CTP too easy....

[VetteroX]

Sorry if im breaking the current discussion, but I have to say something. Ive been reading posts all over, and everytime I read one, especially the reviews of CTP2, everyone seems to play on beginer or the second easiest level. My question: WHY!!?? how is that fun? A retarded monkey could beat it on that level. I love the civ series I think CTP2 is great, but ALL the civ games share 1 problem: TOO EASY! I played my first game of CTP2 on hard, and won by a long way with increadable ease, with 7 other civs and barbarians on the second highest level. So, I start another on Very Hard. This time, 2 civs started right next to me, and I took them both with some struggle. Now, the computer controlled other 5 nations matched me in tech and military until the very start of the modern age, but I rushed to Corp Republic, and then FLEW by them in tech and $ and easily won again. Its just too easy. I want a challenge. I want to fight for my nations existance. I want a reason to rush through military tech for survival. I want a nation to stand up to my armines instead of having to fight 3 nations at a time for challenge. I GIVE my enemies tech to make them harder because they are always so far behind. In Civ 2 and CTP1 I turned on cheat and gave the AI units and enlargened thier cities to make it harder. Im going to try "impossible" next, and I hope its a challenge. What I want to ask is why everyone plays on such easy levels? I dont consider myself much above average inteligence, Im sure 1/3 of my words are misspelled. But I find civ games so easy, and nobody else I talk to agrees with me. Plz respond if you do agree, and if you think its a hard game, PLEASE tell me WHY you think so..... Also, in CTP1 I edited the units stengths to make it more like I think it should be ( like making so a machine gunner could actually beat a fortified pikeman.... 10 pikeman couldnt beat 1 macine gunner in real life... ) Is there any way I can edit CTP2 to make the comp better and more agressive?

[Bender]

I couldn't agree more, VetteroX. While I haven't played at the impossible level yet either, I have concerns that it will not live up to its name.

Regarding ways to manipulate the AI to be tougher, I usually play with a large land mass on a small map with many trade goods. Due to being on the same continent, the AI will be hostile towards my civ. Consequently I spend much of the game at alert or war status.

If these suggestions don't work, I guess we'll have to resort to multiplayer.

[jbs]

They are not that hard, but I don't think they are that easy. I played Chieftain than Prince, King, Emperor on Civ1. With Civ2, I started at King. Now, I would win most of the time on Emperor and about 50% of the time in Deity in Civ2. (and if I back up and make one or two critical changes I would then win the deity game I lost). CTP1 was very easy as I won almost immediately on Deity, but with various modifications, the AA is very good. Haven't tried CTP2 and probably won't for a long time, so I can't compare.

[Carrion]

Why do people always compain about AI in computer games. Don't people know that a computer can never out think a human being? I agree if you don't like the AI then play some multiplayer games with real humans. I myself find the AI hard and yet dumb at the same time.

I see lots of the same patterns that everybody complains about, and I saw the same patterns in CIV, CIV2, and CCTP. The only big difference is in CIV 1&2 there was no stacking of units so you were a bit more at a disadvantage. The CTP engine seems to not stack as big as a human player does. But still I'm having a dickens of a time killing 7 civs on medium difficulty.

I also agree that it has bugs but that, however unfortunately that may be, is the defacto standard for sofware companies now. I think we have a bit to do with that. We get so excited when we hear about a new title that is coming out and we hound the developers to let us know whats going on and when its going to get released. They feel pressured by their public to rush and release it to our grubby little hands.

Anyway those are my thoughts on this subject plus a few more.

[Atahualpa]

quote: Don't people know that a computer can never out think a human being?

Thats not the point!
If they know that their AI will suck then they should have not started developing the game!

Ata

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa on 11-29-2000 03:57 PM Thats not the point! If they know that their AI will suck then they should have not started developing the game!

i am afraid you are suggesting the end of single player mode in all strategy games

[Carrion]

I think you underestimate how hard it is to create an AI that will offer a good challenge to a human being. In every game I've every video game computer players in the start of the learning process have challenged me. However, I get use to the patterns the AI does and I plan my stratagies accordingly. Some games are designed to give the computer players extreme advantages such as blatant cheating. Heck 3D shooters have started to ship with no AI whatsoever. They are pure multiplayer, Quake 3 is as close as an example of this I can think of. I myself don't see AI becoming a replacement, or even coming close, to online gaming.

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa on 11-29-2000 03:57 PM Thats not the point! If they know that their AI will suck then they should have not started developing the game!

I think you're going a bit far there. I'm not even going to bother explaining why, because I think it's obvious.

