The Deity Challenge

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Except that I won't be using the gimmicky unique units/golden ages stuff.

Did you vote in my poll where people voted overwhelmingly 70-3 where the 70 was going to play with uus/golden ages?

The Poll Thread

[Steve Clark]

No, I missed that one. I voted in the one that asked how often you'll be using uu/ga. I voted seldom or occassionally, esp. at first. My whole point is that I don't plan on spending much time playing the regular game. I prefer to play scenarios where EVERYTHING include unique units, custom tech trees, events, custom maps, etc. For me, playing Civ3 as the Egyptians or Hittites in the Ancient Ages or as the Continental Congress in the American Revolution is the most fun for me.

[Provost Harrison]

I missed that poll as well, but I definitely intend to play with all the features switched on, and preferably with as many civs as I can as well

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
No, I missed that one. I voted in the one that asked how often you'll be using uu/ga. I voted seldom or occassionally, esp. at first.

The reason why I pointed it out was because my first impression was that there was more people who weren't going to play with the new features (like myself), but was *very* surprised to see the 70-3 "thrashing". I just found it interesting that someone finally mentioned that they wouldn't play with uus/golden ages after I made that poll.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Pembleton


You know what could be funny? If no-one was able to beat Deity.

Then would the complaints about easy AI go away?

No, they would just complain that the AI has such a huge advantage that it is just mathematically impossible.

For example, you can't beat a competent opponent in chess if you have nothing but pawns and your king vs. them having all of their pieces. So basically, no-one will stop complaining about the AI. It's a no-win situation until the far future when AI technology comes closer to emulating human-like decision making.

Rightly so. If the AI can only beat you because they were given additional benefits, resources, etc, then people have a right to complain. The only time people will not have a right to complain is at such time as an AI can start with the exact same resources, tech, etc and consistently beat the player.

Then, and only then, will the game be "fair" and people will have a real challenge instead of game companies simply giving the AI free-be's which allow them to win.

There is a difference between skill and numbers, most games on their highest difficulty win because they get "extra" stuff that the player cannot compensate for easily, this is a far cry from winning with skill.

[RobC]

I find it hard to believe that you couldn't beat the Diety level. If you play enough games on a small map, eventually you should come across a game when luck (starting positions, goodie huts, etc.) will give you enough of a boost early in the game so you can roll over the rest of the civs, even with the extra bonuses the AI gets at Diety level.

[TechWins]

I will be starting out in the easier levels then work my way up from there as well. Even though, I can beat the game at the higher levels I prefer to play the game at Prince/King.

What Civ will all of you first play with? The Americans will difinitely be my choice of Civ as I have said before. The Americans is my choice of Civ most of the time. I just find it so interesting being Franklyn Roosevelt (custom name) and fighting Japan and Germany in the early to middle part of the 20th Century. Also, fighting the English in the 17th and 18th centuries. Not that I don't ever play with other Civs.

All little gadgets Civ3 has to offer will be turned on for the first game and I will go from there in the coming games in deciding what to play with.

[VetLegion]

I will work my way up to that level, but for starting, I will just try with a mediocre level, Prince or King.

I think I ll jump in head first, and play deity or whatever they have higher first. I think game is designed for that and on lower levels it is merely 'slowed' and AI 'dumbed'. Someone said civ2 was made for deity, raging hordes, large map and 7 civs. I agree.


About AI, civ AI is not comparable to chess AI. chess AI is simpler in comparison.

civ AI is a really tough thing. A great challenge.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Pembleton


The reason why I pointed it out was because my first impression was that there was more people who weren't going to play with the new features (like myself), but was *very* surprised to see the 70-3 "thrashing". I just found it interesting that someone finally mentioned that they wouldn't play with uus/golden ages after I made that poll.

You can count me as another person who expects to rarely if ever use UU's but I may keep the peaceful golden age if that is possible since it is absolutely identical for all nationalities. I just got fed up with the 5 polls a day syndrome we seem to have had in the recent months.

In the same way I will be eagerly awaiting the first mod which can randomise Civ abilities and their inbuilt AI tactics so you don't know what strategies you are facing.

Incidentally, people seem to be confusing AI with computer advantages. Good AI will provide a challenge without cheating and won't be fooled into letting you win just because you have adopted an unconventional strategy. Poor AI can provide a challenge with a heavily stacked deck but is still bad AI, which is why it can be beaten even at deity. It's like claiming a chess program has excellent AI just because there's an option to allow it to start with 15 queens and 1 king.

[Provost Harrison]

Why are people so hostile to the concept of UU and civ specific attributes. Hell, you haven't even played the game, so don't knock it until you have tried it!

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Why are people so hostile to the concept of UU and civ specific attributes. Hell, you haven't even played the game, so don't knock it until you have tried it!

Um, they aren't. See the link to my poll a few posts above this one in this thread. People favor the UUs, etc. by a humungous margin.

[Grumbold]

I could give you many reasons but they boil down to what I say in my signature. I know Civ needs to keep it simple but making the British (just for example) unique by giving them a ship at a particular point in time when that may be useless in their in-game circumstances and ignoring all the other unique attributes they have had over time just doesn't work for me.

[Master Marcus]

With the ICS controlled, plus the worker & settler pop cost, and if they said Deity will be harder, I think it will be for most players. But a few experts will definitely beat it regularly. My personal fun/challenge target should be Prince/King instead of King/Emperor then. So Civ III promises to be more challenging than Civ II , which was at the start much harder than the easier TBS like MoO, MoO2, SMACx.

[VetLegion]

as wise man samson once said over at civ2 strategy forum, I ll paraphraze:

Civ AI is made for the middle road. If you are expanding like hell (extreme:ICS) or developing like hell (extreme:OCC) you can beat it easily. The player that bytes the trick of expanding considerably, trying to optimize evrything it AI target.

want to bet? extreme techniques will alsways kill the AI because they will kill human, and AI is worse

[SteveJH]

Too bad the middle of the road is really, IMO, the way the game should be played.