AU Mod: Difficulty Levels

[Theseus]

I wanna level named after me!!
I wanna level named after me!!
I wanna level named after me!!

[Theseus]

On a more serious note:

I actually like the idea quite a bit. I typically play at emporer for the same reasons identified. In general, I agree with Nathan's position, arguments, and proposed solution.

Whether or not it's an AU type of thing? Well, that's up to us, isn't it.

[nbarclay]

I'd like to take a closer look at how the difficulty levels from Regent through Deity compare with each other. Every one of the transitions shares the following properties:

• One extra offensive unit and two extra defensive units.
• Plus four free unit support empire-wide and one per city.
• Cost factor reduced by one and AI-AI trade rate increased by 10.
• A reduction in the bonus against barbarians (200% on Regent, 100% on Monarch, 50% on Emperor, 25% on Demigod, none on Deity).
• A recution in the percentage of obtimal cities (90% Regent, 85% Monarch, 80% Emperor, 70% Demigod, 60% Deity

In addition:

• Tthe maximum government transitiion time for AIs changes from no special limit at Regent to four turns on Monarch, three on Emperor, and two on Demigod and Deity.
• The jump from Monarch to Emperor carries with it the loss of a citizen born content, and also gives the AI an extra worker.
• The jump from Emperor to Demigod gives the AI an extra settler and an extra worker.

Clearly, the change from Emperor to Mythic Hero (Demigod without the extra settler) would be comparable in magnitude to the other changes in difficulty level. From looking at the statistics, it would appear to be smaller than the change from Monarch to Emperor, but larger than the changes from Regent to Monarch or from Demigod to Deity. There is no basis for concern that the transition from Emperor to Mythic Hero would be too small to make a meaningful difference in gameplay or to constitute a worthwhile achievement for players.

That brings us to the question of whether the transition from Mythic Hero to Demigod would end up being too small. Dominae has tried to argue that most of the superiority of AIs on Demigod compared with Emperor is attributable to the extra settler rather than to other AI advantages. I think Dominae is probably overestimating the importance of the extra settler a little bit, but with the way the extra settler can crowd humans, it's definitely a major factor. If Dominae is even close to right about the advantage the AI gets from the extra settler, the jump from Mythic Hero to Demigod would tend to be comparable in magnitude to that of other difficulty level transitions even if it might not be quite as big.

Finally, note that if Dominae is right about the importance of the extra settler, the jump from Emperor to Demigod is comparable to what would normally be expected from two jumps in difficulty level combined, not just what would be expected from a single jump. That fits with my argunent that the jump is currently too big, leaving a gap that it would be worthwhile to fill.

[nbarclay]

I'd also like to explore how this proposal fits with the goals of the AU Mod. The three basic goals of the Mod are:

1) Present the player with more interesting strategic options and decisions.

2) Help the AI compete more effectively.

3) Avoid changing the feel of the stock game unless the benefits clearly justify the change.

How does this proposal fit?

1) Strategic options are at their most interesting when players are playing on a difficulty level that fits them well. Inserting an additional difficulty level would help players get a better fit.

2) The creation of a Mythic Hero difficulty level would provide players who can generally beat Emperor fairly easily but who don't like playing on Demigod with the opportunity to face a more challenging AI opponent. Demigod players would in no sense be coerced or pressured to move down to Mythic Hero, so the only loss of challenge would be a loss desired by particular players. In my view, it would be perverse for the AU Mod panel to view the ability for players to make that choice as a disadvantage.

3) From a single-player perspective, which is what the AU Mod is primarily oriented toward, the only change from the stock rules would be the insertion of an additional difficulty level that players can use or not as they see fit. I don't see how that can be regarded as a meaningful disadvantage with respect to the goal of preserving the feel of the stock game.

The issue is a bit more complex from a multiplayer perspective since the interface for setting up multiplayer games is not equipped to handle customized difficulty levels properly. If we ever get around to setting up a MP verson of the Mod, we can handle the issue simply by excluding "Mythic Hero" from the MP version. In the meantime, the impacts on MP games would be that (1) levels Demigod through Sid in the interface would really be Mythic Hero through Deity, and (2) Sid would be unavailable for multiplayer games using the AU Mod. If we consider those issues big enough to matter, I would suggest that we go ahead and break off a separate MP version of the Mod that excludes the new difficulty level, and maybe actually having a separate MP version will help spur discussion of how else the MP version ought to differ from the SP version.

