Why do players find Deity so difficult?

[Simpson II]

LOTM,

Playing perfectionist really isn't that hard. I used to do a near-ICS when I first got the game (not because of 'poly, I worked that one out with some friends ), but when I occasionally play now it's usually perfectionist style. There's a link to my perfectionism-at-deity guide 'Small Gods' hanging around in the GL somewhere; it's something close to a build-order for a slightly crappy, but very repeatable, early 19th century landing. You might find it a fun strat, I don't know.

Actually, come to think of it the guide isn't finished, I promised an improved second edition and never delivered. Might fix that this weekend, it would be nice to leave something useful before moving on to CivIII.

Edit: or look at the 1050-odd landing Solo did... 7 basic cities. The two strats are pretty similar, he does a hell of a lot more trade, builds all the happiness wonders and exploits the AI, things I generally disallow myself to prevent getting two lazy. Very, very GG on his part, though.
[This message has been edited by Simpson II (edited April 24, 2001).]

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I agree with those who simply don't enjoy it as much. Deity requires more micromanaging, enough to spoil the elements of the game I find most enjoyable. Emperor is not much of a challenge as is, so I give myself horrible starting positions, limit my expansion, and then antagonize the neighbors; This alters the game enough to make it challenging.

------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon

[Deity Dude]

hmmm - which level do u think i play most?

Actually - my favorite game is MP 2x1x Deity no bribing.

There are a couple of misconceptions/points about Deity I think should be stated.

TRADE - You CAN consistantly win at Deity without ever trading. (I'm not saying this is the best strategy I'm just saying it isn't a requirement)

UNHAPPINESS - Just think of it as a handicap. Build a warrior in your cities before you build anything else. Think of unhappiness as a 10 shield penalty/handicap per citizen for the first 2 citizens and a temple to take it to 4 citzens. By the time any of your cities are at size 5 or 6 make sure you got the Hanging Gardens and your unhappiness will be fine for awhile. Then get Mike's and u should be set for a real long while.

TRADING TECHS/DEMANDING TRIBUTE - Same as Trade, nice to do but not necessary.

The two most important things, as I see it, to making the jump from other levels to Deity, are 1) Having a solid strategy before you start. If u have that you'll expand without unhappiness, you'll know what tech to research next and so on. 2) Sticking with your strategy. The biggest problems i had in the beginning was not following point 2. I would have a strategy, then something would happen and I would react to whatever happened (ie an annoying neighbor wants to fight so you fight). Then before I knew it it's 1AD and I've been off strategy for 3000 years. When that happens its hard to recover. MINIMIZE activities that don't fit the strategy you've decided upon. You will have to address issues as the game goes on just do it as quickly as possible, using as few resources as possible.

Set mental goals and timelines and try to stick to them (i.e 8 cities by 1000bc, Hanging Gardens by x and so on). Concentrate on a strategy before you get all caught up in the "tricks" because you don't need the "tricks" to win and you'll be a better player if u don't NEED to use them.

Well thats my 2 cents

[EOL]

I disagree with the need to have to micromanage at deity to win. Micromanaging is the difference between winning by a long long way and just winning. I can't be bothered to do much micromanaging (hence I usually lose OCC games by over 30 turns cf the top players for instance ) but I can still win easily at deity . If the rest of your strategy is strong you don't need to spend all day changing the squares your workers are playing with to win.

EOL

[War4ever]

i agree with eol.... its not necessary to micromanage or even prevent disorders from individual cities to win. However the best advice is and i repeat deity dude here..... stick with your program.

You must explore the map quickly! Are you on an island? if so adjust....... are you beside neighbors.... if so adjust. if you stumble across a city (check the name) if its the second or third on the list.... war could be appropriate.... if not how far away is it.....etc.... make the adjustment.

are you isolated? ..... adjust..... winning without wonders is much more difficult and will prevent bad habits along with testing if your strategy is sound.... because believe me...... if it is not you will be pounded in the MP ring

[Chris1111]

Follow up to my other post. I'm Playing a diety game now and it isnt so bad yet. I'm number 1 on graph but 2 in power(darn greeks). I have saves for4000bc 3000bc 2000bc 1000bc in a zip if anyone wants them. You can tell me how much I suck


[This message has been edited by Chris1111 (edited April 24, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Chris1111 (edited April 24, 2001).]

