in the hopes of learning something from my defeat or do I want to start fresh and apply the lessions I've already learned"
Each person probably has their own feel for this.
The interesting question is that when the shoe is on the other foot "it's obvious you're going to win" do you finish it out or decide you need not waste our time. It's a done deal.

Personally I'm a glutton for punishment, but when tanks are trashing my riflemen and battleships are trahing my frigates, I have to reconsider expending more time on the game. (unless I'm going for a cultural win and I just have to hang in there a little longer)

[NFIH]

Originally posted by rah
If you were ahead of her. And got gunpowder before she had knights, your special muskets would trash her.

Yes, I was slightly ahead of her in that regard, but the issue was then, "Can I build enough muskets (Oromo warriors) and get them into battle before she can get enough defensive units to slow me down enough that her own counters will be in play and stop me cold?"

The answer was no. Sure I could build three or four warriors in X years, but even her slightly more obsolete units were there in enough numbers that they would simply wear me down before I could make a dent. This was my conundrum and has been more than a few times.

[rah]

Then your real issue is not building enough units.

A good trick is when a unit tech is closing in (in this case gunpowder for the Oromo warrior, a UU that you just have to take advantage of) concentrate on food production to add any pop you can regardless of any happy/health limits and be prepared to whip a few rounds of units. (always doing a turn build in between to minimize pop reduction. This accomplishes many things.
1. quick army
2. Your maintence of supporting those whipped people should be reduced (unless the whipped pop was all cottage workers) which will help neutralize the maint from the extra troops.
3. by the time War W. gets to be a problem those cities should be coming out of the whipping unhappy.

And knowing replacement units in your back city will be good units, you can take some of the better obsolete units in the back cities and add them to the attack force giving you superior numbers.

[NFIH]

Originally posted by rah
Then your real issue is not building enough units.

Yes, I had considered this, but as I saw it my issue was not having enough military-capable cities. IIRC, I had a total of six cities, only two of which could build units at a good clip. The others were good only for commerce/research and one was good only because it denied the use of an island to any rivals.

Could I have switched the commerce/research cities to military? Yes. But the problem for me there was they would still build too slowly to be effective contributors to any war effort and I would be foregoing research, which would cause me to fall behind in tech to Boudica and then get beaten by a better--even if smaller--army. The margin seemed to me to be that thin.

But do you think given what I've just explained that I should have gone for your suggestion anyway? Is there anything else I should consider?

A good trick is when a unit tech is closing in (in this case gunpowder for the Oromo warrior, a UU that you just have to take advantage of) concentrate on food production to add any pop you can regardless of any happy/health limits and be prepared to whip a few rounds of units. (always doing a turn build in between to minimize pop reduction. This accomplishes many things.

Sorry, but what's a "turn build"?

[rah]

sorry if that was unclear.
It's doing one turn of normal build before whipping so you don't suffer the 0 hammer penalty.

[rah]

And if you have 6 cities and only 2 are producing units, you're not building enough units if conquest is a goal. (short term or long term)
Build a few more cities that get no improvement. (closer to your core to minimize dist maint. and whenever they get to size three whip a unit, rinse repeat. some people recommend building a barracks but it's not necessary. They're just fodder cities. If they're close and never get above size 3 or 4, the maint will be quite small.

But if you do this you must use and lose some of these units or you're not doing it right. And the money you get for taking cities will pay for those turns when your army is in the field.

[NFIH]

Originally posted by rah
And if you have 6 cities and only 2 are producing units, you're not building enough units if conquest is a goal. (short term or long term)
Build a few more cities that get no improvement. (closer to your core to minimize dist maint. and whenever they get to size three whip a unit, rinse repeat. some people recommend building a barracks but it's not necessary. They're just fodder cities. If they're close and never get above size 3 or 4, the maint will be quite small.

But if you do this you must use and lose some of these units or you're not doing it right. And the money you get for taking cities will pay for those turns when your army is in the field.

That's useful info, but what about the issue of map size? Remember, I said I was playing a normal sized continents map (or something like that). Six cities was what I was able to get even including knocking out a rival within the first several turns. There was nowhere to expand to after that as Boudica had taken up the rest of the space (slightly less than mine). I also have to watch for early maintenance costs that come with overly quick expansion, etc.

So how would you suggest I proceed? Just rush and try and take everything as quickly as possible? What to do about maintenance costs and such?

[rah]

Size isn't that important. Your fodder city can be created inside your territory. It's only every going to work 4 squares. Heck its fat cross can overlap your cap's. If you keep it under size 4 and it's only 4 squares from your cap, maint shouldn't be too onerous.
But again, if you do this you can't just store up the units or the maint will kill you. Go out and bonk heads. Your top two cities are going to be doing most of your tech and money generation anyway. If you put them down real early, whip the barracks too. but it's not really necessary.

These are slavery farms. If later in the game you want to switchout of slavery. Whip a library and use specialists to put the city into no growth mode. (or whip a market and use merchants which will more than make up for any maint) When it's time for war switch back to slavery and start whipping troops again.

But don't get lulled into believing these are real cities that should recieve any kind of improvement. Its simply a slave pit. (except for maybe a barracks or one building to neutralize growth by using specialists when troop building is detrimental, which is very rare)

[NFIH]

OK, thanks, rah. I'm going to give your strat a few tries and see how it works out.

Also, one last thing: Presumably (and ideally), these "slave cities" where I work as little as four tiles should be divided up on the order of one food resource, and three hill tiles for hammers, right? (I hope my math is right on that.)

[joncnunn]

Myself I have a checklist on turn 1 to decide if I'm continuing:
(I play random civs):

1. Have I won with this civ in BTS yet? Yes -> Restart

2. Can I not stand this leader at all? Yes -> Restart

3. Is the 4000 BC map totally unsuitable for the civ? Yes -> Generate a new map.

Other than that unless I'm expermenting with a new tactic at it specularly fails I won't restart.

[Fleme]

I too have a similar "checklist", although mine varies depending on my mood.

1) Do I like this leader? No -> Restart (Imperialistic, Protective, bad trait combinations)

2) Is the start position atleast average? No -> Restart (I hate those 16 forest starts and also those where you start next to the icecap)

3) Are the surroundings hospitable to settle atleast 2-3 decent cities? No -> Restart

I can also restart on a whim especially when I deem the game to be won and this may happen at any point of the game. As it stands, if I find myself in a clear tech lead and a score lead by 1000+ AD I don't have any trouble in declaring myself the winner and starting a new one. I like being the underdog, gives a bit of challenge.

[Crossfire]

I am much quicker to pull the trigger on a game than that even. If I just don't like how it's going because it either isn't going well or is going too well, then I start over. It's just a game and most of the time I am not trying to prove anything, just trying to have fun. So, if it isn't fun, I start over.

[rah]

Originally posted by NFIH
OK, thanks, rah. I'm going to give your strat a few tries and see how it works out.

Also, one last thing: Presumably (and ideally), these "slave cities" where I work as little as four tiles should be divided up on the order of one food resource, and three hill tiles for hammers, right? (I hope my math is right on that.)

In the early game all you need is a little food. Whipping troops is faster than producing them using hammers so you want some food growth. Later in the game the hammers are nicer when you're not in slavery and you've growth limited the city.

[MoonWolf]

I restart in the first turn(s) if my territory isn't good enough. Also, if I'm feeling quite proud with my empire just reaching gunpowder and then get invaded by enemy artillery and SAM infantery, I give up. There are aslo many games I quit if I'm way ahead the others and the only thing preventig me from bombing their muskets and riflemen to smithereens is the time it takes.