Should Impossible difficulty be impossible?

[Crostoneman]

We all know that the A.I. was toned down a few weeks before it went gold because the beta testers could not beat a certain level. Since they are working on a patch to fix this, should they add a extra level of difficulty with the Impossible difficulty be the original MoO3 Impossible level? If it isn't hard coded, they could change it to:

Easy = Tutor or Very Easy
Medium = Easy
Hard = Medium
Impossible = Hard
Impossible = Original MoO3 difficulty.

The reason I ask because I read the After Action Reports and have been wanting to try that Impossible difficulty level for a while.

[Harry Seldon]

I think impossible should be impossible. It's not supposed to be beaten; if it was, it'd be 'really hard.'

[vmxa1]

You are almost correct. Impossible you be nearly imposible to beat, but not absolutely impossible. IOW I am fine if there is a strategy that can work, but it should be very hard to find it and to execute that strategy.

[Harry Seldon]

A good strategy, yes, but I think a little luck should be involved, too.

[Ellestar]

It's impossible to lose on impossible (except maybe comp Senate Victory, if you are not in senate and playing first games). So Impossible = Tutor. gg gl hf

[Chronus]

Impossible should be impossible. All too often the players are underestimated.

There are plenty of lower levels for people to play if they want to win. Why not please the ones who, in a few months, beat "impossible" on a regular basis? (no, I'm not one of them ). You know that eventually the strategy at the highest level will be figured out.

[vmxa1]

Chronus I think the point is that in most games (I will skip Moo3 for now) impossible level is unbeatable by most players. I do not know how many copies of M002 were sold, but too make it easy if we say 100,000. How many of the players that tried impossible were beating it? I know if you come to these boards it looks like everyone, but I would suspect it was a small percentage.
You do not want to make it so no one can beat the level, that is pointless. People can make up handicaps for them self, such as not using exploits or playing with no bonus for racial traits and so on.

[Grumbold]

I'd like to try this level that they were saying was too hard, provided it was achieved by making the AI play well, not using cheap methods like free expansion, half tech costs etc. I'd expect it to prove a challenge for a lot of players for a long time, but with thousands pof players trying thousands of strategies eventually one may find a way (or just get lucky enough) to achieve a win.

I'm sure when they released Civ 2 they weren't expecting people to be needing to invent the deity level one-city challenge just to keep themselves amused

[yndy]

I am a little turned down by the fact that the AI is not more aggressive. I have started one game as a learning game. Frankly I expected from the start to get by butt kicked by the AI but learn something in the process. 3 days ago at turn 80 I took a break and not returned yet. I’m no good but neither the AI (Medium difficulty here). I did not know how to expand, built units in the beginning only to make them obsolete in two turns. Still I am now third in ranking (with NOs first and some other guys second. How did I manage to outscore the AI on the Medium level I cannot understand. Two nations declared war and so far I saw a handful of destroyer class ships. They blockaded but no actual damage occurred. I want to get my ass kicked so that I could start again but nobody seems willing to do so. Any idea why? If I don’t lose on medium in my first attempt how hard will it be to beat impossible?

[Jamski]

This is the main problem with MoO3, the developers turned down the AI agression before release as it was "too hard". They're making a patch, and I'm sure this will be very easily fixed. Relax

-Jam

[Grumbold]

In the meantime there are easy to implement user made tweaks that stiffen up the AI opponents a bit discussed in the strategy and creation forums. At the moment about the only way the AI is likely to beat you is by senate win.

[Crostoneman]

I just wanted a very hard game on impossible. Have you seen the techs the New Orions get on Impossible? I like to have a game where if I'm not the president of the senate, aquired four pieces of the Antaran X victory, but somewhere on the medium-high tech level, I feel that I'm about to be screwed.

[Chronus]

I know if you come to these boards it looks like everyone, but I would suspect it was a small percentage. You do not want to make it so no one can beat the level, that is pointless.

Except that it may provide an entertaining challenge to that small percentage of people.

I still have to stand by what I said. There are PLENTY of levels that many, if not the majority, of players can beat. Where's the harm in having ONE "impossible" level? You know very well that, in the end, a "small percentage" will beat it.

[notyoueither]

Is it true that the difficulty levels are reversed? I saw that as it was starting to be discussed in the IG forums.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Chronus
I still have to stand by what I said. There are PLENTY of levels that many, if not the majority, of players can beat. Where's the harm in having ONE "impossible" level? You know very well that, in the end, a "small percentage" will beat it.

Nothing at all, as long as it can be done by someone. I was only protesting the idea that it should be absolutely unbeatable.