[samson]

quote: I bought a game about civilization, not about settler construction.

I love that line.

Civ2 is a bi-polar game. Practically every aspect of it has two polar extremes
and a rich middle ground of possiblilties: Conquest vs. AC Landings,
warmongering vs. peaceful alliances, improvements vs military etc.

And along this broad spectrum of play-styles, the AI is strongest in the middle.
The two ends of the spectrum can be exploited strategically for easier victory.
ICS occupies one end of the strategic spectrum and OCC the other.
ICS expands more rapidly than the AI, builds bigger armiers, becomes Supreme,
demands tribute and goes for early conquest. OCC forms peaceful alliances,
builds caravans, becomes Pathetic, requests gifts, and goes for early AC Landings.

Most people who have difficulty at Deity, I think, play a style
that is in the middle of the strategic spectrum where the AI is toughest.
I think that one can learn a lot from playing both of the extreme strategies
and adapting their strengths to your own play style.

samson

[Edward]

quote: Originally posted by Fergus Horkan on 04-24-2001 07:49 AM I am currently playing a game on a 5/6 city island, with high production squares all around, but no trade ones. I have lost the Colossus, and got Pyramids, and am going to have a curious mix of wonders. But at the moment, am growing fast, good science, and experimenting!! We'll see.

Fergus Horkan,

Good luck on your current game. Deity Pyramids aren't as terrible as they're made out to be (assuming one knows how to manage unhappiness). I've been experimenting with them in my last couple games. They're like having a low-grade We Love Day always going on in your cities. Early unwanted population can be "stored" as elvi or turned into settlers.

Make sure to get Copernicus's Observatory and your SSC should be just fine. You can use the sea squares for trade (harbors will give you enough food to use them if that's a problem). You might even use solo's trick and set up a bunch of lucrative trade routes with the AI's Colossus city.

Marco Polo's Embassy and Magellan's Expedition are nice for island nations.

Good luck!

[EOL]

I think for success at ICS or OCC you need to be pretty single minded about what you're doing and then you'll almost always win. If you're playing a less extreme strategy with 10-20 cities then you have to be much more flexible. If you don't get the wonder you want you have to decide if you're just going to do without or whether it would be better to conquer the city where it has been built. Is it worth knocking that aggresive neighbour out of the game now or just outpace them in techs and do it later. I often find myself changing from a peace-loving perfectionist to more of a warmongerer in the later game when the AI have just started getting too cocky, esp the purple, dark blue civs. A little bit of offense can seriously slow down AI progress as they change governments to attack you and leave you well ahead in the space race.

EOL

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Before I started playing Civ2 (about 9 months ago), the games I had been enjoying most were Quake and SimCity 2000 (as you can gather from the vintage of all of these titles, I raid the bargain bins alot). Now, Quake and SimCity are very different games, and offer different pleasures: in Quake it's the pleasure of coming up against a nasty opponent and kicking his a**, adrenaline pumping all the while; in SimCity, it's the more sedate pleasure of building and maintaining a world. In some ways, it's the difference between the pleasure of destroying and the pleasure of creating.

I think the pleasure of deity is more like that of Quake (I'm playing ToT); I can play it and win (perfectionist/AC), but never be relaxed while doing it; it always keeps me on edge. Whereas if I drop down to a lower level, the AI becomes a "hazard" (like a creek on a golf course) rather than an opponent, and I can concentrate on the pleasure of building my glorious civ. The level I play at depends on what kind of game I'm in the mood for, which certainly contributes to Civ's re-playability.

