Hardest Civ Game...

[Oldman]

I was lying awake last night, not sleeping, thinking about Civ!!! Addicted!!! and it occured to me i'd just completed civ with 1 city in 1787, ok not the best result, but the AI were no where near me!??!?!

So i get thinking when is the AI at it's best? When is it in it's element and able to give you a real challenge? Is it on a large map or a small one? does it give more of a challenge when there are only 3 civs on the map or when there are all 7? Does having all the most expansionist civs make it harder or easier because of in fighting? Is the only solution to make it easier for the AI by fiddling the rules.txt to their favour? what's the best way to do this?

I know the only really good solution to a better opposition is to play MP, but for those who can't what's the best SP alternative!!!

[kcbob]

Were you playing on Deity level with raging hordes? How about MPGE version? That's the combo I play in and it's all I can do to land by 1970. Props to you if all these are true.

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

[tonic]

The trend of challenges in Civ2 seems to indicate approaches from the other direction, one of further handicapping the human player.

I've only tried OCC which is hard enough but Tom's FOCC with the further restriction of government type to Fundy is probably the hardest Civ2 game I've played.

[Steve Clark]

In my only OCC game that I managed to play, I had two very close civs the whole game, with raging hordes under MGE. It really wasn't that hard, if you follow the advice of other MGE OCCers. The only way to make it hard would be to handicap yourself (e.g., no Shakespeare).

[Sten Sture]

There are a lot of good scenarios out there that can handicap you. RedFront is one, Lord of the Rings is very difficult. There are a slew of others.

good question!

imo - Small map, large landmass, 3 civs.

The AI seems to be at its best when it has access to good grassland terrain and a shield sponsoring government like Fundy. It doesn't use trade well at all, gives grassland squares highest priority, and it can't defend against howies, move a navy, or use missles.

Expansionist civs generally do pretty well. Until they are producing 8 shields and have seven supported defensive units in the city... play against the civs that are expansionists. And play your start even if it is on the poles.

Here are some changes I was thinking of that you could make to the rules text:

Increase grassland shields by one, and give them a trade arrow. Decrease trade specials by at least one trade arrow. Remove the ignore city walls flag from howies, give them a move of 1, and give them a FP of 1 - or reduce their attack to at least 8. Reduce the cost of cruise missles to 2 (20 shields). Change the fundamentalism tech to 8, 0, nil, nil (and don't use it. they will research it first.) Change fanatics to all as road. Remove the caravans unit or change its prereq to economics. Double the per-turn support cost of all improvements.

I'll give it a try and tell you how it worked for me.
[This message has been edited by Sten Sture (edited August 03, 2000).]

[geofelt]

I find it hardest to win by bloodlust on a large warery world by 2020. There may just not be enough time to get to everyone.
I have more trouble defending when the AI gets bombers. How about a game where the original two settlers and the AI have ALL the techs available. The AI with it's production capability could be a real problem.

[Scouse Gits]

For efficient conquest on a large waterworld you must start off by being "Mr. Nice Guy". Build Marco Polo, and give techs away in exchange for maps. (As soon as you research Republic, give it to everyone.) Knowing the geography early is important. If possible, make an alliance with a civilised nation, and use this country as your main trading area. The trade finances the war chest and the scientific advances. If you have HG and Colossus in one city, re-home all caravans there, as the early revenue from trade is spectacular.

----------
SG (2)

[Oldman]

So we've got a choice of small world, 3 civs, or a large watery bloodlust?? hmm, a difference of oppinion i think?!?!

Sten, let me know how it goes with those alterations!!! I'll have to give it a go sometime, although i'm getting a reoccurence of the "Girlfriend Trouble", so i might be off of civ for the next week, and i really wanted to finish off my scenario for occ this weekend!!

Maybe i'd better put this to a vote...

[Tom DeMille]

Well, Oldman, I've got a scenario ready to go for next time, so you needn't rush to get yours done .

Oh, and my hardest civ game was probably that current scenario . I got killed off by the AI in 400AD.

In truth, it was just a dumb mistake. The AI had a settler beside my capital, which was filled with caravans. I then disbanded all the caravans to rush build Shakespeare's Theatre. Next turn, the AI settler walked into the undefended city and won the game.

[Oldman]

Oh ****, sorry Tom!!! That's both of my scenarios have claimed casualties of war now!!! this next one i'm planning probably won't be as nasty, but hopefully will be interesting!!

I just hope you've not beat me to this great idea i've got!!! i couldn't believe you'd done a ring world one, i've got a map i was planning to turn into an occ scenario?!!?!?

Looking forward to playing this one of yours next week, girlfriend allowing...


Edit: it didn't bleep my expletive!
[This message has been edited by Oldman (edited August 04, 2000).]