[Dominae]

Your analysis above just makes it clear that the goals of the AU mod are not equal to the aims of AU in general (one of the two reasons I quit the panel, by the way).

If you want to throw a bunch of things into the mod because they will increase your own enjoyment of the game then I suppose that is your prerogative as a panelist, but once again let me just state that, IMO, you are do so at the expense of the AU goal of learning/teaching Civ3 strategy.

A more challenging opponent in the late-game, which is what the Mythic difficulty level will supposedly create, will unfortunately not teach us much about Civ3 strategy: if AU505 has taught me anything, it is that if you wait long enough, you eventually win. Aeson posted in AU501 that Deity is just like Demigod once you "crack"/conquer that first AI civ, and in my experience the same is true of Demigod/Emperor. Mythic might force you into the Industrial more often, which I suppose is an interesting challenge for some, but basically the main difference is that you will just need to wait longer to amass more units - the early-game will be the same.

An increase in difficulty level, for me, means a rethinking of the strategies you used at the previous difficulty level. Regent to Monarch? Learn to REX in the early-game before the AI swallows you up. Monarch to Emperor? Forget about those Wonders and concentrate on units. Emperor to Demigod? Learn to balance REX, military and Culture. Demigod to Deity? Learn all the exploits and use them! Mythic will just allow veteran players to play the same old game, and feel good about themselves for beating a level above Emperor. Is that what we want AU to offer?

[nbarclay]

Dominae, your entire premise seems to be that if people don't have the ultimate goal of cracking Deity (if not Sid), they don't belong at Apolyton University. My view of Apolyton University is far more inclusive and far less coercive.

In a real-world university, people can attend for any number of different reasons. They can stidy a variety of different majors. They can take classes that aren't directly applicable to their future professional careers just because they think they would be interesting. And they can take different electives within their major field.

I look at Apolyton University the same way. The purpose of Apolyton University is not to tell players what their goals should be, but rather to help players learn how to play better at however they want to play. If they want to major in winning on Deity or Sid, wonderful. But if they aren't interested in the highest levels, and prefer to major in playing as well as possible on difficulty levels they consider more fun, that's fine too. It is the players, not the "university administrators," that should decide.

Your objection to the Mythic Hero level seems to be that players are "supposed" to move up from Emperor to Demigod and if players can choose a level in between, they might be less likely to play on Demigod. Even if I considered the premise that players are "supposed" to move up to Demigod valid, I would be highly skeptical about your position because making such a big jump all at once is a much more daunting proposition than making it in two steps. But the bigger point is that I don't accept the premise in the first place. If players have more fun on Mythic Hero than on Demigod, they ought to be playing on Mythic Hero. The whole point of games is to have fun, and it would be irrational for people to play on a level that is less fun for them just because someone else wants them to play on the highest level they can possibly cope with.

[Tassadar500]

Since this does concern the students of the AU (), why don't we set up a poll?

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Dominae, your entire premise seems to be that if people don't have the ultimate goal of cracking Deity (if not Sid), they don't belong at Apolyton University. My view of Apolyton University is far more inclusive and far less coercive.

No, my entire premise is that this is a school of strategy, within the context of a (fun) game called Civ3, and things that are not conducive to players actually improving I believe do not make sense in the context of AU.

You yourself have a reached a point in your Civ3 career where you are no longer improving, and just want to play the game for fun. Thus, you are much more of a teacher at AU than a student (to continue your analogy). Teachers do not take their own courses, they correct papers; your DARs are more models of what to do right, than requests for suggestions. This is not an attack but a simple fact. Now I know from experience that the Emperor-Demigod jump involves some interesting lessons that are readily applicable to any Civ3 game. One of them is: "What to do when being boxed in by three AI civs during the first 50 turns of the game." Such a situation is something you personally dislike because you think the extra Settler is "unfair", but is nonetheless a common situation for players of any level of experience and the lesson learned is valuable (it is different from the similar situation on Monarch, because on that difficulty a Granary is "lesson learned" enough). To create a new difficulty level where the stuff you dislike does not happen is not particularly educational; as I outlined above, I see nothing interesting about the Mythic difficulty.

