Attention, Pros: Has the AI improved?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Alright all you Civ hot shots.

I switched from Regent to Monarch about when I got C3C - I played 2 Monarch games to victory on PTW.

Now I'm having a damn hard time getting anywhere in C3C.

The question I have is, am I being creamed because I'm on a new difficultly level? Or is the AI just better this time around?

I just want general impressions from those of you who consistently win Monarch or higher difficulty levels, whether the game is indeed harder now. Is the mass warrior to swordsmen upgrade effectively out the window? Is it now worth your time to crank up research in the ancient era? The game seems so difficult, I want some feedback from the pros to assure me one way or another whether or not this is so.

[Stuie]

Re: Attention, Pros: Has the AI improved?

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
The question I have is, am I being creamed because I'm on a new difficultly level? Or is the AI just better this time around?

The things that have made the game more difficult for me have little to do with the AI. My biggest problems have been:

1. Luxury Resource scarcity. This is number one on the list. I used to just grab/trade for all 8 luxuries, build a marketplace, and then ride out the game in Republic. Now I might only get five or six luxuries, so the marketplace isn't as effective and War Weariness gets me in trouble should a conflict drag on too long. I'm learning to fight short, targeted wars to overcome this.

2. Strategic Resource scarcity. Second on the list, I'm finding it more difficult to obtain a source of rather important strategic resources. I actually had to trade for horses in my current game. I never do that! Seems if I luck into one or two strategic resources within 15 tiles of my capital I'm having a good game.

3. MGLs can't rush Great Wonders. That's how I used to build any wonder I could get my hands on in the Ancient Era, and some in the Middle Era. I know SGLs can still rush build GWs, but I have yet to see one (and yes I'm maintaining a tech lead and yes I'm playing a Scientific Civ). Now I'm doing earlier pre-builds and thus fielding fewer units.

There's more, but those are the biggies for me.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I have seen some resource luxury... in my current game I've got some beautiful land, lots of iron and horses, but only ONE luxury, and only one SOURCE of that one luxury (it's some spices on a forest north of Rome, my capital).

As for the SGLs... I have yet to see one either, and I've had a tech lead consistently now, even in games I quit, because I can't bring myself to research at 50 turns (except for a few techs, namely Alphabet and Writing). I've always been first to get Philosophy - love the free tech - but I've yet to see an SGL.

I think 3% (that the official chance for a non-scientific civ, right?) is just absymally low. Shouldn't it be 10%? I mean, hey, 1 in 10 is still a slight chance. You still have to research your pants off to get 1 or 2 SGLs in a game with a 1 in 10 chance. Never mind a 3 in 100 chance.

[Arrian]

3% might be a little low... 5% is probably better. But I think 10% is high. Maybe 5% for non-sci civs and 7-8% for sci civs? Too early to really tell if it needs adjustment, though. I've gotten three, all concentrated in one game, in the span of 5 techs. Edit: 4, if you count the one I got playing a Conquest (first tech I researched in the Mesopotamia Conquest. Bam, Statue of Zeus complete).

As for the AI, tough to tell, given that I've only played a few games (and none all the way out). It feels like Monarch is easier... but that could be small sample size.

I've played some of the Conquests lately instead of the regular game.

-Arrian

[ZargonX]

The strat. resource scarcity does make for some interesting games. In my current game, on a continent of 4 civilizations, there is a SINGLE horse resource, held by the Vikings. And the AI knew it; as soon as they got HBR, the Vikings declared war with their fresh new mobile forces. Fortunately my Statue of Zeus was finished in time to give me some of my own

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Arrian
I've gotten three, all concentrated in one game, in the span of 5 techs.

That sounds like a lucky streak to me... but I guess I could be wrong.

Monarch feels easier, huh? Hmmm... well, I guess I have some things to get used.

I'm disgruntled to see that the Carthaginians have NOT been toned down... if anything, they seem like a greater threat now.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Arrian
3% might be a little low... 5% is probably better. But I think 10% is high. Maybe 5% for non-sci civs and 7-8% for sci civs? Too early to really tell if it needs adjustment, though. I've gotten three, all concentrated in one game, in the span of 5 techs. Edit: 4, if you count the one I got playing a Conquest (first tech I researched in the Mesopotamia Conquest. Bam, Statue of Zeus complete).

As for the AI, tough to tell, given that I've only played a few games (and none all the way out). It feels like Monarch is easier... but that could be small sample size.

I've played some of the Conquests lately instead of the regular game.

-Arrian

Re: SGLs I'm actually leaning towards nerfing these things. They're too random for the amount of power they can generate. Getting the Pyramids in 2900 bc thanks to a SGL was nice, getting another one to rush the GL in 800 bc?.........well I gave up on that game. Too easy. I'm starting to think that allowing the rushing of any Great Wonder should either be disallowed entirely or allowing cash rushing of GWs, possibly at a vastly increased gold cost (ie 8 gold per wonder shield).

Re the AI: It's changed. Militarilly it's a lot tighter and the AI's naval game is much improved. It's tech choices I've found to be somewhat questionable at times. I've noticed a tendancy for the AI in C3C to avoid Literature. This isn't always a bad thing, but when not a single AI has Literature in 980 AD, including the Scientific civs..........not good.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Jee, am I one of the few that has not come across an SGL yet? Strange...

[Thoth]

they're rare, I've only seen 3 so far. But 2 in one ancient era is a little too much.

[vmxa1]

I too have felt the rushing of wonders may need a nerfing. I suggested only the first one (SGL) be allowed to rush a wonder.
I got 4 as Ottoman in one game, but none in the first two ages.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Are these showing up late in the game?

How are you getting so far ahead in research?

I've had a mixture of games where I was way, way ahead in tech in the ancient era and saw no GLs, of games where I was way, way behind, and of games where I was about even or a little ahead/behind, but always the first to get Philosophy, and no SGLs here.

...ah well, I should quit my kvetching I suppose. I suppose a consensus will gradually emerge.

[Arrian]

I've noticed a tendancy for the AI in C3C to avoid Literature.

Me too. I think that's a problem that needs fixing.

Here's an idea for the "nerfing" of SGLs that might be difficult to code:

Have an SGL be capable of spurring a Golden Age in 1 city. Basically, pick one city to juice up for 20 turns. That oughtta give you a real good shot at a wonder, but it isn't nearly as strong as "Presto! Insta-Pyramids, 3000BC!"

I can't believe I'm saying this.

-Arrian

[TechWins]

Maybe SGLs should only give back 100 shields to a city instead of completely rushing a whole wonder. It would play more strategy into when you would use the SGL instead of knowing you will for sure get the wonder you want with a SGL.

[NaZ]

SGLs will make the came too easy, but i think a harder AI will balance this out, so anyway if the AI is going to be harder, better start practising,

[Plotinus]

Why not have a new class of Wonders - Intellectual Wonders, or Cultural Wonders? They could be the ones that aren't buildings (eg Theory of Evolution, Bach, Shakespeare etc - yes, I know the game calls Bach and Shakespeare buildings, but they're not really, are they?). These Wonders could be the ones that leaders can rush. To add a twist, perhaps they could be built *only* by leaders - after all, why should a city with more shields be better at producing Shakespeare than one with few? Treating these cultural achievements as things to be built is pretty skew-wiff in the first place, I think.