Annoyances with difficulty levels

[Thrawn05]

Here's an idea.

Why not let the AI learn from your style.

Example:

After every game (that is, when the player wins or loses), the computer compiles a list of averages on what you did. Every time you finish a game, it recalcalcuates from this file.

When you start a new game, it sees this files and gives it guidence on what to do next.


See where I'm getting at?

[Tuberski]

like Wargames and the tic tac toe thing?

Then the AI wouldn't want to play.

[Barchan]

I don't really see any problems with the difficulty levels. Emperor and Deity are *supposed* to be tough. That's what makes them a challenge to play. Sure, it'd be great if it was tougher because the AI was "smarter" and played better, but that's just not particularly feasible at this time, so it'll have to be given a "head start" instead.

I think some of the complaints stem from two basic problems: 1) people used to be able to beat the highest levels of the old Civ games regularly by employing particular strategies that no longer work, and 2) a lot of people seem to think that winning on Deity gives you a larger wee-wee. But look, people, it really doesn't. It's a game you should play because you enjoy it, not in some feeble attempt to impress anyone else with your gaming prowess (which, in the real world, I’m sorry to say impresses no one at all). If you're a builder and the AI is too powerful to compete with at Deity, play Monarch or Regent. There's no shame in it, man! If it's not fun to play the higher levels, don't. But if a challenge is your idea of fun, then move up. It's just that simple.

As a runner, I can offer this analogy. I can run a ten-minute mile or a six-minute mile. Ten-minute miles are easy, but six-minute miles are more challenging and take focus and a lot of effort. Sometimes, if the weather is really nice and I feel like enjoying myself, I'll run a nice, easy 30-minute 3-mile run. On other times, I'll try to challenge myself to run the 3 miles in under 20 minutes. If I can, I feel good about having overcome the challenge and succeeded. If not, I'll try to figure out what went wrong and improve my "score" next time. But if the next day is nice and sunny, should I feel bad that I'd rather have a 30-minute run? Am I less of a person because I can't run 3 miles in under 20 minutes? Or 15 minutes? There are people who could do so in under 13. Should I quit running because I can't? Should I complain that 3-minute miles are just too hard and refuse to run until I'm given an advantage or the faster people are somehow handicapped?

Obviously not. I run because I enjoy it, and I play games for the same reason. I think too many people attach too much value to titles, labels and ranking for what is supposed to be entertainment. If you're training for competition, that's one thing. But if it's just recreational, figure out what you like and do it, and don't worry what the other people think about it.

Anyway, I guess that was a bit more than $.02. I’ll be quiet now....

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by Barchan

a lot of people seem to think that winning on Deity gives you a larger wee-wee.

Try telling that to some woman at a bar!

Civer-Hey baby, I just beat Civ3 on diety. Oh yeah!

Woman- Oh, you're so hot! Using version 1.29f?!

Civer-You know it baby!!!

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by Catt

At the end of the day, I still lose on Emperor often enough to make the game both fun and challenging.

Catt

I find Emperor to be the best level too. With rare exceptions (like banana island) I never lose on Monarchy or lower. How can the game be fun if you don't have the possibility of losing? Emperor gives the AI a boost (some call it cheating) to make up for the fact that HI>AI.

I still haven't won on Deity yet It is still too hard for me, but I keep getting better at Emperor so I will have to move up some day. With practice and some strategy reading I think anybody can move up through the levels (if your open to play style changes).

[jshelr]

I've never beaten Deity myself either, in the sense of really dominating and controlling the outcome, although the AI civs have handed me a couple of games I should have lost.

My question relates to a neighboring thread. I put the city governors on and that thread says there are big savings to be had from managing the cities yourself. Do those of you who have experience with this believe that the governors cost enough to be the difference between winning and losing on Deity???

[vmxa1]

In a word, yes. Would'nt a better question be how to manage them. This is what I think would make a good topic for some of the posters who have the talent to detail usage. Making the points and giving the information in a readable manner is not easy and takes time.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Tuberski
like Wargames and the tic tac toe thing?

