Do You Play LH to Win?

Nope, never.  I don't find playing to win a very fun way to play.  I know that sounds ridiculous, but I usually like to experience the world, develop champions and cities, watch the world develop around me, explore, etc...Winning isn't a big deal to me.   I think that's why I am so drawn to games like Crusader Kings II, where the goal of the game is playing the game and experiencing it, not getting to the end as quickly as possible. I usually play this game with most of the victory conditions turned off. 

I try not to exploit obvious AI holes.

If possible with a game, I try to play by many of the same rules of the AI, within the bounds of funfactor.

It does sound ridiculous, but Lord Xia has described my playstyle quite well. It's rare that I actually finish a game, but that's also due to this being beta, and the regular updates. I also like to reveal the map via ctrl-u and watch the AI after I've finished exploring and looting.

CK = great game, need to pick up CK II, but have been kinda stuck into LH.

I'm a builder.  A conqueror? Not so much.  Until the AI gets uppity that is... then I take them out, but yeah, I'm mainly focused on building cities, developing Sovs/Champs, and maximizing use of land.  Occasionally, I'll crank the opponents down to 1 on a large map, just so I have plenty of time to build and test concepts/mods I'm tinkering with.

That being said, tactical combat does fascinate me, but I get plenty of that with the monsters, bandits, etc.  If Elemental encouraged cooperative victories more, that'd be something I'd take advantage of more.  Especially in a 'World Gone Mad, Unite Against The Monster Hordes' kinda setting, where allying and aiding in the defense of at least one other Kingdom/Empire would be a strong necessity.  Sure, you could still have some uppity opponents to deal with, but the main goal would be to bring the world out of darkness, not become High Emperor/Empress of Elemental.

Not really looking for a chess match with this game, although current design trends have definitely went in that direction, and I know a lot of other players are looking for said chess match.

Nope, I typically run custom factions, so I don't exactly roleplay, but I tend to play to the style of the faction I've made. Same goes for when I use the vanilla factions. I'll often be friendly to some AI's, particularly the one my faction would get along with, give them good deals, etc, and help them, even if I don't have the alliance treaty yet. I research the things my faction would research, rather than the ones that are the best to research at the time, etc.

Playing to win, in my mind, is like power gaming in an RPG, and its just boring as hell.

I play different styles of games each time depending on which faction (or custom one) I'm using, but I don't play to win. I play to maximize- research as much as I can, improve my buildings as much as I can, level my heroes as much as I can, defeat monsters as much as I can, etc.

That is one of the wonderful things LH provides- a rich experience that can be VERY different each time you play it.

Just because I maximize, though, doesn't mean I leave strategy out the window. I try to synergize my bonuses and exploit opportunities, but I also want to have fun, too. If the game gets too slow, boring or even challenging, I'll quit and create a new game.

Unless I'm completely boxed in, never. This is pretty much the way I play all 4x TBS games. Rarely finish any to the bitter end. The actual win just doesn't mean as much as having fun on the journey.

I really want a mode like this! I made a thread about it a while back and no one responded, so I thought I was the only one. I think a game mode where the world is the primary enemy (only way to win) would be my ideal mode. It would really highlight the RPG aspects, as balancing heroes and tactics wouldn't be a big deal, and you could let loose and not have to worry about winning too soon or too easily. That way you could play in an empire-building/rpg sandbox and yet have a significant strategic challenge to deal with. It would make the most of all the gameplay elements to me.

don't really care about the victory conditions. i consider my game won when it gets too easy or repetitive. i try all sorts of playstyles until i find something i really like, then stick with it for a while before i try something new. i usually avoid stalling/turtling. i find the game pretty interesting and challenging when i go for challenging encounters with rather limited resources. i'll often play games with rather high world difficulty (expert/ridiculous) and lower AI difficulty (usually "hard"), since i like the battles against the various types of monsters better then the rather repetitive battles vs. AI armies. i enjoy playing with different combinations of heroes, spells and trained unit types.

i guess if the AI factions were more interested in winning, it could be an interesting "race" condition, but as it stands, they don't seem overly focussed on winning the game, so i'll settle for a peaceful coexistence with them until one of them annoys me or i just feel like conquering a bit. in the meantime, i'll happily waste my time clearing lairs, wildlands, building cities i don't really need etc.

I am a peaceful turtle (only build one of each type, or just a fortress if the starting tile yield god smiles on me), but when an AI declares war I grind them into dust and make them my vassal.  I usually raze most cities I conquer unless they have unique buildings.  I find the city building fairly tedious.  I like to build the Great Mill in my fortress and then work on leveling my heroes and designing troops to take advantage of my available resources.  I play challenging/challenging on a large map vs 10-12 factions.  Less wildlands, moderate resources, dense magic, more events.