For your argument that the Emperor-Demigod jump is too difficult for players to manage to make sense, you must show that it is not too difficult just in terms of what is fun and what is not to you, but how much difficulty people who are actually trying to beat Demigod are experiencing. If interested players lose three AU games in a row on Demigod but always dominate Emperor, we would have a problem, and an intermediate difficulty that makes the transition easier would make more sense to me. In fact, many AU players have "graduated", some quite spectacularly I might add, from Emperor to Demigod, simply because they accepted what it takes to win on that difficulty.

In a real-world university, people can attend for any number of different reasons. They can stidy a variety of different majors. They can take classes that aren't directly applicable to their future professional careers just because they think they would be interesting. And they can take different electives within their major field.

Yes, but the methods of testing/verification are the same across individuals and their interests. You cannot (anywhere, to my knowledge) take parts A, C and D of a test but leave B and E alone because you do not like them. The whole point of paying for formal education is putting your confidence in the school/teacher that you will get your money's worth in knowledge, and this in part involves letting them push you to improve/excel. Otherwise you are better off engaging in self-education, an analogous example being making your own Mythic mod and playing it for fun on your own (the great thing about personal mods is that they require no panel!).

If players have more fun on Mythic Hero than on Demigod, they ought to be playing on Mythic Hero. The whole point of games is to have fun, and it would be irrational for people to play on a level that is less fun for them just because someone else wants them to play on the highest level they can possibly cope with.

What I think you are saying here is that players should be allowed to play with mods if they want to in order to have fun. I have argued above that I do not believe the Mythic difficulty has any scholastic value, and is therefore just a "fun mod". I personally can beat Deity most of the time, but cannot beat Sid without a lot of help and effort, and this I find unfun. Should we create a Deity/Sid mod for me too?

Notice that all of my arguments rest around the premise that AU is about fun and learning. You are only playing for fun now (and not learning a thing), so I can see why my arguments are not persuasive to you.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
Since this does concern the students of the AU, why don't we set up a poll?

A grand idea!

Despite these one-on-one debates dominating the airwaves, AU remains an institution of the people. Let's have them speak/vote their minds.

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Dominae
For your argument that the Emperor-Demigod jump is too difficult for players to manage to make sense, you must show that it is not too difficult just in terms of what is fun and what is not to you, but how much difficulty people who are actually trying to beat Demigod are experiencing. If interested players lose three AU games in a row on Demigod but always dominate Emperor, we would have a problem, and an intermediate difficulty that makes the transition easier would make more sense to me.

I think that may be the crux of the issue. Nathan, I think, often speaks with a voice that seems like just his own viewpoint, presuming that the *logic* of his position is universally applicable. I often echo him, but with the equally faulty premise of "Hey, I feel this way... everyone else must too!"

Poll away!!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Dominae
Every jump in difficulty involves just one thing: how much/long are you prepared to be outclassed by the AI in the early-game? The longer any game lasts, the more Demigod feels like Emperor, and the more Deity feels like Demigod. The only problem with the Emperor-Demigod jump is that players want to feel powerful somewhere in the early-game, which is purely a matter of preference.

For me it is the fact, that the early game (ancient and medieval age) are the best part of each Civ3 game. I usually abandonned my games as soon as the tedious and MM-intensive industrial age emerges. I didn't like Demigod (or any level above Emperor) just because it leaves me in that described big hole for the part of the game I like most.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae

You yourself have a reached a point in your Civ3 career where you are no longer improving, and just want to play the game for fun.

That's not entirely true. There are a lot of things that I can do well enough that there's not much room left for improvement (at least on the difficulty levels I normally play on), but I still pick up useful ideas here and there. That's especially true when games push me to do things I don't normally do. Still, your basic argument that I've reached a point where I'm more a "teacher" than a "student" around here is valid - as long as I keep playing on Emperor.

Now I know from experience that the Emperor-Demigod jump involves some interesting lessons that are readily applicable to any Civ3 game. One of them is: "What to do when being boxed in by three AI civs during the first 50 turns of the game."

I think you're seriously overstating the case here. In order for players to get boxed in as badly on Emperor as they would on Demigod, they would have to have a much worse starting position - and some players would restart if they get that bad a starting position, at least anywhere but in a competitive or comparison game. Further, even if players would get boxed in just as badly on Emperor, they would face only two thirds as much of an AI advantage in research and production. So in practice, players would actually have to get boxed in worse on Emperor for the tradeoffs they face to be the same.

