how do I like to play the game of Civilization?

[vondrack]

In a dispute in another thread, a strange feeling has grown in me that what I had always been looking for in the game of Civilization, was rather rare, even though I used to think it would be the prevailing approach... I was quite surprised and I'd like to know if the feeling was right or not. Hence, I am posting this poll - it may be a bit biased regarding the options, since I am still sorta heating off... So feel free to add your comments, please.

To clarify what I mean by the poll options:

I use whatever it takes to see the victory screen: I play the game as a purely statistical/mathematical model. There are certain game rules and whatever these allow me, I will do in order to be proclaimed the winner of the game (even if it means exploiting an imperfection in the rules or their implementation). MP might be my Civ-paradise. Note: Even though I do not mean cheating here, it would probably also fall mostly into this category.

I just avoid using exploits, but winning is what matters to me. If there is an imperfection in the rules or their implementation (IMO), I will avoid exploiting it, basically granting the AI players sort of "fair fight", but aside from that, I will do anything and everything to become the winner of the game. That is where the fun is for me, becoming the winner.

I focus more on enjoying a credible, immersive world. Even though I am a competitive player and I have goals to reach, I impose certain self-restrictions that help me enjoy my game in a world that sort of resembles some real world. Exploration of the unknown, making hated enemies, finding trusted allies, fighting over border disputes and resources, carrying retaliation strikes, keeping one's honor and pride, and developing my empire to be the best place to live in... a world I myself would happily live in... that is the way I like to play. If - playing this way - I finish up as the winner, it will just add greatly to my satisfaction, as I have apparently done a better job in building a great empire than my AI rivals.

I don't care about winning, I play Civ like SimCity. All I care for is nurturing my beloved empire. For me, I could have all the victory conditions turned off, 'cause it doesn't really matter if I win or lose. I just love to build smoothly working systems, kinda like Pharaoh, Zeus, Caesar, SimCity etc.

I am interested in bananas ONLY. What is this all about? 'f course it is bananas and potassium what matters, nothing else...

Note: as with most polls, I would appreciate if you just vote, maybe add your comment to the vote, but kindly refrain from responding to other poster's posts. The last thing I want is to have anyone's approach to the game belittled or questioned. Thank you.

[vondrack]

OK, just for the record, I am the "immersion" guy...

[Arrian]

Option #2 for me, please. I want to win (though I tend to add my own goals to the standard victory conditions and to compensate, restart for good starting spots), but try to avoid blatant exploits. The one I'm still wrestling with is early worker buying, though I am leaning towards declaring it off limits when I play. If I do so, it will have the added benifit of reducing tedium (diplo contact with every known civ every turn early in the game is a bit of a pain).

I suppose I'm partway between #2 and #3, but more toward #2, hence my vote.

-Arrian

edit: really, I never would have guessed. It's pretty obvious from the longer writeup and the tone of it.

[vondrack]

[Theseus]

#2, but you gotta build to be a good warmonger... the combination is actually very immersive for me.

[Catt]

Definitely #3 for me (assuming I've understood it correctly). I like to weave a story around each game. In many cases, the early game story is thrust upon me by my foes and therefore the later game is played out with how I think the story should proceed.

So definitely an immersive experience, but this does not necessarily make a world I would want to live in -- more like a world true to its early themes.

Catt

[vmxa1]

#2, but I would not complain if we have a way to play with more building, less war at higher level.

[wilbill]

#3 with a dash of 2.

I like to play the game out the way it presents itself. If the AI's are random numbered into constant, unavoidable warfare, so be it. If they leave me alone, let me build and grow my empire, then I'm the best neighbor they could ask for.

[Jethro83]

Mostly #3, but a little bit of #2.

I like to make up a storyline of the world I am playing in (though most of the time I just keep it in my head and don't actually put it into writing). I find the stories of the great empires of the real world to be fascinating, and I like that I can create my own (even if it is only in a game).

[One_Brow]

I voted #2, but I'm about 65% #2 and 35% #4.

[metalhead]

I went for 2 leaning slightly towards 1, with tendancies toward 3. Winning is my ultimate goal, and often times, especially in the early game, it tends to be formulaic and shortsighted, although avoiding all exploits, including reloading. Towards the late game, I like to be tops in culture and happiness, thus tending toward 3. Overall, I derive more satisfaction out of winning than the empire I've created. When playing MP, I will probably tend more toward #1.

Out of curiosity, for those who chose #3 or #4, do you regularly play the game after someone has won? I personally do that only when I have won and have a bunch of nukes laying around, and I decide to toast the world before quitting. I would think regularly playing beyond endgame is a good indicator that you fall under #3 or #4.

[jshelr]

I've been a 2, perhaps 2 much so.

Latest AU201 game is providing more immersion, at least in the sense that perfection of the civ's homeland is taking on a high value. It's a truly exceptional home continent and it's teaching mean the fun to be had in seeking more than just the end result.

But, I'll go back to winning as the only thing. It's genetic.

[Randolph]

I think there's a fair amount of ground between #2 and #3. I generally play with a "3 type empire", but aiming at a successful one (I want my civ to be great not just realistic).

[Cidifer]

Where's the option for "I just want to crush and destroy all that stand in my way" though that's not how i play I think it should be up there. I like having the strongest military then in the industrial age I like building a navy to move troops to other continents to protect civs that were good to me. Once I get ACC and airports I'm pretty much become the world police men and usually intervine in small conflicts between 2 or 3 civs. I then take out those that continue to invade others without reason.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by metalhead
Out of curiosity, for those who chose #3 or #4, do you regularly play the game after someone has won? I personally do that only when I have won and have a bunch of nukes laying around, and I decide to toast the world before quitting. I would think regularly playing beyond endgame is a good indicator that you fall under #3 or #4.

Having labeled myself the "immersion guy", I guess I am qualified to respond...

I have never ever played beyond the official end of the game. Which kinda contradicts my proclaimed love of epic story-telling... but the truth is that the later stages of the game get a bit tedious, 'cause I develop my empire into such heights that there really is not much else to do... I meet the earliest (usually peaceful) victory condition available, which makes me even prouder of my baby, and happily quit.