Difficulty levels

[WackenOpenAir]

sometimes i read posts here about people talking about being ready to move on to regent and stuff, even after playing a very long time.

If i read threads about the AU games, some posters make it look like extra restrictions (the restrictions made by AU) are needed to make the game chalenging, even on deity.

So where exactly lies the truth in this?

for me:
I don't play a lot, i bought civ3 a while ago, dunno could be 1 year, could be 2 years. i started playing on deity because i play every strategy game on the hardest difficulty. Got my ass kicked. Gathered all info about the game i could find, played a bit more on deity and learned from my mistakes. after about 3 weeks, i won my first deity conquest game on a normal size map and went back to my starcraft addiction.
I don't remember how i won that game back then, i had a lot less info than i have now, i guess quite some luck must have been involved.
So now i stated playing again (deity of course) gathered some new information and i can do pretty wel on deity but only for the following reasons:
-i reevaluate the big strategical picture every few turns.
-i check all my cities and the diplomacy screen every turn
-for important decisions, i might just stop playing and read the forums a while, and continu playing the next day.

So if all of that carefull playing is needed for me to beat deity, i can conclude, compared to other strategy games, civ3 is pretty hard for me on deity.

So i kinda wonder,
-do i misinterpret posts when they make it look like deity should be easy?
-do the posters that make deity look easy lie, brag or both?
-is there so much more for me to learn before i can play and win deity in a more comfortable way?

[Tall Stranger]

A few thoughts:

1) While I agree that Diety is hard, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the difficulty lies in the fact that victory at the Diety level requires the player to work MUCH harder on things like micromanagement, diplomacy, etc. which many players find either too tedious or complicated to bother with. In other words, I think Diety "rewards" players who have both the patience to dig themselves out of the massive hole you'll be in for most of the game and the detailed understanding of how the game works to make use of the rules to their advantage. I have played a few Diety games (some wins, some losses), and have found that it's not that winning is impossible, it's just that it's an awful lot of work, usually more than I want to put into a GAME. I've found that emperor allows me to be a little less anal about the game and still have a real challenge, so that's what I usually play.

2) In some cases, you may be misinterpreting people who write about winning on Diety. MOST understand very well how hard the game is at this level, and are writing to help people who wish to play and win at this level some helpful information on how to maximize their chances.

3) In terms of bragging, it depends on what you mean by the term. If you mean people posting to say "I'm the best civ player in the world. You all stink. I'm God," there is really very little of that (one of the reasons I like this site). If you mean people posting to say "Woo-hoo, I finally beat Diety!" or "Here are my thoughts on the best way to win on Diety," there is a lot of that, and that's a good thing.

4) Liars: There are occassionally those who make outrageous claims regarding their abilities at the Diety level. (We just had one a couple weeks ago who appears to have vanished, largely because other posters here did an effective job of debunking his claims. Another reason to like this site.) You can usually spot liars a mile away.

5) As for what you need to learn to beat Diety "in a more comfortable way" I don't know if that's possible. I'll defer to other, better players here, but I've never had a "comfortable" Diety win. If you are serious about winning Diety, though, there's quite a bit of wisdom here. Monitor the fora (especially the Strategy forum) and you'll learn a lot. If you have specific questions, post them.

Hope these comments help. Good luck.

[Datajack Franit]

I remember I started my first game on Deity because I always play on transcend level on SMAC- what an humiliating experience.. I think Emperor is still a challenge, but not really funny because of the huge advantages given to AI- Deity is NOT: easy, funny, simple. Of course go for it if you really want to, but if you just want to play the game and have fun.. that's not the good way

[WackenOpenAir]

yeah, i have read all the forums on this page and civ fanatics. Some isseus really helped me a lot.

There is also some mayor difference though between my experiences and what i read a lot.
- have tried AU208, where in the thread someone wrote it learnef hem the strength of the archer rush. Well, i learned about the weakness of the archer rush, i lost an average of 2 or 3 archers per defending spearmen i think, and if a city is on a hill, it is invincible for archers.
Also do they all seem to prefer horsemen above swordsmen. In my experience horsemen don't conquer much with their 2 attack, they might survive, but since the patch half of them will die anyway. it takes way to long to retreat and heal the survivors. i strongly prefer swordsmen.

about bragging in this case i mean people that write about their deity games and making it look like it was easy for them, while it might have been a difficult game that was preceded by several games they did not win, but not talk about.