In regard to more general applicability, there are things that make great sense when you're boxed in that are both unnecessary and a distraction from other goals when you aren't boxed in. So the lessons learned on Demigod can actually be the wrong lessons for a typical Emperor game.

And note that players can only learn from Demigod if they play on it. If players choose not to play on Demigod because they find it too difficult at their current level of skill and willingness to micromanage, or because it's not fun for them, they won't learn from it at all.

To create a new difficulty level where the stuff you dislike does not happen is not particularly educational; as I outlined above, I see nothing interesting about the Mythic difficulty.

Having played through the early stages of a couple games on Mythic Hero (in hotseat mode, with me controlling two civs that were widely separated from each other on huge maps), I can see only two reasons why you might see nothing interesting about it. (1) You underestimte the difference between it and Emperor. (2) You're already playing on such high difficulty levels that Mythic Hero is too low a level to be interesting to you.

For your argument that the Emperor-Demigod jump is too difficult for players to manage to make sense, you must show that it is not too difficult just in terms of what is fun and what is not to you, but how much difficulty people who are actually trying to beat Demigod are experiencing. If interested players lose three AU games in a row on Demigod but always dominate Emperor, we would have a problem, and an intermediate difficulty that makes the transition easier would make more sense to me.

When I first made the transition from Monarch to Emperor, I went from a level where I could completely dominate to a level where I could still win consistently (at least with a decent starting position) but had to work significantly harder for my victories. To me, that is how difficulty levels ought to be spaced. Then if a player wants to go from dominating to a serious risk of losing, he can move up two levels instead of one.

Thus, I reject your idea that there is only a problem if players who dominate on Emperor lose a large percentage of their games on Demigod. The real question in my mind is whether or not Demigod provides the right increase in difficulty to pretty consistently be fun for players who dominate on Emperor and would like a bit of extra challenge, or who don't dominate on Emperor but do win consistently and want more risk of losing. I said when I started this thread that if I'm the only one who feels like the jump is too big, it's no big deal, but that if others feel the same way, it's worth doing something about in the Mod. And from what other players have written, I'm not the only one.

Further, I see no advantage at all in not having the intermediate difficulty level available. If the level exists, people who view it as a bad thing can ignore it, and so are not harmed in any way. The only people using the level as anything more than an experiment to see how they like it will be people who view it as beneficial.

Yes, but the methods of testing/verification are the same across individuals and their interests. You cannot (anywhere, to my knowledge) take parts A, C and D of a test but leave B and E alone because you do not like them. The whole point of paying for formal education is putting your confidence in the school/teacher that you will get your money's worth in knowledge, and this in part involves letting them push you to improve/excel. Otherwise you are better off engaging in self-education, an analogous example being making your own Mythic mod and playing it for fun on your own (the great thing about personal mods is that they require no panel!).

The concept of "putting your confidence in the school/teacher" is satisfied by putting my proposal before the Apolyton University community for discussion, and before the Mod panel for a vote. If the proposal is approved, I'll have Mythic Hero available in AU games. If not, I'll have to be content with just using it in a personal modification of the AU Mod in my own games.

But I see no basis for viewing a "putting your confidence in the school/teacher" argument as a reason for Apolyton University to reject my proposal. If the community and panel support the change, what will happen will be the logical end result of putting my confidence in the "school/teacher," not an act contrary to putting my confidence in the "school/teacher."

What I think you are saying here is that players should be allowed to play with mods if they want to in order to have fun. I have argued above that I do not believe the Mythic difficulty has any scholastic value, and is therefore just a "fun mod". I personally can beat Deity most of the time, but cannot beat Sid without a lot of help and effort, and this I find unfun. Should we create a Deity/Sid mod for me too?

Can you really argue with a straight face that playing on Mythic Hero when a person would otherwise play on Emperor has no scholastic value? Or does your entire argument rely on a presumption that people who play in Mythic Hero will be people who would otherwise play on Demigod? If the latter, I am living proof that your presumption is flawed - and, from what Theseus and Sir Ralph have written, probably not the only piece of living proof.

Notice that all of my arguments rest around the premise that AU is about fun and learning. You are only playing for fun now (and not learning a thing), so I can see why my arguments are not persuasive to you.

I don't mean to give offense, but your logic is flawed. The fact that AU is about both fun and learning does not mean that in order for something to be consistent with AU's goals, it must be beneficial to both. On the contrary, any change that increases fun without harming learning, or that increases learning without harming fun, increases the sum total of fun and learning and is thus in keeping with Apolyton University's goals.

