What is more difficult?

[DaveV]

Thread necro to point out this game at Realms Beyond. Kind of the worst of both worlds on tech trading: AIs can trade all they want, human can only trade if the AIs ask. Way beyond my skills at Immortal difficulty, but I'm sure some of those guys will beat it.

[Calvin Vu]

Interesting thread with a lot of useful info. I mostly agree with slnz and Wodan so I don't have much else to add to the issues that have already been discussed.

However, there's an interpretation of game balance within this thread which is an absolute horror to me as an "average gamer". To me, a balanced and, more importantly, enjoyable game is one where there are multiple approaches to winning. The balance coming out of the fact that each approach has an equal chance of success, and depending on the circumstances, one approach will be better than others. In Civ, that would mean where you are located, who your neighbors are, etc. No sane person would do wonder whoring for an easy cruise victory all the time even at high levels as has been claimed.

The conclusion from that incorrect claim is that to make the game balanced, the players have to worry about being invaded in every games all the time and have to goose-step militarily after the aggressive AIs to avoid being eliminated. That sounds like a cookie-cutter kind of balance to me. MP players might like that since to them, beating the opponents is everything. For an average gamer, that will be the death of the enjoyable aspect of the game. Slugging it out militarily in all games all the time from start to finish might be enjoyable to MP players, not much for anybody else.

Sometimes I make my first attacks with warriors, sometimes with axemen/swordmen, many times with macemen, and sometimes with riflemen. Sometimes, I fight an early war with a crazy neighbor, sometimes I just like to bribe them off with tech gifts, give them resources, join their religions, pick their favorite civics, etc. I like to have those choices depending on the roll of the map generation. I dislike the cookie-cutter approach because the aggressive AIs are set to do one thing and one thing only so I have no choices but to respond likewise.

If people think making the game harder to force every player to worry about attacks all the time is the coolest thing to do, then instead of just making the AI aggressive, they should pick random personalties as well. Then they will have no knowledge about anything any more and every game against any neighbors will have the same random factor as another.

[wodan11]

Excellent post, Calvin

[Surprise!]

If difficulty is the goal then you could pick Brennus of the Celts, turn on Perm Alliance and never do one yourself. Facing super civs with double their beakers and armies is quite difficult. Especially on those monarch and immortal games that get thrown around here.

I also find that turning off the vassalage makes the AI more aggressive anyway. Coupled with aggressive AI I have seen some raging psychotics and many century long AI wars

Another way to increase difficulty is to set random personalities. No longer would seeing Monty and Shaka automatically mean you max defense on their border. And hey, Ghandi may just turn out to be a rabbi stricken madman with a quest for world dom.

[One_more_turn]

Nobody talks about map settings at all?

Non-aggressive AIs are of course tougher if you humans can't get them early on, while aggressive AI makes playing on Pangea quite challenging.

[rah]

Nobody talks about map settings at all?

Non-aggressive AIs are of course tougher if you humans can't get them early on, while aggressive AI makes playing on Pangea quite challenging.

I agree 100%. The chances for getting gang banged really increase. And it seems that with more wars going on, you get more requests for ending agreements or joining wars which makes the diplo aspect more difficult.

[One_more_turn]

On Pangea with aggressive AI, starting location determines victory or defeat. If you get stuck in the middle, you will get dog-piled 100%. I find other attributes such as leader traits or resources to be of secondary importance.

[Ming]

On Pangea with aggressive AI, starting location determines victory or defeat. If you get stuck in the middle, you will get dog-piled 100%. I find other attributes such as leader traits or resources to be of secondary importance.

I disagree... it comes down to land and resources. While yes indeed, playing in the middle of the board means you will be attacked early and often, it can be dealt with as long as you expect it and plan for it.
I would much rather have access to great resources and be in the middle than get stuck on the edge with with crappy land and few resources.

[Sir Og]

On Pangea being in one of the corners of the map gives you a big strategic advantage because you don't have to worry about guarding your back.
I agree however that good land is more important.

[Ming]

True enough... I would much rather start on a corner with enough land to expand AND have the resources.
But given a choice of resources or starting position, I will take the resources/land over the corner any day of the week.

[timothy1238]

I probably would agree with that, if I understood it. Could you elaborate on what underlying bad game design makes tech trading marginally valuable and makes brokering evil?
___________________
Limo Hire

[Theben]

It's like hiring a limo in the UK. A total waste of time, since 1) the UK is so small that by the time you've strapped on the seat belt you're at your destination, and 2) limos in Europe are like subcompacts in the states. Tech trading, OTOH, is like hiring a taxi. Sure you gotta give them something as immediate payment and the back seats smell like beer and vomit, but the price is way cheaper.

[wodan11]

I have absolutely no idea what you guys are talking about.

[brandonjm8]

as far as i can tell is limo's suck and taxi's smell like beer

[Boracks]

good summary