Emperor level needs a rethink.

[Catt]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Hum, I don't recall seeing any post by Firaxis that huts are level dependant. Here is the post I have on the subject [. . . .]

Yup - that's the main post (and a very important one) on probability with respect to huts, but there have been several others referring to hut probabilities and difficulty levels, if only obliquely. One prominent example is Soren's post in "The Best of the Best" thread available as a topped thread in the "Must Read" thread. Click HERE. It's about 10 posts down from the first. The same message appears elsewhere in other threads, but this is the one example within easy reach for me.

Catt

[DrSpike]

I don't think I'd like to see the gap between Monarch and Emperor made any smaller. I'd recommend just sticking at it for a while........in all probability in time Emperor will seem as easy as Monarch once was.

The biggest shift was originally Emperor to Deity. Demigod has helped out in that regard, and Sid is the new extreme shift, even compared to new Deity.

I think the 7 levels up to Sid seem like they provide a nicely graduated challenge.

[Jeem]

It's not about making the gap smaller. It's about preventing the game from being one-trick at higher levels. Generally speaking, I win 9/10 at Emperor level because I know how to do it. Once you have that knowledge, it almost always works.

I've won every type of victory at Monarch because the game allows you to play that way. At Emperor, you need to beat the AI at it's own game and use the same tried and trusted tactics. There is no variance. Certain stuff works all the time, others fail miserably. I haven't even bothered trying Demigod or Sid yet but I can confidently predict that they'll just be the same.

Emperor level is not 'harder'. It's just more boring and repetitive. It's less enjoyable because valid tactics go out the window. If you dislike the idea of Emperor being made easier, would you consider Monarch being made more challenging?

I and others would like a happy medium. The AI can have all it's production bonuses and dodgy trades. It can know the position of every single unit you have. I'll even give it it's anti-corruption bonus. The problem is, the combination of all this makes a mockery of Culture (in particular) so much that it's no longer a viable victory condition.

I'd like to give the AI a 33% bonus to building troops only, and no bonus to buildings at Emperor level. Would you like to see that? It wouldn't affect me much because the type of game I like to play should be able to withstand masses of low quality troops. I hate to say it, but SMAC somehow managed to find a happy medium and it's 5 years old. You could win that game at any level by a variety of means.

Catt - I couldn't get your test to work. I've got Conquests and it keeps giving me an error message when I try to load it into the editor. I'd like you to try something out though if you've got the time. Make a map with 5 cities + walls, defended by 2 Musketeers. Place 6 enemy horsemen next to the walls and allow them attack you (all veterans of course). On average attack/defence stats, not one should fall but I bet 2 of them do.

The reason I use this example is because it's indicative of what you'd see in a normal game, and not a test designed purely to work out if the AI cheats on attack or defence.

[DrSpike]

Ok I see what you were aiming for now.

But then my response would be play different types of maps. A larger map than your usual will give more building room.........perhaps play with the landmass size so you might be on an island by yourself with room to expand, and need to alter your strategies accordingly.

Also, I have to say I think emperor (from 1.07 to now) is not a level where you are railroaded (no pun intended ) into a certain approach, not in the way that Deity (and now no doubt Sid) do.

I think all styles of play are possible on emperor; what is more, in my opinion, good play is in reacting. If you prefer a builder game fine, but if you start near someone with no land then put that to one side, and adapt, whatever the game level.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Ok I see what you were aiming for now.

But then my response would be play different types of maps. A larger map than your usual will give more building room.........perhaps play with the landmass size so you might be on an island by yourself with room to expand, and need to alter your strategies accordingly.

I always play huge maps. Sometimes I get stuck by myself on an Island - that's when you fall so far behind in tech that there's no way you can have an impact in the game. The perfect start is to be on a large island/continent with one other faction. You can trade with them for a while then backstab them and take the rest.

Also, I have to say I think emperor (from 1.07 to now) is not a level where you are railroaded (no pun intended ) into a certain approach, not in the way that Deity (and now no doubt Sid) do.

I believe many of the problems stem from weak militaries being picked on. I am constantly weak through the early age because I build buildings to the detriment of my military. I will hardly even bother to build a single spearman because I build temples, libraries etc to the detriment of my army.

What this means is that although I appear 'weak', I am actually very strong in infrastructure. The problem is, the AI doesn't see that - they only see a weak military. When they attack, I can usually muster a better quality force faster than even they can. This gets repetitive after a while. The usual thing is my nearest neighbour attacks when I am 'weak', takes a city and I sue for peace. 20 turns later I unload the mother of all armies onto their nation and run through them like a dose of salts.