If you could make a solid case that the Mythic Hero difficulty level would be destructive to learning, it would be necessary to balance the benefit to fun against the harm to learning in order to determine whether the change does more net good or harm with respect to Apolyton University's goals. But if we incorporate the change into the Mod, no player who views the harm to learning as outweighing the benefit to fun would be forced to use it.

Thus, in the eyes of individual players, there are three possibilities. (1) For players who would otherwise play on Emperor, Mythic Hero would be beneficial in terms of both fun and learning. (2) If players who would otherwise play on Demigod view the fun advantage of Mythic Hero as outweighing the learning advantage of Demigod, they will make a choice that balances the two goals against each other in the way they like best. (3) If players view the learning advantages of Demigod as outweighing any advantages Mythic Hero might offer in terms of fun, they can still play on Demigod, and thus would not be adversely affected by the change.

For you to argue that Mythic Hero would be harmful to the goals of Apolyton University, you have to take the position that you know how to balance fun against learning better than those of us who would play on Mythic Hero do. I reject such thinking as tyrannical.

And I'll reiterate that I have not entirely stopped learning. Further, I'll certainly learn more playing on Mythic Hero than I would if I keep playing on Emperor in AU games, which is by far the most likely alternative.


Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Still, your basic argument that I've reached a point where I'm more a "teacher" than a "student" around here is valid - as long as I keep playing on Emperor.

Trust me, if you were to play a Demigod game with the goal of beating it, you could easily do so. You could also probably win a majority of Deity games you play. How much fun you would have in doing so has nothing to do with how much you would learn (assuming you would be open to learning anything in the first place).

I think you're seriously overstating the case here. In order for players to get boxed in as badly on Emperor as they would on Demigod, they would have to have a much worse starting position - and some players would restart if they get that bad a starting position, at least anywhere but in a competitive or comparison game.

You know, there are some players that actually find Emperor difficult, so much so that they feel out-REXed (i.e. boxed in) whenever they play. There are even some players that feel the same about Monarch. The Civ3 programmers did not teach the AI to use Granaries well, so to compensate for this omission the AI gets a free Settlers on the higher difficulties. Unless you get a very good start, players of any skill level can expect to be boxed in on Demigod difficulty. This is analogous to the lower difficulty levels, where players are less skilled and do not REX as well. I consider it a fact about Civ3 that the early-game is all about the land grab. It is also a fact that many players do not like this (it was a major complaint when Civ3 first came out). But it is nonetheless true that to improve in Civ3, you need to know what to do during this critical stage. I hardly consider restarting a form of "improvement".

In regard to more general applicability, there are things that make great sense when you're boxed in that are both unnecessary and a distraction from other goals when you aren't boxed in. So the lessons learned on Demigod can actually be the wrong lessons for a typical Emperor game.

Yes, but they are the right lessons for Demigod. And, once you are a "Demigod-level" player, you find that the lessons you learned at Demigod are quite applicable at Emperor, so much so that Emperor is way too easy in comparison.

Why should your experience with how the early-game plays out on Emperor be the model for how games should play out in general? Again, you find it annoying when you get boxed in, or get a suboptimal start (or both), but what does this have to do with Civ3 strategy!?

And note that players can only learn from Demigod if they play on it. If players choose not to play on Demigod because they find it too difficult at their current level of skill and willingness to micromanage, or because it's not fun for them, they won't learn from it at all.

Yes, and many players find Emperor boring for the same reasons. Should we create a difficulty between Monarch and Emperor too?

Having played through the early stages of a couple games on Mythic Hero (in hotseat mode, with me controlling two civs that were widely separated from each other on huge maps), I can see only two reasons why you might see nothing interesting about it. (1) You underestimte the difference between it and Emperor. (2) You're already playing on such high difficulty levels that Mythic Hero is too low a level to be interesting to you.

Mythic difficulty may be very fun for you, and I encourage you to play it if this is the case (just like there are a plethora of other mods out there that are really fun). This is irrelevant to the point that introducing Mythic into AU will not encourage players to get better or learn anything, and this I consider to be central to what is AU is all about.

When I first made the transition from Monarch to Emperor, I went from a level where I could completely dominate to a level where I could still win consistently (at least with a decent starting position) but had to work significantly harder for my victories. To me, that is how difficulty levels ought to be spaced. Then if a player wants to go from dominating to a serious risk of losing, he can move up two levels instead of one.

