Oh lord, it's hard to be humble... but you can help!

[David Weldon]

There seem to be two possible scenarios when playing civIII:

1) Play on an easy level (Monarch or below). You can pretty much do anything you want, have 'fun', build all the wonders yourself, maintain a huge tech lead, and win without micro-managing too much. You have an unbeatable edge by the middle Medieval Age at the latest (sometimes as early as the late Ancient Age). No Modern units are useful, as you can conquer the entire world before the beginning of the Industrial Age.

2) Play on a "difficult" level (Emperor or Deity). You start off in a _huge_ hole, launch an early military campaign to catch up in tech, generate some cash flow, and expand your empire. You build almost no wonders at all. You spend the whole game behind in tech and production until your second military campaign where you seize a large enough empire to compete with the AI bonuses, at which point you have an unbeatable lead. Generally the Railroad is the key to success in your second military campaign, and also the key to increasing production enough to hold the tech lead from then on. Few Modern units are useful because the fighting is all over with Bombers and Tanks.

The problem I'm having is that the period of meaningful struggle in the game (not always military struggle) is very short. It takes weeks to play a full game on a standard map, and only a few hours have any sort of "equal competition" between you and the AI. You can delay the period of equal competition by playing on more difficult levels, but you can't extend the _duration_ of that period.

Because this game is very momentum-based, once you get an edge the game is all over except for tedious waiting and pointless improvements, or equally tedious global warfare (made tedious because the outcome is undeniable from the beginning).

For those of you who can regularly beat Deity, is there anything you can think of in terms of game settings, civ choice, map size, play style, etc... that would prolong the period of meaningful conflict?

I don't want to handicap myself _during_ the game, I want to play as well as I can and still have the game linger on (meaningfully). I don't mind starting with a disadvantage, but the production penalties associated with the higher difficulty settings don't really change this aspect of the game. One way that the later game might be interesting is if the AI were more aggressive in their attempts to knock off the #1 civ. If they all ganged up on you when you started to take the lead, that would create an counter-balance to the momentum that comes with having the largest, most productive empire. Unfortunately, we can't change the AI too much.

Any ideas from quality players would be greatly appreciated!

[Pyrodrew]

Game Balance Gap

One way that the later game might be interesting is if the AI were more aggressive in their attempts to knock off the #1 civ. If they all ganged up on you when you started to take the lead, that would create an counter-balance to the momentum that comes with having the largest, most productive empire. Unfortunately, we can't change the AI too much.

I strongly agree with this & wish that the Civ3 AIs did that atleast as well as the Civ2 AIs did. Although the Civ2 AI was worse overall, that was 1 highlight. The weak should team up against the strong to balance the power, especially since there can only be 1 winner. Instead the gap between the weak & strong only increases as time goes on... even more so since the strong originate from grasslands (which now can be mined, unlike Civ2) & plains. Railroads increase this gap even further. The weak originate from the worse terrain tiles: Jungle (banannas were replaced with disease), Desert (oasis was replaced with diseased flood plains), and Tundra. What also widens this gap is the AI Civs still value & research dead-end techs even if the wonder has been built or the unit is obsolete.

Attempts to best lengthen the "period of competition" would probably be best done through a Firaxis Patch (all we can do is ask) or a mod. Preventing grasslands to mined (since the more successful Civs originate here) in a mod would probably be the most effective. Jungle & Desert desperately need some good starting bonuses (banannas, oasis, etc.) to be added. Raising the minimum research rate (from 4 to 6?) would work too, but many people don't even like there is a 4 turn research limit. Decreasing dead-end techs research value that you or most experienced human players never research would also help. Allowing more units to be upgraded via the editor should also help prevent the AI Civs from building so many obsolete units.

Gameplay suggestions are not as effective, but don't use any exploitations that abuse the AI Civ's severe weaknesses (IFE, being a Tech Whore, pop-rushing, etc.), if you are using any.

[Nakar Gabab]

I sort of agree, but I sort of disagree. In one sense, it makes it more challenging, but on the other... it really makes no sense. I mean, in SMAC, by the last 50 turns of the game EVERYONE was ticked at you; you had to pray they didn't contact you just to keep them from getting mad. I'd play peaceful, warlike, unless I was committing atrocities right and left, I never really seemed to DESERVE the ire of everyone, but I got it.

Civ3 seems aggressive, but rational. They're opportunistic but not stupid. I think the problem is the AI doesn't coordinate with itself - i.e. one civ working with another in a definite way. It may start up a MPP and attack in tandem, but it's not quite a coordinated attack.

I also like that, if you can make a friend in Civ3, and keep on good terms with them, you usually can have a friend for life. I'm sort of pleased that the AI is willing to do that for me.