[vmxa1]

I tend to agree with Tall Stranger. I really do not see all that many people posting about deity, other than in passing. I mean they will mention some comparitive things. Most of the plalyers prefer Emperor or even Monarch games for the reason that it is more fun. It is more fun, because you do not have to work so hard to win.
Me I am a lazy player and prefer not to make tight cities and count shields to see that I get the most form them. I don't mind managing workers and making an occassional peek at the citizens, but I do not want to check on the civs every turn. This is a big handicap, but gives me a more lesuirely played game.
In short, I do not have so many deity games played that I could make any suggestions, but I would say it is not going to be all that easy.
I guess you could say it is easy, in that you could know the milestones and therefore understand as you hit them, that you are going to win. You could say that at any level once you have played enough.

[Theseus]

WOA, I don't think any of the deity level players, around here at least, either think it's "easy" or brag about it... they are just insanely into micromanagement.

BTW, I prefer Swords too.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
A few thoughts:

1) While I agree that Diety is hard, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the difficulty lies in the fact that victory at the Diety level requires the player to work MUCH harder on things like micromanagement, diplomacy, etc. which many players find either too tedious or complicated to bother with. In other words, I think Diety "rewards" players who have both the patience to dig themselves out of the massive hole you'll be in for most of the game and the detailed understanding of how the game works to make use of the rules to their advantage. I have played a few Diety games (some wins, some losses), and have found that it's not that winning is impossible, it's just that it's an awful lot of work, usually more than I want to put into a GAME. I've found that emperor allows me to be a little less anal about the game and still have a real challenge, so that's what I usually play.

exactly how I feel about it. I hope that the Demigod level will step up the challenge a bit but not to the ridiculous level needed for Deity (and Sid)

[vmxa1]

As to swords, I guess it comes down to what you mean by preferred. To me swords are about distance in ancient times. If I have a close rival, I will use swords, if not horses. I want to make no more swords than I think I will need for the job, as I am not fond of them after you get into the middle ages. I do not want to have large numbers around. I would prefer horses and some spears. They upgrade better. Horses seem to do as well as swords and can cover more ground. If you are in jungles or hills, then it is a different story.

[asleepathewheel]

I used to go nearly all horse but have moved to a balanced sword/horse attack. But it is predominately terrain dependent, as VMXA1 has suggested. I also like attacking with Medieval infantry, but don't build many, usually just upgrades, as I don't like them taking on muskets.

Also, I like using swords in combination with a forward settler at key points, to get them within striking distance war turn 0 or 1.

[Rasputin]

i too usually do a combination of swords and horses, again horses for their movement ability not their attack. And also horses good to upgrade to knight sand then cavalry whilst swords dont go quite as far so early.

Never been able to get the archer rush to work for me either, i am not convinced it does.

I find playing at the highest level means accepting the fact for most of the game you will trail behind tech wise and even size at times, but if you keep persisting then eventually you will catch the AI and overtake them, especially if you can attack a neihbour early enough and gain some citys

[Datajack Franit]

Come on, it's just a game! People buy games because they want to have fun!

[Killazer]

Diety isnt all that hard u just have to do a lot of diplomacy and make the right alliances. If you get into a war without friends or even worse with multiple civs on your borders early in the game you are in very big trouble however

[Bamspeedy]

How easy/hard deity is for people not only depends on the understanding of the game, but play styles. A dense build (not necessarily ICS) is more powerful than the wider city placement (OCP-like). 0-10% science with a plan to using all that money for a massive upgrade makes deity easier. Palace jumping, RCP, rop-rapes, swindling the AI are also some things people can use to make deity easier.

But otherwise, it does require you to be tedious and to NOT automate workers in the early game. Building a granary and setting up a city that produces a settler/4 turns can get you to a great start.

Starting positions/terrain can also make or break your chances at winning, so some won't even attempt a game that gives them a not-so-great start.

[Rasputin]

wel las the game is for fun, i understand those that restart based on bad starts. i for one have never done this and have experienced many a game that is a struggle early on.. but whilst i have yet to play at deity level, i also havent lsot a game yet. it just takes an awful long time to paly the game to a winnable position.

i now no longer allow cultural victory in the game si paly as i find that the AI jsut doesnt know how to win the game in that way, it doesnt seem to gather enough Culture to win.