Emperor-level players do not face a serious risk of losing when they play Demigod. They only face a the risk of not winning as much as they want to. I am not kidding when I say that, even if you are in a hole in the early game, if you stick with it you probably prevail. The only barrier is how much effort you are willing to put into it. And, yes, I think that the higher difficulties should require more effort than the lower ones.

Thus, I reject your idea that there is only a problem if players who dominate on Emperor lose a large percentage of their games on Demigod. The real question in my mind is whether or not Demigod provides the right increase in difficulty to pretty consistently be fun for players who dominate on Emperor and would like a bit of extra challenge, or who don't dominate on Emperor but do win consistently and want more risk of losing.

Yes, I know that that is the real question in your mind. But I have been arguing that what you find fun is not necessarily what AU should adopt. But if the majority votes in favor, then of course we will go along with it (whether I agree or not).

Can you really argue with a straight face that playing on Mythic Hero when a person would otherwise play on Emperor has no scholastic value?

Little scholastic value, yes.

Or does your entire argument rely on a presumption that people who play in Mythic Hero will be people who would otherwise play on Demigod?

Yes, I think that the players who would play Mythic should probably be being Demigod instead, my use of "should" meaning that their goal is to learn something in addition to having fun.

If the latter, I am living proof that your presumption is flawed - and, from what Theseus and Sir Ralph have written, probably not the only piece of living proof.

Theseus and Sir Ralph both made it clear, like you, that Demigod is not fun for them. I am not presuming that they would not play Mythic, I am stating that if they wanted to learn something more about Civ3 (as if they could!), they would be better off with Demigod than Mythic.

I don't mean to give offense, but your logic is flawed. The fact that AU is about both fun and learning does not mean that in order for something to be consistent with AU's goals, it must be beneficial to both. On the contrary, any change that increases fun without harming learning, or that increases learning without harming fun, increases the sum total of fun and learning and is thus in keeping with Apolyton University's goals.

Is it possible to "harm" learning? What I'm arguing is that Mythic would not encourage players to learn, something I consider to be at the core of AU. The core of AU for you is your own personal enjoyment. Again, if it turns out that a majority of players want the new difficulty level because it would be fun for that majority, then of course we should include it. But I have no sympathy for the argument that Mythic should be in the AU mod because you would enjoy it. What we need is a poll...wait, we have one!

Thus, in the eyes of individual players, there are three possibilities. (1) For players who would otherwise play on Emperor, Mythic Hero would be beneficial in terms of both fun and learning. (2) If players who would otherwise play on Demigod view the fun advantage of Mythic Hero as outweighing the learning advantage of Demigod, they will make a choice that balances the two goals against each other in the way they like best. (3) If players view the learning advantages of Demigod as outweighing any advantages Mythic Hero might offer in terms of fun, they can still play on Demigod, and thus would not be adversely affected by the change.

So, let us add new intermediate difficulties between all the existing difficulties! Many players find Regent to Monarch hard/unfun. Many players find Monarch to Emperor hard/unfun. And many players find Deity to Sid almost impossible. So we should add at least four difficulty levels (including Mythic). Surely there is no harm in that?

IMO, there is a better way, and AU has been doing it for quite a while now: tailor the AU courses to encourage players to try a harder difficulty (by being easier), or to challenge them at their existing difficulty (by being harder). Admittedly, we have been doing too much of the latter, but that's ok for you because "hard" Emperor games are what you are looking for. This way we can encourage learning in various ways through the courses, while at the same time maintaining a lightweight mod that is recognizable to players at large. If players want a middling difficulty for their own personal games, they can just add Mythic themselves.

For you to argue that Mythic Hero would be harmful to the goals of Apolyton University, you have to take the position that you know how to balance fun against learning better than those of us who would play on Mythic Hero do. I reject such thinking as tyrannical.

To argue a point of view is not, to my knowledge, tyranny. I think that Mythic, despite its allure to you and perhaps other players, would not be conducive to learning. That is hardly "tyrannical thinking" (whatever that is). IMO, Mythic would just allow you to play the same old game as you always do (you would just need to rush with 80 Cavalry instead of 60). It is not my position that Mythic would not be fun; I have fun on Monarch sometimes, despite it not being very challenging.