Then the AI wouldn't want to play.

Well... I'm not thinking about that advanced.


All I'm saying is if you keep playing warmonger... it will see this in the file, and try to aim for building units only.

[bigvic]

try modding the game to allow all civs on all world sizes. 16 on a standard world at regebt or monarch is a challenge, esp. fpr early uu challenged powers. unless on your own island - very unlikely, you will fight early, but if honorable and diplomatically savvy, can then settle down to a nice long developmental game, thoug usually biggererer than all. but then, just sit back and let them darwinistically weed out the weaklings til its scary again. or do something stupid and or bizarre and try to come back. lots of things u can do.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by jshelr
I've never beaten Deity myself either, in the sense of really dominating and controlling the outcome, although the AI civs have handed me a couple of games I should have lost.

I think that's how most Deity wins will come about. Since you're so shafted from the get-go, you will almost never have a chance to dominate or control the outcome until much later in the game. Deity wins, pretty much by definition, are going to be come-from-behind affairs.

I've also found that you really can't do it alone. You've *got* to make friends and allies on Deity to have any chance of surviving. You can't possibly be self-sustaining (in terms of production or tech) and try to compete with the rest of the world, and you can rarely (except for a few very early minor wars for turf) survive a full-on war against a similarly-sized AI Civ. I've been most successful when I can team up with a powerful ally, declare war on an enemy and let the two of them duke it out. They weaken each other nicely and I wind up being comparatively more powerful. Three simple words sum up how to survive and succeed on Deity: War By Proxy.

Anyway, I think that in this regard, Deity is an excellent training ground for MP, since any player who seems to be too far ahead of the others is a surefire candidate to make the top of the "global coalition smackdown list." As the Japanese proverb goes: the raised nail will be hammered down. Deity forces you to play from the back or middle of the pack and time your ascendancy so that when you do break away from the pack, it'll be very difficult for anyone else to catch you.

[Blue Moose]

Then again, Deity is bad for multiplayer in that it trains you not to go after wonders. Also, considering some of the stupidty of the AI, going against it might make you to used to an opponent that can't hold off an invasion. Also, deity makes you very used to being behind, which shouldn't happen on multiplayer as much (unless you are a bad player, have a poor starting location, or just plain bad luck). Monarch and Emperor are probably a bit better for the early game, in that the AI expansion rate is a little bit closer to what another player's might be. However, you run into the same problems with the AI being stupid when dealing with invasions. Hmm, in general the AI probably only gives you an idea of how a human might act during the peace-time. I think war-time will require the most adjustment. Expect more competent responses to invasions, actual competence with sea invasions, and better uses of troops (sometimes the AI is really stupid about deciding wether to attack or not).

The one thing that is sure is that multiplayer is going to be a lot different from any of the AI difficulty levels.

[des-esseintes]

Playing against the AI is completely pathetic. Oooh, I'm so excited, I have piled up my 40 cavs, 20 riflemen and 30 artillery outside his country in ingeniously thought out, strategic positions... will I accomplish my goal of taking those 4 cities that are most fertile, one of which has Coal? *4 turns later* well i killed off his homeland with my first 10 cavs, demanded all of his colonies in tribute, then killed his capital. None of his cities had more than 2 pikemen for defense, even though he had the tech for Riflemen and was furious towards me.

I have almost doubled the size of my empire through aggressive war, and my other neighbour is sure to be next, although he has no damn clue, and is still Gracious towards me. *sigh* I wonder if i'll need as many as 10 Cavs to kill him ...'


Seriously. The AI is so laughably stupid that it's a damn disgrace to even mention its name, let alone play it. And if you think you're GOOD at the game once you win against the 50%-cost-on-everything-but-still-defends-like-the-french-in-WWII Artificial "Intelligence" you just make me laugh.

Wait till MP ya hear!

[vondrack]

[vmxa1]

Ouch

[Blue Moose]

eep