Diffuculty comparison from II to III

bodiki · December 28, 2003, 11:25

Good morn folks, I am going to be picking up a copy of Civ's III in a couple of days and I am curios about the diffuculty settings compared to Civ's II. Will playing the higher settings being more challenging than Civ II? I have been playing Civ's II for several years and now only play diety.

Any feedback would be helpfull. Thanks.

vee4473 · December 28, 2003, 12:55

well, since i don't play on the higher levels, I can't help ya,

but, try and get the conquests expansion . They made even more levels. higher than deity.

Catt · December 28, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by bodiki
Good morn folks, I am going to be picking up a copy of Civ's III in a couple of days and I am curios about the diffuculty settings compared to Civ's II. Will playing the higher settings being more challenging than Civ II? I have been playing Civ's II for several years and now only play diety.

Any feedback would be helpfull. Thanks.

I never played Civ II, but have heard from lots of players who always played Deity in Civ II and found that the learning curve to playing Civ III at Deity is considerably steeper. I know of several regular posters who played only Deity in Civ II who regularly play Monarchy or Emperor in Civ III (even if they are capable of playing and winning at higher levels).

Catt

vmxa1 · December 28, 2003, 14:26

I would say yes. It is not hard to learn the methods to win at any level in CivII.

CivIII has or rather had some techniques that could get you in position to win at deity, if you did the micromanaging and did not run afoul of the start location or the RNG.

I have not tried Sid since the patch came out, but it will still be some task to beat it, even with decent location IMO.

They have made an effort to make the AI play better with each patch/addon. It is not a genius, but they have improved it.

The most obvious thing is you do not see tons of CivIII players talking about cruising at deity in civ3.

vondrack · December 28, 2003, 14:27

I was playing Regent (or whatever it was called - the "no bonus/no malus" level) only in Civ2, regularly winning it. After getting Civ3, I naturally picked Regent again... and had my ass handed to me game after game after game. It was so frustrating. It forced me to search for tips (and I eventually ended up here at Poly).

I would say that Civ3 is more of a challenge than Civ2, as there are less cheap tricks you can use (this is not to say they are none, though - there still are plenty, just not as many and as cheap as in Civ2). Plus - the AI, however lame compared to a human - is a vast improvement over the Civ2 AI.

IMHO, the most difficult thing to get used to is the fact that Civ3 is not Civ2 plus a few new bells and whizzles. The game has been redesigned in many areas and as long as you will keep applying the same Civ2 strategies, ignoring the new/changed stuff, you will most probably find yourself losing badly. Do not start above Regent, whatever it was you played Civ2 at - and make sure you at least skim through the best threads Theseus compiled in the Strat forum. It will save you a lot of wasted time.

Enjoy!

Capt Dizle · December 28, 2003, 15:04

Essentially Civ3 was created by taking anything and everything out of the gameplay that the AI could not effectively use. This was done to create the impression that the AI is good. It isn't.

Gameplay is linear and repetitive. Once you discover the ways and means to defeat the AI it is very mechanical and non-fulfilling. If you want to learn this you can go to civfanatics and look at the GOTM threads. You will quickly learn the tricks that will enable you to defeat vanilla and PTW on diety 95%+ of the time.

The momentum rush which was the bane of all previous civ games not only still exists in Civ3 but is even more powerful than it was in some other versions of Civ. Essentially the developer's attempts to eliminate the rush were a complete and abject failure. This reflects the level of professional ability at Firaxis today, which is lower than it was when BR was there by a factor of 10.

I have no loaded Conquest up yet but knowing Firaxis I would bet the lives of my grandchildren that it is more of the same schlock.

As will be Civ4 if Firaxis makes it.

pedrojedi · December 28, 2003, 15:56

That was harsh.

Anyway, I can't say if jimmy is or isn't overcritical, since I did not went to that thread at civfanatics, nor tested any particular tip of theirs.

What I can say about it is that Civ3 is much more difficult than Civ2. Much of my gameplay style had to be completely changed, and I found out a lot of dogmas that should be changed to not keep losing. Poly's foruns were a great help, and I learned a lot here. If you browse this large archive long enough, you can find virtually any information you want about strategy, gameplay and style. I did take out the exact amount of information I wanted, enabling me to win without melting my brain at every game, at the same time that it keeps being challenging.

But definitely, it is very much more difficult.

vondrack · December 28, 2003, 15:59

Yeah... linear and repetitive, sure...

Even if I admitted that this game (as almost any other, btw) becomes linear and repetitive after some time, there is a very simple solution - start playing against humans. PBEM/MP gets rid of this "linearity and repetitivness" very easily and very effectively, believe me.

notyoueither · December 28, 2003, 16:49

jimmy's just bitter that his love letter was unrequited.

Theseus · December 28, 2003, 17:16

bodiki, welcome aboard!!

