Tweet
I really think some people here are over estimating the abilities of the AI. BlueHooHoo playing on Chieftan? (don't want to offend him, im appreciative of him giving us info) Other people saying they will start at chief/warlord and MAYBE try for prince, like it would be some death sentance? A lot of people talking about startegies to come back up when your behind? I don't know how other people were playing, but I found Civ 1/2 CTP1/2 and SMAC pretty easy.
Civ1 I did badly the first try, but once I figured out found cities in these spots, this far apart, expand asap, rush to these techs, do this do that, it became pretty easy. Then I applied same rules to Civ 2, CTP, etc. It was a long time ago, but my first game of Civ 2 was on prince I belive, (I start all new games I get on the medium diff level) and I won. CTP I started on the medium level and quit by like 500 ad because it was way too easy, so I bumped it up. SMAC was a bit tricky at first, just because it was so different looking. Once I figured out what land was good and how to edit units and what thoes weirdo tech names actually meant, I could play on the highest difficulty levels. All my games of the civ series after the first 2-3 games was on the highest or second highest difficulty level, and it was still too easy. I remeber in Civ 2 cheating for the computer, giving them units, improving thier land, giving them techs.... still too easy.
A problem in all the games is the comp is good at defence, but horrible at offence or counter attacks. They will vey rarely try to interecept an attacking army, or mount a compain against a single important city of mine, only cities closest to them will be attacked by a few random units in the previous games. I always wanted to fight vicious battles where Id capture 2 cities and lose one the ext turn, only to do a counter attack and just barely capture it again, or have to fight with all my resourses to hold my border from an enemy, slow slowly setting some resourses aside for a counter attack. Sadly these things rarely happen. Having one of my cities captured by the computer was a VERY rare event. The only times I would lose cities in the newer games (not Civ1 where a warrior had a chance of beating infantry....) was in ancient times when maybe I was expanding too quickly and had a very aggressive neighbor, or because of my messing up... say disbanding all my old phalanxs, forgetting that I hadnt built rifelmen in one of my many many cities, and the comp takes it, but I retake it next turn.
I know the AI in Civ 3 will be the best yet, but honestly, I have more confidence in my abilities then the computers. I will read over the manual on the bus ride home from the mall, maybe do a 5 min tutorial just to become familiar with the new interface, and jump right into king, and I think I will win. If I dont, ill be surprised, but I will just give it another shot, and I will assuredly win on the second try, if the game is anything like the pervious civs, which I know it is.
There are a lot of new things of course, but I will do same old, same old: Rapid expansion. I will be America, so I have exploreres. Build 2 warriors, then on to settelers. (maybe something else first until I hit pop 3 for the pop 2 settlers) The capital will then set on building more settelers, then workers, then improvements. All cities do this, founded, defence, 2 settlers, workers, improvements. 20+ cities in no time. Worked in all the other versions of Civ. It starts a little slow in $ and sience because your cities will be small from making all thoese settlers, but you have lots of cities, and you quickly catch up and surpass the enemy with your huge population. Anyway, Ive rambled for too long. If you have played a lot of civ which I think most of you have, come on, have a little faith in yourself, start at prince or higher, if you lose start over again with new knowlege. Whats the point of starting on chieftan or warlord and winning? is that really any accomplishment? BTW, when I get Civ 3, Ill post "ok starting on King" and give updates about how im doing... I promise to be honest
Civ1 I did badly the first try, but once I figured out found cities in these spots, this far apart, expand asap, rush to these techs, do this do that, it became pretty easy. Then I applied same rules to Civ 2, CTP, etc. It was a long time ago, but my first game of Civ 2 was on prince I belive, (I start all new games I get on the medium diff level) and I won. CTP I started on the medium level and quit by like 500 ad because it was way too easy, so I bumped it up. SMAC was a bit tricky at first, just because it was so different looking. Once I figured out what land was good and how to edit units and what thoes weirdo tech names actually meant, I could play on the highest difficulty levels. All my games of the civ series after the first 2-3 games was on the highest or second highest difficulty level, and it was still too easy. I remeber in Civ 2 cheating for the computer, giving them units, improving thier land, giving them techs.... still too easy.
A problem in all the games is the comp is good at defence, but horrible at offence or counter attacks. They will vey rarely try to interecept an attacking army, or mount a compain against a single important city of mine, only cities closest to them will be attacked by a few random units in the previous games. I always wanted to fight vicious battles where Id capture 2 cities and lose one the ext turn, only to do a counter attack and just barely capture it again, or have to fight with all my resourses to hold my border from an enemy, slow slowly setting some resourses aside for a counter attack. Sadly these things rarely happen. Having one of my cities captured by the computer was a VERY rare event. The only times I would lose cities in the newer games (not Civ1 where a warrior had a chance of beating infantry....) was in ancient times when maybe I was expanding too quickly and had a very aggressive neighbor, or because of my messing up... say disbanding all my old phalanxs, forgetting that I hadnt built rifelmen in one of my many many cities, and the comp takes it, but I retake it next turn.
I know the AI in Civ 3 will be the best yet, but honestly, I have more confidence in my abilities then the computers. I will read over the manual on the bus ride home from the mall, maybe do a 5 min tutorial just to become familiar with the new interface, and jump right into king, and I think I will win. If I dont, ill be surprised, but I will just give it another shot, and I will assuredly win on the second try, if the game is anything like the pervious civs, which I know it is.
There are a lot of new things of course, but I will do same old, same old: Rapid expansion. I will be America, so I have exploreres. Build 2 warriors, then on to settelers. (maybe something else first until I hit pop 3 for the pop 2 settlers) The capital will then set on building more settelers, then workers, then improvements. All cities do this, founded, defence, 2 settlers, workers, improvements. 20+ cities in no time. Worked in all the other versions of Civ. It starts a little slow in $ and sience because your cities will be small from making all thoese settlers, but you have lots of cities, and you quickly catch up and surpass the enemy with your huge population. Anyway, Ive rambled for too long. If you have played a lot of civ which I think most of you have, come on, have a little faith in yourself, start at prince or higher, if you lose start over again with new knowlege. Whats the point of starting on chieftan or warlord and winning? is that really any accomplishment? BTW, when I get Civ 3, Ill post "ok starting on King" and give updates about how im doing... I promise to be honest
Comment