[nbarclay]

I decided to try an experiment to see how much of a difference there is between Emperor and Mythic Hero in the REXing phase. In my first experiment, on a Continents map, I had trouble with AIs fighting each other (which, of course, makes it impossible to get an accurate comparison between games). So I tried another scenario on an Archipelago map, with the most aggressive civs on landmasses by themselves. Note that the same civs are in the same starting locations in all the games. The games are on a standard map with no barbarians (to prevent huts from skewing the results), with eight AIs plus an “observer” human player on what would otherwise be an uninhabited island. Here’s what I ended up with, watching the games through 1500 BC.


Emperor, 1500 BC

Rome: 7 cities, no settlers
Egypt: 6 cities, 1 settler
Greece: 6 cities, 2 settlers
Babylon: 3 cities, 1 settler
Germany: 6 cities, no settlers
Russia: 1 city, no settlers (and a capital that can’t grow past size 2)
China: 5 cities, 1 settler
America: 6 cities, no settlers


Mythic Hero, 1500 BC

Rome: 8 cities, 2 settlers
Egypt: 7 cities, 2 settlers
Greece: 8 cities, 2 settlers
Babylon: 3 cities, 1 settler
Germany: 6 cities, 2 settlers
Russia: 1 city (with its capital that can’t ever build settlers)
China: 6 cities, 2 settlers
America: 7 cities, no settlers

Demigod, 1500 BC

Rome: 9 cities, 1 settler
Egypt: 10 cities, 1 settler
Greece: 9 cities, 3 settlers
Babylon: 4 cities, 1 settler
Germany: 9 cities, 2 settlers
Russia: 5 cities, no settlers
China: 7 cities, 1 settler. (China ran out of room for additional cities.)
America: 7 cities, 1 settler

If we discount Russia and Babylon as not able to REX competitively on any difficulty level, and China on the basis that it ran out of room for REXing on Demigod (and thus might have REXed more if it had more room), what we have is an average of 6.2 cities and 0.6 settlers on Emperor, 7.2 cities and 1.6 settlers on Mythic Hero, and 8.8 cities and 1.6 settlers on Demigod (if I'm counting correctly). For the five competitive AIs, almost forty percent of the additional cities on Demigod compared with Emperor can be attributed to the bonuses that come with Mythic Hero, not to the extra settler that Demigod provides. Looking at the total of cities and settlers combined, factors other than the extra starting settler account for over half the difference.

The fact that there is a large difference in AI REXing capability between Emperor and Mythic Hero should not come as a surprise to those who remember how much harder it is to out-REX AIs on Emperor than on Monarch. But it directly contradicts Dominae’s claims that Mythic Hero would play out almost exactly the same as Emperor in the early game.

[nbarclay]

Dominae, the reason why I view your position as tyrannical is that your only basis for opposing the additional difficulty level seems to be that you want players to do things the way you think is best instead of the way they prefer. That, in my book, constitutes tyranny.

As for the idea that a new level between Emperor and Demigod is no different from other potential intermediate difficulty levels, I've already shown that the statistics don't bear that out. Even without the extra settler, Demigod is as big a jump up from Emperor as Monarch is from Regent or as Deity is from Demigod, and almost as big as Emperor is from Monarch. And my experiment indicates that in terms of REXing power, the extra settler on Demigod somewhere in the neighborhood of doubles that advantage. The bigger the gap between difficulty levels, the more room there is for players to have a hard time finding a good fit and the more value there is in adding a level in between.

Looking back to my own experience, by the time I could trounce Monarch as easily and as thoroughly as I currently can Emperor, I could play on Emperor without feeling like I was starting in too much of a hole. It took me a couple games to figure out that I could REX and research with the AIs without having to adopt a radically different paradigm, but once I realized I could, I never really looked back. In contrast, the AI advantages on Demigod are so huge that a player who routinely trounces Emperor still starts out in a huge hole.

The only other place (at least above Regent) where I see a similarly huge jump in difficulty is going from Deity to Sid. That jump is so huge that it makes the jump from Emperor to Demigod look small in comparison, and if there were significant interest, I could easily endorse a difficulty level or maybe even two in between. But I don't buy the idea that if we insert a difficulty level between Emperor and Demigod, we should do it between all the other difficulty levels too. All it takes is a look at the stats in the editor (plus a little understanding of what an extra settler means) to see that the difference from Emperor to Demigod is atypically large.