I think all styles of play are possible on emperor; what is more, in my opinion, good play is in reacting. If you prefer a builder game fine, but if you start near someone with no land then put that to one side, and adapt, whatever the game level.

I think I'm pretty good at reacting.

A builder player builds to be strong in order to react quicker and faster when it's required. Most of us would be happy to be left alone building, building, building in our pacifist ways. The main problem with Emperor level is that I am forced into militaristic action, either through falling well behind in tech, or being overtaken in culture because of the AI bonuses at this level.

You know what I mean - If all else fails, there's always the option of mobilising your entire nation for war. The AI is great at attacking but still can't defend itself properly.

Unfortunately, it's the only viable option at emperor level and I find myself doing it game after game.

[WarpStorm]

Then maybe you should start play on normal size maps and see if your strategies still work.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Then maybe you should start play on normal size maps and see if your strategies still work.

Builder strategy isn't feasible at Emperor level on a huge map, so it's hardly going to be feasible on a smaller map is it? Playing on a smaller map will prove what exactly? That military strategies are even more important? Yes....

Look WarpStorm - I can confidently state I'll WIN the game at any level, and any victory you choose. By all means give me a save game with a reasonable start position and I'll be happy to prove it.

However, I'd rather have a bit of FUN while doing it. Emperor is a grind from start to the end of the middle ages (when the builder finally starts to see some results).

Like many others I feel Monarch 'feels' right, but it's just too easy. Maybe I should have been suggesting that Monarch gets more difficult instead.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Then maybe you should start play on normal size maps and see if your strategies still work.

Normal/Small maps, how disgusting!
On the other hand, aren't HUGE maps a bit of a problem with the number-of-cities limit at 512?

Large maps -- just right.

--
To me, normal maps just do not lend the "epic" feel I like for the game, just as I do not prefer short stories (actually, I prefer several novels in the same sequential series/universe). Normal maps are for testing.

[Jeem]

Large maps aren't too bad, but you don't see the real power of Emperor level AI at them. I've never reached the city limit yet, in countless games on huge maps.

One thing that has been completely overlooked is that the size of map probably has more effect on a game than anything else. I've erred badly in assuming that most people play on huge maps, because it's pretty obvious that isn't the case.

[WarpStorm]

No, I prefer standard size with continents myself. It is a faster play.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
No, I prefer standard size with continents myself. It is a faster play.

Of course it is. Smaller maps are much better suited to aggressive militaristic play though. You don't get yourself attacking or being picked on by really HUGE empires.

I'm not saying it's a lesser game by any means. Normal maps are great for a quick game every now and then. But, until you constantly play huge maps you just won't see the AI at it's horrible worst (best).

They outgrow and outproduce you, big time. You'll find yourself miles behind in the overall score for a long, long time - if you don't then you're doing something I haven't seen.

All of their small cities will be producing at the level of your nearest cities, because of their corruption and level bonus. The armies they throw out can just about be held off, but the economic and cultural pressure they add on top is just too much.

Domination victory is a real task on a huge map Warpstorm. If you find yourself winning a lot on standard maps, you should check out the huge maps to see just how much harder the AI is. By my reckoning, Emperor level on a standard map probably only equates to Prince level on a normal map in terms of difficulty. I'm not saying that to belittle any anchievements you might have done - it's the truth.

The more space to expand the AI has at Emperor, the harder it gets all round. Many players think that a builder game is better suited to huge maps. This is true in the sense that you get more TIME, but if you consider that the AI expands faster and has production/corruption bonuses in all those cities then what happens is that you are fighting a losing battle.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Jeem
They outgrow and outproduce you, big time. You'll find yourself miles behind in the overall score for a long, long time - if you don't then you're doing something I haven't seen.

The more space to expand the AI has at Emperor, the harder it gets all round. Many players think that a builder game is better suited to huge maps. This is true in the sense that you get more TIME, but if you consider that the AI expands faster and has production/corruption bonuses in all those cities then what happens is that you are fighting a losing battle.

This is not really true. We played a couple of Huge map games in AU, and they ended up being rather easy for the human player.

The reason is that the human player can concentrate what he or she wants to do (i.e. adjust to different circumstances), while the AI always does the same thing. On big maps this means that the human player has enough room/time to build a large enough military, enough Culture improvements, or trade for a quick shot at the Spaceship (depending on the victory type you're interested in).

In general, the smaller the map size and the higher the difficulty, the more challenging the game will be.

---

I've tried to keep out of the discussion here, but mostly it amounts to personal taste and playstyle. For instance:

Like many others I feel Monarch 'feels' right, but it's just too easy. Maybe I should have been suggesting that Monarch gets more difficult instead.