Civ: it's two, two, two games in one!

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder

[East Street Trader]

Nice explanation Rufus T.

A point not made by other posters is that barbs are a threat for a while in deity.

I noted that Eyes won't play at anything but King and asked why. It was explained to me that at that level a settler can expect to see off a barb horseman/archer whereas he is favourite to lose at deity. I don't ICS but can intuit that the potential for critical early expansion being slowed down would irk an ICS exponent who doesn't want to face challenges.

On the other hand I now think that at SP there are a few distinct advantages available in deity, notably the guaranteed second settler but including that very acceptable 150g for capturing a barb chief.

It strikes me that those who most dislike deity are those who play a perfectionist, developmental style and don't want to take any time out to cramp the A1. Folk who, like me, enjoy SimCity in Rufus' categorisation.

The problem with they describe above is not really a matter of coping with unhappiness but rather the v. substantial production advantage enjoyed by the A1, especially when the human player is ahead.

The early years can go well, the cities go down, development and scientific advance go well too and all looks hunky dorry. But the early disadvantage suffered by the A1 from duff city placement and hopeless land development starts lessening. The balancing factors built in to stop the game being too easy after a good start cut in and suddenly there is either a serious military threat or an A1 civ or two equally advanced and with as many or more cities. I agree that this is seriously bad news because it is impossible to win a space race against such a civ in the face of its production advantages. (Conceivably Xin Yu's notion of building a ship and launching on the turn that Apollo comes in might do it but this would need serious advance planning and is really an illustration of sophisticated strategy not a routine answer).

I'm afraid the answer is to micromanage; to run a sophisticated strategy; or else to develop tactical awareness so as to find opportunities to cramp even the remote A1 civs.

I followed the "find ways to cramp them" idea first and got lots of fun and satisfaction out of it. Yes, this lessens the SimCity type pleasures. But it doesn't eliminate them. And I found it led me to want to explore the warmongering side of the game. In fact I went through an entire phase of playing small map bloodlusts.

How to cramp remote A1 civs is too big a subject to tackle but might be worth a thread sometime. There are, as with so many other aspects of Civ2, half a hundred ways. I commend to perfectionists who recognise the difficulties which I attempted to desribe, the idea of building into their strategic thinking the necessity to cramp the A1. The first change this is likely to make is to increase the importance afforded to exploration, to embassies and/or to Marco Polo's. Identifying and locating the threats is necessarily move one. After that the trick is to devote just enough time and resource to slowing them down as is needful while keeping the main focus on developing your own civ. This is one aspect of what I think of as the need to achieve balance within the game.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly on 04-25-2001 05:15 AM Before I started playing Civ2 (about 9 months ago), the games I had been enjoying most were Quake and SimCity 2000 (as you can gather from the vintage of all of these titles, I raid the bargain bins alot). Now, Quake and SimCity are very different games, and offer different pleasures: in Quake it's the pleasure of coming up against a nasty opponent and kicking his a**, adrenaline pumping all the while; in SimCity, it's the more sedate pleasure of building and maintaining a world. In some ways, it's the difference between the pleasure of destroying and the pleasure of creating. I think the pleasure of deity is more like that of Quake (I'm playing ToT); I can play it and win (perfectionist/AC), but never be relaxed while doing it; it always keeps me on edge. Whereas if I drop down to a lower level, the AI becomes a "hazard" (like a creek on a golf course) rather than an opponent, and I can concentrate on the pleasure of building my glorious civ. The level I play at depends on what kind of game I'm in the mood for, which certainly contributes to Civ's re-playability. Civ: it's two, two, two games in one!

Youve hit the nail on the head Rufus!!!

Simcity 2000 was my first PC game. When i got frustrated recently with civ2 i went back to Caesar 3 (now trying to beat Lugdunum ) Up through emperor i got real "simcity" joy from the game, though i also conquered. At diety its hard to do that.

