Is course 101 being thought out?

[TheBeast]

Surely the whole point of this forum is to allow people to learn?

If so, then it makes sense to allow people to play on whatever difficulty they choose. This allows strategy comparisons across difficulty levels, and, hopefully, will help us all to work out which strategies are viable at which difficulty levels.

[DrSpike]

It would, if there were a sufficient playerbase for there to be meaningful comparison within level.

Anyway, I'm just throwing ideas out. Since there doesn't seem to be any support for my suggestion I'll stop.

[Hauptman]

you guys will have to forgive me. But just taking time to read these AU threads (sorry i'm a "general" and "tactics" troll) My intrest is sparked.

Who set up the AU100? I'd be more than happy to set up one, I made the HUGE EARTH map with all 18 civs for myself and posted it on the mod forum, its not hard to set a game up.

I will set it up as a noble game but give a few civs something extra, and perhaps weaken a couple others for a good mix. that way choosing a different (lower OR higher) difficulty setting will still have effect.

I love the idea of a warmonger game but feel free to toss ideas at me. Likely, if i dont play the american au100 tonight Ill set up a map and post it... you dont have to consider it an official AU game but we can still all play it through.

[billones]

Of course, the suggested level should be something low like Prince to start with.

And those of us who can't win a game at Noble should just not learn, I guess?

[Konquest02]

For now, I think we need to stay on a standard map, as many people have trouble running anything larger.

As for the game in itself, it must offer some nice strategic challenges. And above all, it must be fun to play!

I think it should offer many difficulty levels, as not everyone are at the same point in their CIV learning.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by billones


And those of us who can't win a game at Noble should just not learn, I guess?

As I said, it would just be a suggested level. Besides, the only way to learn is precisely to step out of your comfort zone. But never mind.

[xxFlukexx]

When another 'official' AU game is made it has to include the starting bonuses for the difficulty levels in them. I mean it HAS TO. No offense, but all of the AU-100A stuff above Prince are just worthless because the AI did not receive its initial bonuses. I usually have a very difficult time on Emperor, but in the AU game I flew through the game very easily and played very slowly because I was expecting a 10+ man stack to come for me and AIs to blitz very fast through the tech tree, but it did not happen. The only thing we can salvage from AU-100A is starting positions and city placement (and even then some people did very sub-optimal things and still easily won their games) The rest is all junk, you can't really learn in any of the games because the AI was so weak.

Difficulty should definetly be selectable or at least put in a few difficulty choices. People are not all on the same skill level and it will take years if we play one AU game a month starting at noble and work our way up.

Oh, and why is SPI good for warmongering, DeepO? I find that when I war a lot I just hit Theocracy + Hered Rule + Slavery and don't look back. Switching to OR for a few turns is nice inbetween peace treaties, but I can live without it playing aggressively. I think SPI goes well with religions because you can fast build the temples, waiting for a religion to spread to you can take a while. SPI is the bomb in Renaissance+ that's when switching really hurts.

Oh and let's get another AU game up by this weekend, let's start the voting for map type and everything. I prefer a land map and since I don't play with SPI leaders much so I think using a SPI leader would be fine.