The thing about Emperor is that the AI "attacks" you from various different angles, and you have to "defend" against all of them. There's no reason to get angry at the AI when it builds military units as you're trying for a Culture win. The AI is designed to make life difficult for you, as you increase the difficulty level.

Players have beat Emperor in almost every way imaginable: 100k Culture victory on every map size, One City Challenge, no military units, no city improvements, no trading, always war, etc. etc. The fact that you're having trouble beating it in the way that you want to is not a problem with the game itself, but rather with your expectations of the game vis a vis how it was designed to challenge you.

Sort of a tangent, but: how would you make Monarch more difficult without turning it into Emperor? Remember that you must do so across player playstyles, and that you're not allowed to add any new AI behaviours.

---

Other statements are being made that I doubt are backed up by all that much evidence or play experience. Like:

Emperor level is not 'harder'. It's just more boring and repetitive. It's less enjoyable because valid tactics go out the window. If you dislike the idea of Emperor being made easier, would you consider Monarch being made more challenging?

I feel the same way about Emperor that you do about Monarch. Does that mean all I do is warmonger? Far from it! Name one "valid tactic" you use that is invalidated by Emperor-level, and I'll show you a game where you're wrong.

Certainly there are things that are less easy at Emperor (like getting a tech lead in teh Ancient era, or Culture flipping as an offensive tactic), but that's the whole point of higher difficulties. Yes, you can Archer-rush the AI on Deity, and sometimes it even works. But it works a lot less often as it would on Emperor or below. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Like DrSpike said, I suggest you keep playing Emperor (and keep reading this forum!). I'm sure you'll come to see that it's not that "boring" or "unfair" after all.

Sid, well...that's another story.


Dominae

[Catt]

Originally posted by Jeem
Catt - I couldn't get your test to work. I've got Conquests and it keeps giving me an error message when I try to load it into the editor.

Hmm. Don't know what to say to that. You should be able to unzip the attachment and move the .biq file into your Conquests / scenarios folder. From there it is just launching the sceanrio fron the "Civ Content" choice from the Conquests main menu.

I'd like you to try something out though if you've got the time. Make a map with 5 cities + walls, defended by 2 Musketeers. Place 6 enemy horsemen next to the walls and allow them attack you (all veterans of course). On average attack/defence stats, not one should fall but I bet 2 of them do.

Sorry; not the time for it - I already gave 5 minutes to the cause by setting up the available test scenario! It is you that maintains that there is something untoward happening in the game and I think it should be you to actually endure the tedium of proving the point. How does the saying go? -- he who claims to see pink elephants must produce a pink elephant to prove the point?

The reason I use this example is because it's indicative of what you'd see in a normal game, and not a test designed purely to work out if the AI cheats on attack or defence.

But I thought determining whether the AI cheats on attack or defense was the entire substance of the sub-argument. Either it does or it doesn't -- or is the contention that it does so only in limited circumstances (i.e., when it is hard to catch)?

BTW, I feel about Diety (under PTW) the way you do about Emperor -- I just don't find Deity very fun, mainly because it requires more attention and a more focused playstyle from me than I am usually in the mood to offer. Oh, I can usually beat it -- I just don't enjoy beating it as much as I do playing Emperor (whether I beat Emp or not). Others find Deity far more enjoyable than the lower levels. IMHO, like or dislike of different difficulty levels seems to be less about the relative merits of each difficulty level and more about the personal play tastes and abilities of the player involved -- in other words, though I have historically not cared much for Deity games in general, I would be pretty hesitant to state that the difficulty level needed a rethink simply because it wasn't my cup of tea. I have some hope for Demi-God in C3C but haven't played much with the presently buggy release version of the game.

Catt

[Gibsie]

The scenario did work for me, and preliminary tests showed that 20-30 units would remain on either side after the fights. However, if all my units remaining have 1/10hp left whereas the AI units had 6/10 I'd still have to wonder... I'll make my own test sometime, but I won't be so aggressive in insisting that the AI has a combat bonus at higher levels for now

Also, one afterthought for the goody-huts, vmxa1- is another prerequisite for generating barbarians that you must be a human player? I've had the AI take goody huts right next to me a huge number of times, but not once have I ever seen barbarians generated from the hut...

[DrSpike]

I've never tested it but goodie huts seem to last longer on higher levels.......i.e. you don't pop them because there is no point, but the AI doesn't either, whereas they seem to mop up ones you leave on the lower levels. I'd like to see the results of a proper test on this if one has been done.