What level do you play (and discuss strategy) on?

[lord of the mark]

My experiences with TBS have been largely playing Civ2, SMAC, Imp2. Most of all Civ2.

In that game its pretty much taken for granted that any serious player is playing on diety, the highest level. Strat tips in the forum, when they were for SP (and the hardcore mainly played MP) were assumed to be for deity, unless otherwise specified. Same for transcend level in SMAC, I think (transcend being even easier to win on than Civ2 deity) Imp2 had a complex difficulty system, aside from being much harder on the higher levels.

My impression from browsing here is that the impossible level of MoO2 is harder than Civ2 Deity. Nonetheless its also my impression that most serious players are playing on impossible, though not expecting to win as consistently as a serious Civ2 player in deity, SP. Is that correct? Are your strat comments here assuming impossible level play, unless otherwise specified?

[vmxa1]

I can hardly remember Civ2 any longer, but it was qutie easy to win at all levels. It just had too many exploits. SMAC I only played for one year and can remember very little, except mind stapling was funny.

Moo2 is probably harder to win at impossible than Civ2, but is not very hard with a good race and a reasonable location.

None are as hard as Civ3 on Sid, which is what I tend to play lately.

Never play Imp more than once. Basically what can one do if they have played tons of times, they end up moving to the highest level.

Civ3 is the only game that I have lost at at the highest level after finally winning once. It is very hard to beat with out some friendly map settings.

[Garth Vader]

When I played Civ2 I didn't know any of the exploits so I couldn't win on the higher levels.

I could win on SMAC on transcend, but preferred to play the second highest level because I was lazy with monitoring drones.

If I am trying a handicapped race I will play Moo2 on hard, but most of the games I play are on impossible. Compared to the previous 2 examples I find Moo2 on impossible easier, but that might just come from experience.

[P-K]

Moo2 on immposible is definitly much easier then civ on deity.
On mp we always play imposibble, but rarely with AIs.

PK

[Straybow]

Ummm, P-K, difficulty level only effects the AIs. You do realize that, don't you?

The strategic difference of only being able to settle and exploit discrete points on the map makes more of a difference for MoO2 than difficulty level. It's like playing Civ on a map with nothing but small islands. If only crappy systems are in range you are screwed.

That said, certain AI combinations at Impossible do make the game very difficult. When you get agressive empires with augmented growth rates all around you they can easily swamp you.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Straybow
Ummm, P-K, difficulty level only effects the AIs. You do realize that, don't you?

In that it would be different from Civ2, where there are different happiness factors at every difficulty level, as well as the double settlers on deity, so that it DOES matter what difficulty level you play on MP. Is that correct? That in MoO2 difficulty ONLY affects the AI?

[Garth Vader]

Close, I think the strength of the guardian is difficulty related. At least it was in Moo.

[Brutalisk]

Hi "mark" , well, most of the experienced multi-player MOOers can beat the AI on impossible (almost) every time, it is safe to say.

(i don't believe in always and never, hence why i added words such as "most" and "almost")

[P-K]

"Ummm, P-K, difficulty level only effects the AIs. You do realize that, don't you?"

Of course it affects AIs level. So what ? We talked about which is harder : civ2 on deity or moo2 on impossible. Both computers are cheating, but in moo2 u can defend yourself in battles with good ships and tactics while civ2 u cant do that. If i would have to fight with AIs ships by they designs and tactics only, moo2 would be harder to win, but its not!

"The strategic difference of only being able to settle and exploit discrete points on the map makes more of a difference for MoO2 than difficulty level. It's like playing Civ on a map with nothing but small islands. If only crappy systems are in range you are screwed."

Not quite. Bad luck happens but AI is so dump that human player can easly overcome even much worse conditions. If two human players are in game, then map is a very strong factor.

"That said, certain AI combinations at Impossible do make the game very difficult. When you get agressive empires with augmented growth rates all around you they can easily swamp you."

Easily? Well i bet AI can easly kill newbies moo2 players, but hardly ever a veteran human opponent.

PK

[Zoetrope]

In MOO2, I always play Impossible; although I used MeltingPot to beef up the AI races to close to maximum extent, I haven't lost in ages. One time, a Darloks with +36 picks did beat me.

A COrion2 boosted race with +12 research and +12 industry that I wasn't expecting to be up against, was encountered at around turn 50 (prewarp) after it had conquered half the huge map , but it eventually fell to my gritted determination.