[David Weldon]

Pyrodrew:
I agree with most of your statements, but I'm not convinced that changing the starting terrain will help with my problem. Definitely it should be done to make the starting positions more even, but even if a human plays from a poor starting position, that will simply delay his ascension, not prolong it.

I don't like extending the minimum research limit because I hate false limitations like that, and in any case all it really does is increase my production because I use the extra gold from reduced science rate to rush-build anything I want, which of course strengthens my position even more. A better solution would be to have the AI demand outragous prices when trading for tech... Right now the AI only thinks about how new the tech is and how many civs have it. They need to consider who they are buying it from. If they all start trading only with themselves and ignore the #1 civ, then they have a better chance of catching up. Again this ends up in Firaxis' hands...

Since this is the strat. forum, however, we need to think about things we can do...

Maybe one could play without offensive military action late in the game? That might give the AI a better chance, but it seems like it would just make the late game even more of a waiting and tedium exercise than it currently is. About the only fun I have in the late Industrial Age is planning and executing a combined-arms strike to raze an enemy's captial and #2 city.

Maybe give all your new tech away for free? This would be OK but then all the AIs would love you and never attack you to prevent your victory.

Maybe give your new tech to the smallest civ for free, making one friend and knowing that he will sell/trade it to the other civs in short order? Not a bad idea, but definitely a self-handicapping move.

Definitely if you force yourself to always honor all agreements for their full duration, that keeps you from exploiting certain things, but it also eliminates some fun options.

Maybe make a civ with no strengths and play it? This would probably just delay the ascension again.

Never play with a government more advanced than Monarchy? This would prevent all of the 'per square' bonuses of Rep. or Dem. and therefore make larger size less powerful, but without these bonuses it would be even more important to be large just to keep up.

Obviously we should avoid exploits, but I would like to still play to win... other ideas ...

[Sevorak]

If you're looking for an odd variantish kind of thing:

Always accept what the governors tell you to build.

Definitely self-handicapping - probably make it quite a bit more interesting, too. Be even with the AI all game, since you're building like an AI.

-Sev

[Architect]

Here's some suggestions.

1. Don't build a military until you need it. If you look like a chump, the AI is more likely to attack and give you a challenge. I would build only one or two defensive units per city. When you are done with a war, dismantle your military. For offensive campaigns only build what you need and when you achieve your objective dismantle your army.

2. Don't build any wonders.

3. Play on an isolated island and don't try to make contact. If you have only one other civ on your continent then this can be somewhat a challenge too. Contacting other civs is one of the biggest ways to get ahead. Avoid pangea, this is just to easy.

4. Don't wage war in the ancient era.

5. Use the diplomacy screen to negotiate peace treaties only. Do not accept per turn money or any tech in trade. Don't trade for tech period.

As for mods, I think the current obsolesce chain is part of the problem for AIs. If the governors are used by the AI and they are building what they would in 1.7 its no wonder they have troubles waging war in the modern era. The governors would sometimes suggest Swordsman when I had tanks.

[Spearthrower]

How about in the modern ages giving away a lot of valuable military techs... then dropping a nuke anywhere on the map... instant aggression from everyone due to your "nuke testing project".... maybe this is very self-mutilating but it guarantees a final showdown..... no?

[Capt Dizle]

Weldon...

What you want is play versus human opponents.

We are sorry to inform you that multiplay is not supported.

One problem with the coding is that the AI will gang up on the weaklings and utimately make the human's job easier.

It should be changed so that tthe AI will step in to protect any weakening AI civ, to preserve balance and also total war should be waged against the human once he gets to a certain point.

[Venger]

Re: Game Balance Gap

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

I strongly agree with this & wish that the Civ3 AIs did that atleast as well as the Civ2 AIs did. Although the Civ2 AI was worse overall, that was 1 highlight.

And I strongly agree with you here...in a hypothetical military conflict, the Civ2 AI would kick the high holy hell out of the Civ3 AI. For some reason, the Civ3 AI just cannot defend itself, and cannot seem to coordinate the AI Civs into anything approaching a challenge.

The weak should team up against the strong to balance the power, especially since there can only be 1 winner. Instead the gap between the weak & strong only increases as time goes on...

This has always been a problem, but the solution ought to be a stronger competition from the AI, rather than the usual grab bag of cheats and handicaps...

Venger

[DaveV]

I've been experimenting with a "duel" scenario: tiny map, one AI opponent. If the AI ends up on a different continent, the early rush strategy is unplayable, and the AI has lots of time to expand. I don't ever make any deals with the AI, so all the exploits involving swindling the AI in trades, vassal/client AIs, and MPP abuse are out of play. At higher levels, the AI should be able to maintain a tech lead, but its generalship won't be any better than in any other situation. Because there's only one AI and its priorities for wonders don't adapt to the unusual situation, I've been able to build some wonders on Emperor (Colossus or Lighthouse - the latter can be a crucial wonder on some maps).