Getting the Vassal's loot is probably the most fun for me.  They almost always have a beast collar... I never seem to get one as loot

It's been hard to finish a game lately with all of the patching... but keep enjoying the process of starting new games! 

Hopefully Sean will update Master's Affliction some day.

The thing is the world is a more interesting character and opponent than the AI factions are in this game. If the AI is not bothering me I find it more fun to go questing, conquer a wildland, tackle a deadly monster stack, etc. Steamrolling the AI cities is kind of boring, relatively speaking. If the AI wasn't so idiotic I might feel differently about it.

OP, you just described my play style exactly.  I play to win.  I play till the bitter end.  I play over and over trying to hone the perfect strategy.

I pretty much only play to win with any game. It is a compulsion. Probably why I haven't been able to get into Crusader Kings II.

I don't play to win as quickly as possible, no.  I play to dominate, to obscenely overpower ... I get mad if I lose a single unit.  I am slowly getting over that, but I still like to play it slow and cautious.

I just play to have some fun, recruit some champs, win some battles, settle some cities and research some techs. after satisfying myself, i just quit and start over.

I almost never, ever finish a game unless I cast a spell of making or kill that dragonlord.

This. Which is the reason I don't play games that focus on victory/defeat. I'm into flavor games, where the characters and environment come alive. Just as LX notes, I'm also a big fan of CKII. That, even more than LH, is a game where I can end up nothing more than a count or duke, and still feel I've had one hell of a ride. But LH sometimes approaches that, especially with mods that add more items, quests, and heroes.

When I get a new game, i play to win to "prove" I can do it. After I've won a couple times under different conditions, playing the game to the bitter end really isn't a big priority, but I usually finish a game one way or another.

I play to not to lose. So I'll do everything I can to ensure I'm not being beaten by the AI. However once I get parity or ahead of the AI I often just have fun building up my heroes, cities, completing quests/wildlands etc. I practically never just go ahead and stomp the AI, at least not until I feel my hero/city/empire uber plan has already come to fruition.

I presume this is in response to the post by Frogboy saying that most people are not able to beat LH on above Challenging. Whatever data they are based that on I suspect is heavily skewed, most probably by the fact that people often stop playing once they get the upper hand in a game. I know I do this, I haven't actually won an FE/LH game for about 6 months now... by the time I abandon a game I am always winning but I just get bored, new patches come along, or some other reason, and stop playing. I play on Hard most of the time BTW (I don't like playing with the level of cheating that the AI gets at higher levels).

cardinaldire

I didn't know that was what that mod did. That sounds awesome. I do hope it gets updated for LH.

I assumed that most people didn't play to win, but I was basing it off my own experience and generalizing it. I could be really wrong, so I wanted to find out. It seems to me an important distinction, since it determines what we value in the game. If someone is playing to win, the tightest, most balanced, challenging experience would be the most rewarding. If someone is not, what they find rewarding isn't as clear. I don't know if it matters to the developers, since they already have a vision of what they want the game to be. 

I find the whole topic fascinating in just finding out how my experience relates to other's experience, and testing if my understanding of motivations is accurate.

I always play to the best of my ability, otherwise it's not a game for me, but a simulation. I've won FE on ridiculous and insane.

That being said, I usually do not have an ultimate goal in mind, simply expanding and gaining xp. I cannot get myself to pick weak traits when I create a custom faction, but I also do not select boring, 'OP' or swingy traits. 

About Frogboy's remark: LH seems a lot more difficult to beat than FE. Expert is still achievable, but I'm doubtful the game can be beaten on Insane.

Perhaps you could bump the thread up and place this quote here. I would be interested in such mod too

I think you're right about this. I know in my case I tend not to finish my games because once I'm clearly in a position to overpower the AI I get bored without any pressure on me and tend to move on to a new game. 

It never occurred to me to not play to win.  Anything else is like Farmville.

Sometimes I quite when it looks like winning will be a long dragged out effort.    I've not been finishing LH games since I've been starting over on new releases.

I play Expert level with a huge map.

Funny thing is that I was about to complain the the AI factions are not as much of a challenge as they were in FE.  They seem to be underdeveloped.

Nope.  I like to establish a domain, build up the cities, create viable force pools, see the lovely green spread, and basically, 'build a part of the world' into a garden state.  My one beef is how difficult it is to get roads built fairly intelligently.  The road building skill isn't ;t always accessible soon enough.  Perhaps I'm something of a competition-ist.  I save the game winning quests for the time when I have completed all other quests, explored all the map, and have such a dominant position (Geo-politically) that even enemies "like" me.  I read somewhere that a player has beaten civ 5 at 'deity' level in just a few turns.  Well, way to go for that player.   But, for me that would be boring.  Gaming is not just winning, its an experience to be savored, and enjoyed.   I want to establish a viable domain, and then enjoy the challenges, as I move my civ through the ages.  A hybrid of civ4 and EH would be, awesome.