Firaxis, Give Us a REAL Expert Level!

[Comrade Tribune]

The one thing I want to see most in Civ III is ONE level designed to challenge expert strategy gamers. Is that really demanding too much?

What I mean is this: Civ II had:

- 3 Newbie levels
- 1 Rookie level
- 1 Intermediate level
- 1 Advanced level
- NO Expert level

Calling the Advanced level 'Deity' was a blasphemy. I guess they will make to make up for that in the afterlife. And, btw, calling the Intermediate level 'Emperor' was a lèse-majesté (high treason).

Now I want to make clear what I mean by challenging. I do not call a level 'challenging', when it is hard to conquer the world. It SHOULD be hard to conquer the world; no one has done it so far. No, I call a level 'challenging', when it is hard too survive. So I want a level where survival, even for very experienced players, is an accomplishment. I wouldn´t even call that level 'Deity'. I would call it 'Historical'.

[Chronus]

Hi Comrade,

I've been wanting a more difficult level myself but you expressed it better than I.

I enjoy Diety, large map, raging hoards, 7 civs, etc. I haven't beaten the game yet at this level because someone always sends up a spaceship before I can. I do, however, make it to the end quite easily.

I miss the days (as a newbie) when I was fighting for SURVIVAL. Perhaps I need to turn on the Bloodlust option more often?

Anyway, an impossible (and I do mean IMPOSSIBLE) level would be great!

[Father Beast]

I agree. I made a couple of suggestions in my "higher difficulty levels" thread http://www.apolyton.net/forums/Forum.../002435.html?5 , before I was shot down.

a couple were:
the first citizen in your second city is unhappy under despotism.
and:
on highest difficulty, if a city goes into disorder, it revolts from your civ, possibly joining another, possibly becoming minor civ or barb.

I myself have a hard time surviving on deity, but I know a lot of people don't.

[Simpson II]

The trouble is, I think they thought they *were* doing that!

Remember, these are the people who predicted that Emperor level in Civ 1 coudn't ever be beaten consistently. Who had to send the game off to someone else to see if it was, even in principle, possible to beat deity.

I suspect that there will be a harder hardest level... but I'm also willing to bet that people will still beat it straight out of the box. I know I'll be giving it a go.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune on 04-08-2001 10:53 PM Civ II had: - 3 Newbie levels - 1 Rookie level - 1 Intermediate level - 1 Advanced level - NO Expert level

Oh come on, people, get real! How many of all the 1000's of civ players worldwide (as opposed to the expert few who make posts like these!) would call King a 'rookie' level?! I've read a few candid comments even in the rarefied atmosphere of these forums by folk honest enough to admit that they struggle to win at King, and have never managed to do so at Deity.

quote: I call a level 'challenging', when it is hard too survive. So I want a level where survival, even for very experienced players, is an accomplishment.

So, who on earth wants a game where you have to struggle merely to survive? Well, obviously you do. But forgive me for sounding simplistic, but don't most people want to WIN? If Firaxis makes the top level of the game unwinnable, there'll be a lot of alienated people out there clamouring for their money back.

If a few masochists like (forgive me, no offence intended) your good selves want to punish themselves by struggling to survive, then I say Firaxis should provide editable variables in the control files (as with Civ2, but extended perhaps) that you folks can tinker with; but please, do not ship the game with a top level that can barely be won even by the most experienced players! That would kill it for me, and, I suspect, very many others.


[This message has been edited by Ilkuul (edited April 09, 2001).]

[Bender]

Ilkuul: Your comments make sense to me. Firaxis shouldn't lower or raise the standards from what currently exists under Civ II. Editable files are a great way to expand the difficulty of Civ III. After all, it's not like the AI will be able to defeat a human in a long game anyway.

[- Groucho -]

Why would having a near impossible top level wreck the game?

I like chess but simply going over to the park reminds that I am nowhere near the top level. Try it some time. There is nothing like having some old guy that looks like he sleeps under a bridge "rip you a new one" on the chess board to help keep the ego under control. I only do it a couple of times a year, but when I play the park regulars it is rewarding to get a draw and I savour my rare victories for months.

My point is that just because there are players I can't beat doesn't wreck chess for me. By the same token, why should really hard levels wreck CivIII?

- Echinda

[Chronus]

"but don't most people want to WIN?"

I suppose. But winning gets tedious and boring after awhile. I prefer losing and getting that "Aarggh! Next time I'll do this and I know not to do that!" feeling simply because this is what brings me back to try again.

"If Firaxis makes the top level of the game unwinnable, there'll be a lot of alienated people out there clamouring for their money back."

Why? Does the game have to be beatable at the top level in order to be enjoyable? If you must win, couldn't you just play one of the easier levels? No one is trying to take away your easy levels ... why limit those who want difficult levels?

I'm afraid history is against you on this one. The CTP2 forum is choke full of complaints about how the game is TOO EASY. Some of them even went and got their money back. I could see a problem if the easiest level is too hard, but that is definitely not the case here.