LOTM

BTW - im very excited by notion of upcoming sid meiers - will wright collaboration.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 04-25-2001 06:18 AM Nice explanation Rufus T. It strikes me that those who most dislike deity are those who play a perfectionist, developmental style and don't want to take any time out to cramp the A1. Folk who, like me, enjoy SimCity in Rufus' categorisation. The problem with they describe above is not really a matter of coping with unhappiness but rather the v. substantial production advantage enjoyed by the A1, especially when the human player is ahead. The early years can go well, the cities go down, development and scientific advance go well too and all looks hunky dorry. But the early disadvantage suffered by the A1 from duff city placement and hopeless land development starts lessening. The balancing factors built in to stop the game being too easy after a good start cut in and suddenly there is either a serious military threat or an A1 civ or two equally advanced and with as many or more cities. I agree that this is seriously bad news because it is impossible to win a space race against such a civ in the face of its production advantages. (Conceivably Xin Yu's notion of building a ship and launching on the turn that Apollo comes in might do it but this would need serious advance planning and is really an illustration of sophisticated strategy not a routine answer). I'm afraid the answer is to micromanage; to run a sophisticated strategy; or else to develop tactical awareness so as to find opportunities to cramp even the remote A1 civs. I followed the "find ways to cramp them" idea first and got lots of fun and satisfaction out of it. Yes, this lessens the SimCity type pleasures. But it doesn't eliminate them. And I found it led me to want to explore the warmongering side of the game. In fact I went through an entire phase of playing small map bloodlusts. How to cramp remote A1 civs is too big a subject to tackle but might be worth a thread sometime. There are, as with so many other aspects of Civ2, half a hundred ways. I commend to perfectionists who recognise the difficulties which I attempted to desribe, the idea of building into their strategic thinking the necessity to cramp the A1. The first change this is likely to make is to increase the importance afforded to exploration, to embassies and/or to Marco Polo's. Identifying and locating the threats is necessarily move one. After that the trick is to devote just enough time and resource to slowing them down as is needful while keeping the main focus on developing your own civ. This is one aspect of what I think of as the need to achieve balance within the game.

excellent analsysis EST.

I agree its not the unhappiness but the production advantage. On lower levels i can afford to be sloppy - make occasional tactical errors, or flail around strategically - because of the AI's stupidities (documented elsewhere) On diety the AI has production advantages that to a great extent compensate for their stupidities against an ordinary human player - which makes Deity very demanding. Which i think is what the designers intended. However due to players over the years discovering all kinds of quirks in the rules, from ICS to Oedo years, a fairly large group of people can play and win at diety, and it has become the standard in forums such as this.

Now i have now problem with people enjoying the game anyway they do = whether its playing at chieftain level, using ICS, or whatever. And i intend to play ICS again, although im eager ti quickly apply ICS learnings to a less ics purist, more perfectionist style. And i tend to agree that playing perf requires better strategizing - BUT

let me say something controversial - all fo this is somewhat "uncivish"
by civish i mean both playing the game as the designers intended, and more importantly capturing the feel of historical civilization building - i say the feel because i am quite aware of the many inaccuracies in detail (which i would rather not rehash) and all of the diety "answers" lose that feel. to wit

1. ICS and OCC -
I hope i dont need to go further on these, but i will if anyone cares to.
2. Starting out with a strategy and sticking to it
Really - i plant my first city in 4000 BC with a view to the shield requirements for Spaceship construction!!!! HUH!!!! I mean if youre gonna do that, why not just play with reveal maps - why play with fog of war when the biggest fog of all - where are things headed - is revealed - now i know this is an intrinsic problem of the game, how can we pretend we dont know the tech tree, etc. But i think the beginner player, on warlord or prince, flailing around, is having an experience closer to that of real civ leaders than are the diety experts with their "get 8 cities down by 600BC" etc.
3. similarly for micromanagement


I think the problem here is intrinsic to this kind of game. In a war game, for example, the reality is that most players are lesser micromanagers than real generals, who dealt with matters from logistics to optimal use of terrain,etc. You read about a JEB Stuart and come away amazed that this "dashing cavalier" was in fact an obsessive micromanager.
Leaders of civilizations were working off the cuff to a much greater degree, simply because the factors impacting happiness, productivity,etc are much fuzzier than military factors. Yet in civ the riot factor is known with the same degree of certainty as the range of a bomber.