In SMAC/X I've been playing Transcend for about 5 years, and rarely lose. Two occasions stick in my memory. One was on a small map when I was on a shoreline and the Usurpers landed right next to me. Replaying the game over and over never got me to survive more than a few turns extra.

The second memorable defeat was when I generated a map of scattered islands. I played as the Drones, landed on a 3x3 island, and spent turns 20 to 70 being bombarded silly by the Pirates. Technically, I didn't lose the game so much as my patience, but I'm sure they would have landed ground forces eventually.

The only Alien Crossfire faction I have real difficulty playing is the Spartans, whom I find unbearably slow, which is odd given that the fastest recorded Transcend-level wins by any player are with them. Maybe it's just that I'm an incorrigible Builder.

Civ2 I find a struggle at anything above King. I've only won one game at Emperor, and the best I did at Deity was to come second, and that was only because the first-placed Romans took such pity on me and generously donated me ample tech without having to be asked. Until Space Flight, that is: they were determined to reach Alpha Centauri before me (and they did). Perhaps they knew they'd need a head start once they got there.

As for Civ3, I still struggle at the lowest levels. I'm worse at that than I am at one of my favorite series, the Heroes of Might & Magic games, where I always play at the pawn or knight levels.

In Civ3, one of the few things I have learnt is that mobility is important: producing Cossacks continually will beat large number of foot soldiers when at war, and in peacetime a wall of Cossacks keeps those pesky rival settlers off my land.

The other thing I learnt in Civ3 was to make more and more Workers, whatever the cost in food. Mother Ant knows that's the way to dominate the world.

[Iasius]

I always play on impossible (with huge galaxy) and I rarely lose, provided I don't select very bad race characteristics (uncreative being the worst IMO). When I lose it's usually due to me researching techs in my home system, forgetting about building defense and then suddenly the silicoid or sakkra show up on my doorstep with 10+ BB.
Lately I've been playing a lot with Lith/Tol races and I haven't lost a single game with that combination, yet.
I once played an 'impossible' game with just -10 picks and I still managed to win. It's really a matter of whether you start close to another very aggressive expansionist race.


I haven't played civ2 on deity extensively, but I still managed to win most games. I just played a Red Front 1.4 campaign on deity (ie Marshal, no airlifting from UK and no disbanding red armies in 1941 were among the house rules I used) and I conquered Berlin in June 1944.

I also played SMAC on transcend and I found it's still possible to win almost every game, it's just that I don't get nearly all of the wonders like on thinker/librarian.

Of those three I found civ2 to be hardest on the highest difficulty level, but I also had the least amount of experience on diety. I think there might be some correlation there.

[Tiemler]

So who among you play Europa Universalis 2?

Amazing strategy game, although I can understand why its appeal would be more limited than the Civ series, since EU2 is based on about 400 years of history, rather than the whole expanse from prehistory to the info age.

But that finite time period is something I appreciate about it. You can play the whole grand campaign, without ever having such a technological lead over your opponents that they're helpless against you, apart from natives. And even as the major powers, you're not expected to conquer the whole world.

[Whoha]

I find small/impossible to be fairly interesting, though easier then huge because the ai can't really crank out the kinds of doom fleets as early as it can on huge. I can win from a good start most of the time with a good race on Huge. Starting in the middle of the map with all the hostile aliens is a challenge.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Whoha
I find small/impossible to be fairly interesting, though easier then huge because the ai can't really crank out the kinds of doom fleets as early as it can on huge. I can win from a good start most of the time with a good race on Huge. Starting in the middle of the map with all the hostile aliens is a challenge.

doom fleets. Thats one of the interesting differences between Moo2 and Civ2, or even SMAC (havent played Civ3) in those games combat was almost an exploit, the AI had such a tendency to feed units piecemeal. The Moo2 AI seems much better at accumulating a large force.

[GePap]

Well, in MOO2, combat is very different- i am sure if Civ had an army type of combact and a tactical minimap, then the AI would invariably be better at fighting wars.

I myself am not a serious gamer- I like games, but I don;t care to spend the time to master every single little details to maximize outcomes. I generally play on average difficulty levels. I rarely lose, but most of the time I don;t play to win, but to play.

The one great AI failing in MOO2 is ship design. I think if the AI made killer ships like human players do, the game would be much harder. I mean, what good is a massive Doom Fleet (many of which I have faced) if the human player can make cruisers that can take out multiple doomstars in one turn?

I had a battle were a few dozen late tech cruisers, with time warps, phasing cloaks, and full upgrade phazors took out many times their number Doomstars.

If I had been using Titans, it would have been even more horribly lopsided.