Yes, III is more difficult (and overall *better*) than II. I also was a Deity player, and have pretty much settled on Emperor now.

jt is correct, in a way... if you want to play a linear game, you can, but this was true of all previous versions as well. III has more and more depth.

Check out the Apolyton University forum too.

justjake73 · December 28, 2003, 19:50

Civ2 was basically "you're human so we hate you." I play Regent (Prince) in III, and that's tough enough for me; in II, I could have conceivably gone higher if I didn't quit because of the asinine, backstabbing, hyprocritical, warmongering AI.

EnduringBlue · December 28, 2003, 23:42

As far as differences from Civ2 to Civ3, my initial reactions were on the subject of Wonders...I always liked having auto-upgrade from Leonardo's workshop, and the must-offer-peace requirement imposed by Great Wall, both of which are negated. Carefully re-read descriptions of the Wonders; I believe you will find that the order in which you value them will change significantly.

Aesthetically, I miss the mini-movies that ran when you obtained each wonder.

The game mechanics are more complex. Delve into the game editor to see exactly what numbers are default values and what changes for the AI players between difficulty levels.

Personally I like playing Huge maps with ungodly amounts of AI opponents (if you're into that sort of masochism and have plenty of time on your hands, C3C with 31 players is a glorious mess as long as you don't mind dying of old age between turns)

Overall, the best part (for me) is the increased variety of methods of winning. Space Race is often unfulfilling unless you're playing a hard enough game that it was already challenging from Medieval onwards...now with diplomatic, cultural, domination, and my new favorite Elimination, replay value is greatly increased.

vmxa1 · December 28, 2003, 23:59

Everybody is always saying how they missed the wonder movies, but most just cursed them and click past them after about the 500th time one plays.

IIRC it ws the UN that could force peace.

Capt Dizle · December 29, 2003, 00:14

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
jimmy's just bitter that his love letter was unrequited.

Which one?

notyoueither · December 29, 2003, 00:19

You have sent them more?

Capt Dizle · December 29, 2003, 00:22

Theseus,

I really wish I could see some depth in this game. I have tried and I just don't see it.

If I want to play for culture I just build all the buildings. It's not like you have even two paths to follow.

If I want to play rough, I just build military units. Where is the depth? How many tactics are there?

Mostly what I find is a long tedious process of moving workers and military units. Only the very begining of the game is interesting at all.

Maybe I don't get what you folks enjoy so much.

Capt Dizle · December 29, 2003, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have sent them more?

Yes, the US Postal Service gives me a special bulk mail rate. Sooner or later I will get lucky.

Kuciwalker · December 29, 2003, 00:43

Quote:

f I want to play rough, I just build military units.

I can see how someone as inanely one-dimensional as you would see C3 as "one-dimensional"

Cerbykins · December 29, 2003, 01:34

As soon as you try world spawns other than easy, middle-custom-option start points - you will realise how 'un-repetitive' it is

(Or maybe it is just me

)
Example - 'so very cold (of the AI)'

Back on-topic though...

Even chieftain is not a breeze straight away...expecting a few units to conquer a Europe a bit behind in tech in now just a fuzzy dream

Expecting to leave the ai with pikeman while you have tanks is, for the best part - a fuzzy dream

And expecting the AI to be either plain peaceful or homicidal is - you guessed it - a fuzzy dream

It will continue to be a pain in the...rear

...until the day you send it to a better place or finish the game

It will start wars at the most in-opportune times for you, and make peace with neighbours when you least want it to

Fatwreck · December 29, 2003, 07:52

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Everybody is always saying how they missed the wonder movies, but most just cursed them and click past them after about the 500th time one plays.

IIRC it ws the UN that could force peace.

that´s right, but GW did it too

vee4473 · December 29, 2003, 09:42

jimmytrick, did you like civ 2?
just curious

pedrojedi · December 29, 2003, 13:10

Let's just leave it, I think the guy just got bored of so much civ-playing - I recently passed some time bored of Civ (OH MY GOD, I'M A SINNER!

).

And yes, GW forced peace in Civ2.

yxhuvud · December 29, 2003, 13:12

What is the momentum rush by the way?

vmxa1 · December 29, 2003, 13:54

Yes they both force peace in II, its been awhile.

The Mad Viking · January 8, 2004, 10:07

Hi bodiki!

I just started playing CIV III. I played alot of CIV II at Deity, and did not lose to the AI.

I waited for a long time in part due to comments like JTs, rather than trying it myself.

I am still playing my first game, so while I don't know CIV III that well, the differences from II are still clear in my mind.

I chose Regent for my first game and I'm happy with that. I will win the game, although I'm currently in the middle of the pack in score.

Try to forget everything you think you know, and you will be better off. Your dogmas and precepts will hurt you.

I chose regular map continents and random- letting the computer pick my civ and the opponents. I since learned I was lucky to get the Egyptions, an easy civ to play.