Im not sure where to go with this, im still reflecting.

LOTM

[Rufus T. Firefly]

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 04-25-2001 01:25 PM I think the problem here is intrinsic to this kind of game. In a war game, for example, the reality is that most players are lesser micromanagers than real generals, who dealt with matters from logistics to optimal use of terrain,etc. You read about a JEB Stuart and come away amazed that this "dashing cavalier" was in fact an obsessive micromanager. Leaders of civilizations were working off the cuff to a much greater degree, simply because the factors impacting happiness, productivity,etc are much fuzzier than military factors. Yet in civ the riot factor is known with the same degree of certainty as the range of a bomber.

I absolutely agree, lotm. But I wonder if, to some extent, this is just a hazard of computer games: once you play them, you learn how they work. In Pax Imperia, once it became clear that the enemy never built huge fleets, winning the game became easy: build huge fleets. In Doom, once you know to turn right to get the weapon, you always turn right to get the weapon. Admittedly, you learn a lot more here, but it's just a hyped-up version of what always happens: you play, you learn. That, of course, is why they make multiple levels, and why there'll be a Civ3.

If that's a problem -- and, like you, I sometimes think it is -- the thing I like to do is vary my playing style. What happens if I don't build an SSC? What if I make my first two wonders things I never build, like the Great Wall and the Lighthouse? What if I play without Wonders at all (which is more "historical," really, since no wonders ever did what these do)? Your point is well-taken, but in the end it seems inevitable, given that we can do what Alexander, Xerxes, and Catherine the Great could not: select quit and start again. (I now have this image in my head of great historical leaders visiting a site much like this one, and contributing to threads such as "What's wrong with despotism, anyway?" and "Okay, I give up: how do you invade Russia?" I think it's time for bed.)

------------------
Dig trenches, with our men being killed off like flies? There isn't time to dig trenches. We'll have to buy them ready made. Here, run out and get some trenches.
-- Rufus T. Firefly, the original rush-builder
[This message has been edited by Rufus T. Firefly (edited April 26, 2001).]

[East Street Trader]

Interesting comments, guys.

Maier is famously commited to putting game play first and realism a long way second. For me, he is right. I have taken pleasure in lots of games, bridge, mainly but lots of others, too, down the years. For me Civ2 is primarily a game and the interest, as with all games, is to try to play well.

But computer games have the chance to, and do, rise above mere gamesplaying. Developers have the opportunity, and take that opportunity, to make a game very atmospheric. It is this, as well as the quality of the gamesplaying, which makes them so immersive. Civ2 is blessed with appropriate music and good wonder movies. It's graphics are now, of course, dated and I would not give particularly high marke either to the art work or, for example, to the throne room idea. But those things are not naff - merely not outstanding as so much else is.

And I agree with you that the fundamental idea of nursing a civ through its early days and making all those choices which will lead it to flourish and face the challenge of the stars is wonderfully inspiring. There is a lot of clever and satisfying stuff built in based on the history and experience of humankind and I'm with you that this adds to the game.

All in all I have no real doubt that we are looking at something which helps to show that with the application of multimedia to gamesplaying a new art form has been born.

But I don't agree that it makes any sense actually to play the game in any way other than the best you can - aiming at some known objective and using all the skill and knowledge you have.

It is my guess that you might regain some spark (lost through over familiarity) either by seeking out and playing scenarios (where the objective may be sufficiently unfamiliar) or to tackle the creation of a scenario with an objective devised by yourself.

If you do, I reckon a objective chosen by you would likely be one which would enthuse me enough to play such a scenario.