GalCiv games only last 100 turns?

from GalCiv2 Forums
After playing GalCiv for a while now on different difficulty settings I've found that games only last about 100 turns or 2 years. By then you always know who's going to win.

By then one of two things will have happened:

1. You're fighting a loosing battle against 1 or more AIs, which is straining your economy.

2. You're not and your economy is starting to boom.

If you're in situation 1 you've pretty much lost, and in situation 2 you're walking and it's over.

Does anyone else find this? That there's no point playing past 2 years cause the out come is a foregone conclusion?

Isn't it just kinda sad that once that 2 year struggle is over you've won or lost?

4,595 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Does anyone else find this? That there's no point playing past 2 years cause the out come is a foregone conclusion?


Well, when I do get to play for more than two years there are a LOT of variables that come into play. If you aren't actually getting the victory message at the end of your '2 years', then how do you truly know you've won?
This game throws many curve balls when things are working right and there's always something happening that can change your 'status' in the galaxy, as well as change your chances to win or lose. The only exception to this that I can think of is playing on any difficulty lower than normal, which I do from time to time to basically play a game of 'total domination' as I can comfortably get all the techs and design ships at my leisure instead of in haste because of the enemy.
So, no, it isn't a waste to play past 2 years. You weren't specific on what type of diff you play on or what your other settings are so it is hard for me to gauge what kind of game you have going on, comprende?
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't feel that way. I find it a challenge to extend my game time into a full civ. Anyone can race to the war kill. I prefer to walk to the tech win while maintaining a total control. Just because you can race to the end or end before two years doesn’t mean you can't fully dominate before then. Haven't you ever played a RTS and just blew up everything they had before taking out the last mobile unit just because you could?
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I've seen it posted before something to a similar effect, but in the range of one year of play. Overall, though, I guess that does kinda make sense: If it's been a game year and you still haven't stabilized your economy, you're going to be in trouble.

Of course, you could always hold off on getting a quick swipe at your opponent at the beginning of the game, colony rush only to a certain point, take a corner of the galaxy, then wait for the AI to get a solid enough economy to play the political game with them.

From what I understand, though, mega events occur when you've got such galactic stability, so that could further throw a wrench in the whole 'stable, predictable outcome' idea.
Reply #4 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Well, I guess the megaevents were introduce to stop that a bit.

But I think it depends on the player. I like to keep everything under control as well, and research as much as I can, build my worlds like I want and not to maximise production/research etc, and generally take my time. Sure, some of my games are quick, if I really want to win. Other times, I might pretend that I'm just in charge of an empire and roleplay a bit.

Haven't you ever played a RTS and just blew up everything they had before taking out the last mobile unit just because you could?


Oh, yes, countless times I just saved the game before I continued in case I forgot to blow up something and come back to it. Or maybe I forgot to explore every last inch of the forest, or something. Sometimes it distracts me from fishishing the game. Or I might be obsessive In any case taking your time can be as rewarding as getting a million points on metaverse. Which is why I don't play on the metaverse so much, I just have a kick on my own playing the sandbox version. I don't like feeling that I have to finish a game just to get some points.
Reply #5 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I tend to take stock of my position every 6 months and see how it lines up against my expectations for the game and what sort of control I'm used to having at that point. I can generally tell at the 1 year mark whether or not I will win the game. Sometimes I can't tell until 1.5 or 2 years in, and sometimes I'm wrong. Mega events can really send the game off in unexpected directions when you least expect it.
Reply #6 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
If you aren't actually getting the victory message at the end of your '2 years', then how do you truly know you've won?

Well you don't KNOW you've won, but the challenge slips away and where as before you were struggling for survival after you're just going ship, tech and building shopping.

You weren't specific on what type of diff you play on or what your other settings are so it is hard for me to gauge what kind of game you have going on, comprende?

Sorry from normal to tough on medium and large maps. I've messed around with all the other settings, they just tend to change the 'flip-point' so with everything on rare it might be longer, everything on abundant it might be shorter. Have been playing with megaevents on and off, just depends. I think I will alway keep them on now though.

I prefer to walk to the tech win while maintaining a total control. Just because you can race to the end or end before two years doesn’t mean you can't fully dominate before then. Haven't you ever played a RTS and just blew up everything they had before taking out the last mobile unit just because you could?

I've totally done that I remember my first go on C&C Generals and I just built a HORDE of tanks, not realising the AI had like 5 and slowly munched everything And that's fine a couple of times, but once you've researched all the techs and built 'El Ultimate Battleship' just coasting to the win gets a bit dull.

I've seen it posted before something to a similar effect, but in the range of one year of play.

They were probably much better players than me then!


Of course, you could always hold off on getting a quick swipe at your opponent at the beginning of the game, colony rush only to a certain point, take a corner of the galaxy, then wait for the AI to get a solid enough economy to play the political game with them.

Thanks, this is a great idea. It's funny that in all games people just find the hole in the AI or the one way to win. It seems like in GalCiv we're too good at that and now it's ALL ABOUT THE COLONY RUSH, but that makes late game a daudle.

I will totally have to try this anti-colony rush idea and see if I can push the flip-point later into the game.

research as much as I can, build my worlds like I want and not to maximise production/research etc, and generally take my time. Sure, some of my games are quick, if I really want to win. Other times, I might pretend that I'm just in charge of an empire and roleplay a bit.

I see what you mean, but to be honest I'm not really a roleplayer. I play for the challenge, the struggle. If only they had multiplayer!


Thanks.
Reply #7 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I can generally tell at the 1 year mark whether or not I will win the game. Sometimes I can't tell until 1.5 or 2 years in, and sometimes I'm wrong. Mega events can really send the game off in unexpected directions when you least expect it.


Ok then, so I think my question really is then: appart from mega events and limiting the colony rush how can you make late game more interesting/challenging?

Thanks.
Reply #8 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Another option is to build up some good planets and give them to the AI and see how that goes.