This game is not for those who enjoy interacting on the trade screen, since I don't use that part of the game. It's been an instructive way to practice my early-game expansion and tech research, though. The barbarians can provide some interest in the phase of the game when I'm trying to fill up my continent. Another advantage is that this game plays out relatively quickly.

[jed]

I don't personally find the game so easy, but here are some suggestions to make it harder if you want. You can use the editor to give all the AI civs *all* the militaristic/commercial/industrius/religious/scientific/expansionistic attributes (and/or give yourself fewer than 2 attributes). You might also adjust their aggressiveness higher, and perhaps mess with their tendencies to build different improvements/units. I'm not sure if this is possible off the top of my head, but you might also be able to put them all in one cultural group, and you in a different one so that they like each other more and you less.

I'm also curious whether turning off diplomatic victory may make the AI's more aggressive. It should in principle, because there is less reason to maintain a good reputation.

[David Weldon]

First, to clarify my desires within this post:

- I don't want to make the game "harder", I want it to be competetive for a longer portion of the total playing time. As someone posted, what I want is akin to a game against human opponents.

- I believe that the science and production and territory boarders all reinforce a position of strength. In other words, once you get a lead, it keeps getting bigger and bigger (the rich get richer...). Some mechanics (preferably realistic ones) need to be introduced to act as a counter-balance to this phenomenon. Currently, once a lead is acheived, the game is all over except the tedious, repetetive, unit shuffling...

- I don't want to handicap myself while playing the game. I want to play as hard as I can, and use the best tactics I know of. This means things that I have labelled "self-handicapping" are not really things I'm interested in.

- There are a lot of changes that can make the game much more difficult. Playing archipelego, not trading, not making contact, not waging ancient war, not having civ bonuses, etc... all make it harder to win, but that's not really what I'm trying to accomplish. Again: I want to prolong the period of interesting conflict within the game.

Second, a few thoughts on the previous replies:

I think that AI ganging up would help a _lot_, and I don't see how it would help the human player? The idea is that the weaker civs forge economic (embargoes) and military (wars) alliances against whoever is stronger than them. This should not eliminate any civs, and when the strongest civ is reduced, then attitudes change, and they all get worried about whoever has become the #1 civ. Assuming the human is probably playing the best game, this would lead to a point where the whole world is against him. That means no trade, slow tech growth, massive defensive military requirements which should slow down domestic improvements, etc... This could feel terrible if it happened all the time, but remember that once the human is beat down sufficiently (if that ever happens), then the AIs turn on themselves. Playing to win, that's what I want out of the AI.

I agree it's nice to have a friend that won't turn on you, and perhaps this could be a difficulty slider, but would you stick with an AI civ if it was obviously going to win before you could? I don't think so, and I don't think the AI should be happy to help you win.

Launching a nuke to get everyone else to go to war with you is a good idea to simulate the ganging up that I think should happen anyway. The only problem is that by the time I have nukes, even on Deity, I have a completely railroaded, completely improved, dual-capital (FP), production machine of death. At that point, it's too late for even a concerted all-on-one war to prevent me from winning.

Maybe give each civ a nuke or two to begin with, just to be used in the emergency case of runaway dominance? I might actually try this... Even if it doesn't work quite right, this is exactly the kind of idea I'm looking for.

[Pyrodrew]

I also like that, if you can make a friend in Civ3, and keep on good terms with them, you usually can have a friend for life.

Problem with that is the game doesn't last "for life", it only lasts until 2050 at most. If you made an AI Civ "friend" & they start building the spaceship 1st & fast, would you let them complete it & win or would you try to stop them (or demand all their techs) so you could try for 1st place? Likewise, AI Civs should always be after 1st place. Being the winner's sidekick shouldn't cut it.

in SMAC, by the last 50 turns of the game EVERYONE was ticked at you...I never really seemed to DESERVE the ire of everyone, but I got it.

Look at it this way they are not "mad at you"... they are "mad" that they are going to lose. Think of it as jealousy, envy or an excuse so they have a reason to try to defeat you so they might have a chance at winning. 2nd place is only the 1st loser.

the problem is the AI doesn't coordinate with itself - i.e. one civ working with another in a definite way.

I agree that this could be done better. I've had multiple games where my weaker foes attack me 1 on 1 instead of attacking me as a 3+team. The others either watch me destroy them or help. Worse case of this is when they declare war on you after you ask them to leave your territory, DURING YOUR TURN. This allows the player to set up military alliances & defenses 1st.

even if a human plays from a poor starting position, that will simply delay his ascension, not prolong it.

