To restart or not to restart: that is the question:

[Drachen]

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Hmm. You probably learn more by NOT restarting. I have not restarted unless I have felt like playing for 30 mins or so and scrapping the game then. I'd hate to have a boring start in that situation.

As for reloading, I guess it would be better for the learning experience (and MP training) to not do so. However at times I have due to new knowledge acquired.

For example, in my latest game I was prebuilding with Sun Tzu's when someone else built it. Thus I switched to the GW to keep the shields, losing many shields in the process. In order to at least keep that many shields until I had the tech for Leo's (my real target), I changed Govs, thinking, since nothing was built in Anarchy, the shields would be safe until I got Invention. Much to my chagrin, I then learned that, if the shield box is full, even in Anarchy, the build is completed. Armed with my new knowledge, I reloaded the autosave and did not change govts, so I still got the unwanted GW, but knowing I would have anyway, I did not then lose out on 6 turns of production.

[Last Conformist]

I restart whenever I please. In practice, that translates into next to never.

[spy14]

I'll sometimes play through to a pitiful defeat, but mainly I dont - I like epic games and like the modern era, therefore I dont see the point (or any fun) in continually replaying the first couple of eras.

[Mariola]

I don't like to restart, I always take the first map I get, and almost never reload.
Only exception may be if I make a wrong thing by accident (an unwanted click, e.g.).
Maybe I can go back to make an alternative history, but in that case I consider the first game the true game, and the others training.

[Jaybe]

I almost never restart, and very rarely reload.
The early game for me is the most stressful/uncomfortable, so I avoid having to repeat it if I can (not that I play the same start over and over).

If I make a major "oops!" or unintended action, I might reload.
A couple days ago I found that nuking enemy naval units is just as bad as nuking someone's territory in provoking war declarations. No, I didn't reload.

[Dis]

I reload all the time . I wouldn't do so if I could get more predictable results from this damn random number generator for combat.

I rarely restart. But if my position is extremely horrible I will retire, and start another game. But if my position is average, I will at least play until all hope is lost, or I win. And even then, sometimes I play until the bitter end.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Dissident
I reload all the time . I wouldn't do so if I could get more predictable results from this damn random number generator for combat.

For crying out softly, why don't you just make a scenario where the hitpoints are increased?

Myself, I play Rhye's of Civilization where they are increased, and I edit them down to stock, except for Elite which is 6HP. But I just play Monarch level.

[Daz]

I restart, although I'm trying to quit that habit...

[Aeson]

I've hit ctrl-shift-q about 3000 times as a conservative estimate. I don't like playing games that fit the norm as they get too boring too fast, or I'm looking for a certain type of start to test something on.

When I find a game I want to play, I play it out until the game is won or lost (not necessarily triggering a victory condition, just no doubt about the outcome), or the scenario I wanted to test has run it's course. I have no qualms about reloading to try several different approaches to the same problem and determine which works best.

For comparison or competitive games I don't use reloading at all.

[Drachen]

I doubt if even the hardliners would object to restarting or reloading if you’re trying to test various aspects of the game or examining competing strategies. If that’s true then the question of the legitimacy of restarting and/or reloading would seem to pertain more directly to comparison and/or competitive games.

I’ve posted this poll as a tentative first step in trying to get a sense of what the majority of players feel are appropriate standards of play; standards which could be given a name, voted upon, and noted when posting results. Players would be free to disagree with the validity of the standards but it would be clear that their views were not shared by the majority of players who chose to participate in developing the standards. Having an agreed upon set of standards would free us from having to define and defend the various parameters of our comparison/competitive games.

Having a set of standards is of interest to me since some of my claims have been a bit controversial with some players heatedly censuring my game setups and others kindly defending my stated positions. I am not very interested in rehashing those arguments but would rather move forward on the issue of developing a set of standards. What about the rest of you? Does anybody else think we should develop a set of standards?

[Aramis]

I'll restart if the starting position is really bad. Otherwise I take what I get. If I don't like the way the game is going, I'll start an entirely new game, saving the other 'for later' (as in 'never get back to it'.)
I have reloaded, but very rarely, and usually then over some absolutely horrible, embarrassing, rookie-like mistake that makes me cringe, wail, and tear at my clothes, while cursing my fingers for acting on their own.

On the whole, despite what I do, I think it okay to restart and reload as much as you want. You bought the game--have fun with it.

edit:
As for a set of standards for comparison games--I'm inclined against it as so many people approach the game in different ways. Setting standards could limit comparing games solely to posters who share 'the majority view,' 'the norm,' or 'the party line,' as it were.
But I could change my mind, depending on how well the pros of the idea are defended.

[Drachen]

Originally posted by RMS
I have reloaded, but very rarely, and usually then over some absolutely horrible, embarrassing, rookie-like mistake that makes me cringe, wail, and tear at my clothes, while cursing my fingers for acting on their own.

Originally posted by RMS
As for a set of standards for comparison games--I'm inclined against it as so many people approach the game in different ways. Setting standards could limit comparing games solely to posters who share 'the majority view,' 'the norm,' or 'the party line,' as it were.
But I could change my mind, depending on how well the pros of the idea are defended.

I don’t see why we couldn’t have both. You could post a standard game and it’s unlikely that your game settings would be questioned. Alternatively, you could post a save or game proposal using non-standard settings and respond to any concerns other players might have as they arose.

Originally posted by RMS
On the whole, despite what I do, I think it okay to restart and reload as much as you want. You bought the game--have fun with it.

As far as just enjoying the game…absolutely. Questions such as these are only pertinent when dealing with a wider community of players; comrades in arms as it were.

[TheArsenal]

I’ll restart as many times as it takes to get a workable starting point. Particularly with the Agri trait. It doesn’t need to be fantastic, just workable.

As far as the reload, I will reload if I do something major that I didn’t intend to that will lead to game changing consequences. Clicking a gpt deal when I meant to give a lump sum of gold, barely looking and quickly entering into a MPP thinking it was a ROP renewal, that kind of super sloppy stuff.

But I also find I’ll make a mistake worthy of a reload, but the turn itself (generally during a large war) was so time consuming and complex that I don’t have the patience to replay the turn and will just live with the mistake.

[Drachen]

I picked the “average start and reloads are OK for unintended results” option. I’m currently thinking that this is OK even for comparative/competitive play. Why not try to get an average start. How is player A in a horrible starting spot with player B in a great start a fair comparison? As far as the reload is concerned, all it seems to do is relieve the pressure to execute the game mechanics without error so long as you don’t gain game info or other advantage you wouldn’t have had without the reload. We’re on the honor system anyway and what’s important is your general development style and long term strategy. I’m unconvinced, however, that reloading whenever you feel like it is sound policy for competitive games. For me, if you intend to enter into a MMP and get hauled into a war then you live with it. If you intend to attack with your low health army and you lose then you live with it. The only real downside I can see now is that some players may not play by the rules and will restart for unfavorable events while honest players will not.