Retiring When Well Ahead But Still Losing?

[idenr]

I thought the point of the retire choice was if you were very far ahead you didn't have to slog through the boring time-consuming mopping up operations? What am I missing here? I retire when I have 900 points and the closest one to me has like 500 and it is obvious that the AI has lost militarily but the game still tells me I have suffered a defeat? Does this have to do with using version 1.29 beta? Does retire always mean surrender?

[vondrack]

Yes, to retire means to give up. Always did.

[Harovan]

There is no such a thing like winning or losing, unless you play against a human opponent. The sole purpose of a game like Civ3 or PTW in singleplayer mode is to provide you a maximum of fun and entertainment in your spare time. Those who play as long as the game is entertaining and scrap it as soon as the boring and time consuming slogging part begins, to start another game, are the winners. Those who slug it out even though it's a boring mess, may claim moral victory, but to me they look like people, who hit their thumb with a mallet and try to get pleasure out of it.

Long story short told: Abandon your game as soon as you start to dislike it. Nobody gives a damn if you win or lose. As long as you have fun, you're always the winner.

On a sidenote: I "lost" at least 95% of my games this way. As soon as it hits the mid of the industrial age (which usually sees all AI civs in a mindless and devastating world war, while I'm at peace and half an era ahead), it's time to start a new game, on the even.

[Robert]

If they AI would retire everytime I'm 400 points behind, I would never win. Though most of the time I catch the AI later on.

It's easy to leave on the moment you're winning, but it's still a retire. You empire falls into the hands of your enemies to moment you leave your throne.

Besides that, what's the fun of building an empire, and leaving it the moment it's greatness is up hands...?

[Daz]

I do it.

In my most recent game I was on a fairly large piece of continent and absolutely no water to irrigar. I could fit in 10-15 cities, but not a single water source.

I quit.... Would you?

[Footie Mad]

I think it's all about if you find some stimulating challenge left or if you're just going to play it out.

In my current game using the Warhammed mod (excellent) i'm playing as dwarves and even though i've managed to get a considerable chunk of land by conquest i still have no iron resource and would get mauled without it if the Inds to the south were to attack. The challenge is to get the iron and destroy them, once that's done i'll probably quit.

[Dis]

I have a thread on the same subject. I don't think retiring should automatically cause you to lose. but oh well.

[Dis]

Originally posted by CyberShy
If they AI would retire everytime I'm 400 points behind, I would never win. Though most of the time I catch the AI later on.

It's easy to leave on the moment you're winning, but it's still a retire. You empire falls into the hands of your enemies to moment you leave your throne.

Besides that, what's the fun of building an empire, and leaving it the moment it's greatness is up hands...?

how do you make up that many points? I can never win if I fall that far behind.

[vmxa1]

400 is not much at sid, it is a ton a regent. Also the map size will impact how much it matters.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Those who slug it out even though it's a boring mess, may claim moral victory, but to me they look like people, who hit their thumb with a mallet and try to get pleasure out of it.

You crack me up.

idenr, don't worry about it. I didn;t finish a game for perhaps the first six months I played Civ3. Screw the HOF in-game... I kept the last played save if I wanted to look back at how ell I had been doing before retiring (i.e., dropping that game).

BTW, one fun thing to do rather than retire in-game is to just go crazy for one or several turns, as a learning experience... for instance, what happens if you go on an all out offensive, or play just for gold for a few turns, or screw around with crazy alliances (all of the above, and other craziness, best performed with a few beers in you. )

[idenr]

I like the go crazy idea. I think the game isn't giving me the domination victory though when I control 66% of the world.

[vmxa1]

IIRC you need 66% of land and pop.

[bob rulz]

I find that while it does get dull around the industrial age, it picks up again once it hits the modern age. And Sir Ralph, if you're half an era ahead of everybody all the time, maybe you should move up a level...? Some people view the game differently than you do. For some people it's more than just entertainment. Very few people like losing. Everytime I start to fall behind I tend to rush myself. I try not to but I do it anyway. I always try to play the game out to the end. As soon as it starts to get dull it doesn't mean that it's going to stay dull. Besides, war is always fun, even if you're half an era ahead of everybody. I find that everytime I want to quit and start a new game, if I just play it out it turns out more interesting than I could ever imagine.

[Last Conformist]

vmxa1 is correct.

Having the Domination victory checked also helps - you can see by looking at the victory screen.

[bobbo008]

I love Sir Ralph's "Everyone's a winner in Civ3!" approach.

I play on huge maps so i quit when the load times just aren't worth it anymore.

My favorite part of the game is always discovering the "other" continent on continent maps and seeing how me and my continent compares.