Assuming you've had plenty of ascensions from jungles, good/poor terrain doesn't only impact the early game. Railroads make mined/irrigated grasslands much better. Limiting grasslands to only irrigation (as in Civ2) prevent this. Likewise your later improvements (which widen the gap further) would take longer to build. And this doesn't make it "harder" since good/poor terrain applies to all Civs. But I can understand you wanting to keep the way they have it set up.

I don't like extending the minimum research limit

Neither do I, but I thought I would offer as many suggestions as possible.

Maybe one could play without offensive military action late in the game?

Don't wage war in the ancient era.

Don't build a military until you need it.

I find this, "must play nice", more restricting than a research cap.

Maybe give your new tech to the smallest civ for free, making one friend and knowing that he will sell/trade it to the other civs in short order?

Unfortunately from what I've seen they rarely mass sell/trade any techs to the other AI Civs & instead just be a high-tech weakling.

Maybe make a civ with no strengths and play it? This would probably just delay the ascension again.

Not necessarily since most Civ Strengths apply *throughout* the game. Industrious-build a railroad in 1 turn; Commercial-less corruption in all ages; Military-more leaders in all ages; etc. Good idea, however this does make the game "harder" which you don't want.

Always accept what the governors tell you to build.

You can now tell a governor to build what it built last time with the patch.

Use the diplomacy screen to negotiate peace treaties only

Don't build any wonders.

Good handicaps, but they make it "harder" which is not what he wants.

Maybe give each civ a nuke or two to begin with, just to be used in the emergency case of runaway dominance?

Once those AI Civs use that nuke the other AI Civs may hate them & focus any attention from you to them.

What you want is play versus human opponents.

Even multiplayer will have AI opponents since human players may "flee the throne" if things aren't going well. "Player0 has fled and reliquished the rule of England to Elisabeth." So AI opponents will likely be taking over weaker Civilizations in multiplayer. If weaker AI Civs do not focus their attention against the current Civilization winning, they will only make the strong get stronger... as we currently are seeing.

Edited to add: I would also like to suggest making the Palace better via the editor. Since all Civs have a palace regardless of the number of cities they have, a better palace would help those with fewer cities do better. You can increase it's culture, city happiness, production, etc. just be sure not to do anything that "affects all cities" since that would help the larger civs more.

[David Weldon]

Pyrodrew:
The reason I think no civ bonuses, bad starting places, etc. only delay the ascension rather than prolong the period of conflict is as follows: even though their effects last all game long, that just means you need more cities or more improvements to achieve a critical mass.

Let's say we're talking about commercial, and I can get 4 turn techs in the Industrial age with 20 towns. Without it I need 25 towns. Ok, so I have to wait until I have 5 more productive towns and then I'm in essentially the same position of dominance. Without those 5 towns I'm behind the AI, with them I'm guaranteed victory. Developing them is just a lot of tedious micro-management until they're ready to be useful. All this did was extend the 'underdog' period, not the 'competition' period. The same applies with pretty much any other fixed bonus or penalty whether it has an effect throughout the game or not.

If you don't like the extra towns concept because of corruption, think "without universities... with universities..." or anything else along those lines.

I'm with you on the "play nice" stuff, I'd rather have a handicap and get to play dirty...

I should clarify that I don't care if the game gets harder, it's just that my #1 goal is not an increase in difficulty. If something increases difficulty and also extends the period of competition, I'll love it.

[eMarkM]

Currently, once a lead is acheived, the game is all over except the tedious, repetetive, unit shuffling...

This is a good thread. Even though I haven't attempted Deity yet, I've beaten Emperor and this statement really rings true. Once you get that edge in tech, it only gets bigger and it's a foregone conclusion.

On this Emp game I got a tech lead and was looking forward to a to-the-wire space race. Out of 8 starting civs, I was one of three left. Russia had a whole continent to themselves and I shared mine w/ Iroquois. Thought for sure Russia would give me a run in space race. But I launched before they even started Apollo, my lead just kept increasing. They did gang up on me at one point. But the "all powerful" Russians could do nothing more than these wimpy little ironclad bombardments. No attempts at landing on my shores. I was actually hoping something like having my uranium run out would occur so I could do something in the modern age besides "shuffle units".

I think one problem is war weariness effects the AI same as you. Even they will choose peace at some point to get their empire back in order. If weariness didn't effect them as much, they might press war while you're trying to deal w/ unhappiness. That would make it interesting.

Wish I had an answer, but all signs point to improving the AI. The AI is not aggressive enough in the final stages. It's too easy to buy them off or just ignore their attacks when the threat is from overseas. AI can't launch inter-continental battles at all.

You can increase some of the editable parts of the difficulty levels and make that "catch up" period longer. That's where the whole adreneline rush of the game is, the catching up in ancient/middle ages is very challenging. But that's probably all you can do at this point. You can't edit the AI.

e