"Firaxis should provide editable variables in the control files (as with Civ2, but extended perhaps) that you folks can tinker with"

I agree but I still think the "Impossible" level should be added (or the "Diety" level made even harder). This not only makes it easier to start the game (or switch games), but it provides a nice standard to refer to. Otherwise, a player has to type in all the options to describe the kind of game he/she played. And I probably wouldn't be able to relate simply because the settings I use would most likely be different than his/hers. This is especially important in MP games.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Echinda on 04-09-2001 10:01 PM My point is that just because there are players I can't beat doesn't wreck chess for me. By the same token, why should really hard levels wreck CivIII?

I think there's a difference between players you can't beat, and game levels you can't beat. The fact that you can win sometimes against really good chess players, I would guess, makes it worthwhile for you to carry on. But if a certain variety of chess were so difficult that you could never win, there would be no incentive for you to carry on playing it!

To me the difficulty levels of Civ2 are like a ladder: it's there to be climbed, and if it can be climbed, then it must be possible to get to the top! If you try climbing again and again and never manage to reach the top, you feel cheated and are inclined to stop climbing altogether. Just reaching halfway all the time leaves you frustrated and unsatisfied.

So, please Firaxis, don't make the Civ3 ladder so hard to climb that only professional mountaineers can ever reach the top!

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 04-09-2001 10:26 PM I still think the "Impossible" level should be added (or the "Deity" level made even harder). This not only makes it easier to start the game (or switch games), but it provides a nice standard to refer to. Otherwise, a player has to type in all the options to describe the kind of game he/she played. And I probably wouldn't be able to relate simply because the settings I use would most likely be different than his/hers. This is especially important in MP games.

OK, I take your point, but I still feel this should not be part of Civ3 as shipped (in order to have mercy on the rest of us -- see the ladder analogy in my reply to Echinda above). So, what about the mod community? Surely someone could come up with a really "impossible" mod for Civ3 that could be used as a 'standard'. Or even just these forums: look at OCC, which from what I've read originated with a few people swapping ideas here, and gradually got codified to the point where there's now the Paulicy as a standard set of rules everyone must abide by to play OCC.

To me, the only reasonable policy for Firaxis is to make Civ3 neither too hard nor too easy -- but fully modifiable in either direction.

[Father Beast]

There's a thread over in civ2 general entitled "super deity levels" it suggests a level above deity where your first citizen is unhappy. I don't know whether I would play it, but It would be interesting to at least have the option.

No matter how difficult you make the hardest level, SOMEBODY will find a way to beat it if it's possible. I mean, come on, people winning with 1 city at deity without ever changing from despotism? the players at highest will be more rarified, but they'll still be there.

[Gramphos]

I like playing against impossibly things. Just because some players want to be able to beat all the difficulty levels shall they not make the game harder, but what about all the players that want a real fight? I personally think that there could be different kinds of difficulty. Both difficulty when it gets harder for you and easier for the AI, but also difficulty levels with harder rules for all to avoid a dominating >50% of the map civ. The AI-civs should still grow easier then the human players, but all civs should have harder to keep a large civ together.

The only thing needed is to state what sort of difficulty level it is. A hard to conquer the world, or a hard to survive.

[EnochF]

I don't understand you guys.

If Civ isn't challenging for you, even on the highest level with raging hordes of barbarians, against seven computer opponents all of whom are cheating, then you can do one of two things: (1) Play a game that's more difficult for you, or (2) Start your own civilization in real life and put your fearsome leadership skills to good use.

There's no point complaining about it. That's like complaining about how ridiculously easy the questions are on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? or how easy the puzzles are on Wheel of Fortune. The solution is clear: Don't watch those shows.

[Gramphos]

The levels I miss in Civ II is levels that you may play just as a normal civ, not to conquer the world, neither for the AI, but to build up a working economy and relations with other civs. Maybe not a difficulty level, but another, more realistic, game mode.

I doubt we won't se anything like this in Civ III, but some sort of difficulty level that makes it harder to get big, both for the player and the AI can't be impossible to include.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by vgriph on 04-10-2001 04:22 PM The levels I miss in Civ II is levels that you may play just as a normal civ, not to conquer the world, neither for the AI, but to build up a working economy and relations with other civs. Maybe not a difficulty level, but another, more realistic, game mode.

Now there I fully agree with you! So often when I first played Civ1 and Civ2 I fell in love with my civ and its world, and just wanted to be left in peace to build it up!

Maybe Firaxis could consider a 'SimCiv' mode, the opposite of 'bloodlust'! Everyone's at peace, you just build your civ up as far as you can go, with the end coming whenever you want it (by retiring); at which point you would get a different kind of score with greater weight placed on number of citizens, happiness, wonders, and techs researched.

I would find that very restful after all the frantic scrabbling for power in normal civ!