I thought I had read the docs fairly well, but learned as I went along that I had not. My starting site looked awful, so I went searching for a good spot. This was a huge mistake, as it took forever to find one, so I ended up way behind- the AI civs expand more quickly and efficiently than before. Much to my chagrin, three tiles that I had thought were desert at my start location were in fact, floodplain, a fine agricultural terrain!

I had the additional misfortune of being very close to the Greeks, whose hoplites are the premier ancient defender. Then Germany and Rome allied to attack me. I was lucky to have iron, and built swordsmen, and got the wheel just in time to find one source of horses. (Same city, bad location for growth, but critical to my civ due to two strategic resources.)

I was able to hold my own against the attacks, using swordsmen in hills and mountains. I was surprised to watch AI units waltz past my units w/o attacking- no zone of control! The tide turned when I was able to induce the Greeks to ally against the Romans. It was costly, but it worked to perfection. The Romans beat themselves against the hoplites, and I was able to tire out the Germans who lost waves of horsemen and finally asked for a treaty.

At this point, I had only four cities and was basically a joke power. I knew I needed more land for resources, and despite misgivings, chose to attack the Greeks, because their cities were almost intertwined with mine. Using war chariots in large numbers with vet/elite swords, I was able to take Athens and then several more cities, and finally sued for peace, picking up two techs and gold per turn.

Since that I turned to England. Catapults are very different, and your initial reaction is they suck, but if you guard them they NEVER die, and they are cheap. Use a bunch to bombard prior to attacking.

Two-movement point units are critical, as they will usually attack and retreat before dying, living to fight another day.

At Regent I am able to maintain a very slight tech lead despite a small sized Kingdom.

Corruption and waste are much bigger problems. In Monarchy, going past 16 cities leads to huge corruption problems. Consider razing poor cities to keep the total number down.

Deserts are important sources of saltpeter, required for gunpowder. Don't disregard them, or you may be out of luck when you discover gunpowder but can't make any!

Musketeers are expensive defense only units that everyone hates. However, they can be upgraded all the way to mech inf, whereas pikes and swords can't learn to shoot guns!!!

Knights rock. Cavalry ROCKS.

Luxury resources are critically important to happiness, which in turn can lead to WLTKD, which reduces waste.

Cultural improvements are key to establishing borders, and help getting your cities to expand from 9 tiles to 21. Even obsolete Wonders generate substantial culture.

DrSpike · January 8, 2004, 11:02

Hehe people don't feed the troll, it's what he wants the hungry little tyke.

Anyway, JT attracted abuse by overstating it, but he is essentially correct. Civ3 is harder because the gameplay was simplified in many respects to help the AI. I'm not going to take his next step and say there is no depth in Civ3, because I don't believe that is the case. However Civ2 is undeniably deeper, and all the easier for it in SP once you have mastered it.

furrykef · January 8, 2004, 12:52

Short answer: Yes, Civ3 is much harder than Civ2.

I think Civ2's AI was a joke even on Deity. I could out-expand them easily. Yes, Civ3's game mechanics were vastly simplified to make the AI "smarter" (I like many of the simplifications, though), but I think the actual AI has improved a lot as well. There weren't that many oversimplifications from Civ2. The Civ2 AI cheated like HELL and was still pathetic! By comparison, the Civ3 AI doesn't cheat much at all, difficulty-level bonuses aside. I think there's more than some game mechanics changes to account for that.

- Kef

MotownDennis · January 8, 2004, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe people don't feed the troll, it's what he wants the hungry little tyke.

Anyway, JT attracted abuse by overstating it, but he is essentially correct. Civ3 is harder because the gameplay was simplified in many respects to help the AI. I'm not going to take his next step and say there is no depth in Civ3, because I don't believe that is the case. However Civ2 is undeniably deeper, and all the easier for it in SP once you have mastered it.

I'm not sure I understand how a game can be both "deeper" and "easier" at the same time.

I regularly beat Civ2 at Diety level, and am an emperor/demigod player in Civ3/PTW/Conquests. Civ3 is MUCH harder than Civ2 ever was. Civ 2 was better than Civ1, and Civ3 is better than Civ2. I have confidence that Civ4 will be better than Civ3. It's the natural progression of things.

DrSpike · January 8, 2004, 13:29

Deeper often implies easier, since the more depth the harder it is to make the AI play well. I do think the AI has improved for Civ3, as it should many years on, but JT's point that much of the increased difficulty results from simplification aimed at making it easier for the AI to keep up is, I think, a fair one, even if he does shoot himself in the foot by the way he makes it.

vmxa1 · January 8, 2004, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by MotownDennis

Civ 2 was better than Civ1, and Civ3 is better than Civ2. I have confidence that Civ4 will be better than Civ3. It's the natural progression of things.

I was all set to agree with you until I remembered Moo3.