------------------
- MKL Shameless Plug: http://www.poetic-license.org ............. All welcome.
"And a sun that doesn't set but settles" - Augie March

the point is clear. Surely they must know how weak their ai is. That is no excuse to say that no ai can be intelligent or good. I don't expect big blue (or whatever that supercomputer chess thing was). I just expect an ai comparable to civ2's and I have yet to see that.

[AI_Scripter]

quote: Originally posted by Dissident Aggressor on 11-30-2000 02:06 AM the point is clear. Surely they must know how weak their ai is. That is no excuse to say that no ai can be intelligent or good. I don't expect big blue (or whatever that supercomputer chess thing was). I just expect an ai comparable to civ2's and I have yet to see that.

Is Civ2's AI really better? I have never played it and so I'm curious. What made it better? How does it compare to SMAC's AI? Could it launch larger attacks?
[This message has been edited by AI_Scripter (edited November 30, 2000).]

I wouldn't say it launches larger attacks. I have yet to see a tbs that can do this, the same goes for amphibious and/or overseas invasion. the AI is incapable of this. But it does launch many more offensive attacks than ctp2 does. At sometimes there will be a continuous stream of units heading my way. Now there are ways around this. Many conquerers have learned early to smack the ai up early with knights. don't let them build up uncontested. But if the ai in civ2 has the resources they will use them.

The one major flaw I see with the ai in ctp2 is it seems to think the best defensive is a lot of defensive units. What better way to knock out an invasion force than with a mobile offensive force of your own? A good civ game that has military as a central part should have an ai that uses an offense as the best defense. At the very least an ai should be able to defend itself (so far I've yet to see this in ctp2). And of course an added bonus would be the ability to take more than 1 or 2 poorly defended cities (although I don't expect this in civ3 or in the next 3 to 4 years. possibly never with multiplayer taking center stage).

Now I would like to run some tests to verify this. Anyone who has played the red front scenario in civ2 can verify the ai has the ability to take even well defended cities if given the proper resources. I'd like to create similar events in ctp2 giving the ai tons of offensive units and test it's ability to use them in an offensive manner.
[This message has been edited by Dissident Aggressor (edited November 30, 2000).]

[Tilemacho]

VetteroX: My review was after my first game in CTP2 and it was played on the third level, which I consider logical...

Until now I have played 2 games in impossible and they were both an easy win....(I did not even bother to complete those games)

CTP2 IS EASY IN IMPOSSIBLE LEVEL...!!!

BUT...the AI in CTP2 is much, much better than in CIV2! The reason why the game is so easy is that in CTP2 the AI cheats much lesser and because it's much easier for the human player to develop:

1. In CIV2 I remember that from size 2 my cities revolted unless I built temple. In CTP2 I had size 6 cities with no happiness problems!!!

2. The capitol distance unhappiness is not a problem even in giga maps!

3. the first 6 workers work on 9 tiles! That makes the development of a city much easier than in CIV2

4. I think that if the AI is far ahead in CTP2 then it is more difficult for him to discover new advances...this prevents the AI to become very,very strong early in the game

5. the AI in CTP2 could be much more aggressive...


MY CONCLUSION...is that the game is not balanced very well and that it could become a real challenge for everyone with some minor changes...e.g (impossible level) you could start with happiness 73 and not 75, the AI could start with 3 settlers and more gold and should be able to find new advances easier.....

you see I am not talking about complicated things to make AI better...unfortunately I tried to change this settings and then I had this "corrupted saves" problem

so now I am waiting for a mod or the patch to start playing the game again.............

tilemacho, check out the diffdb.txt in the gamedata folder

you can set many thing about the difficulty levels there(including unhappiness, starting settings, etc)

[Dalai Lama]

I started to play my first game at a huge map, 5 civs, and at the Very Hard setting; well, as a Civ2 and Ctp veteran I didn`t have the slightest trouble become the world nr 1 in all areas. There was no challenge anymore so I stopped with that game. I started a new one at the impossoble level, again with 5 civs, and I find this more of challenge. However, economically and scientific i`m the best, only my military is quite small but effective. With an attacking force of only 5 tanks and 5 artillery and a couple machine gunners i easily took control of 3 scottish cities, size, 4, 13 and 19!!! And by the way the year is 1400AD...
But anyway, at least I have some opposition from the Americans and the English in this game. I`m sure that if I play with 8 civs, the challenge will again be a lot bigger!!!

[CyberGnu]

Sorry to disappoint you Dalai, with more civs the game gets easier... They fight more with each other, and compete madly for space.

In civII this wasn't much of a problem, since as soon as you were number one, they would all gang up on you, sharing research as much as they could. I have not seen any such behaviour in CTP2. In fact, in one game on impossible I kept happy relations with four civs, while killing the fifth, then reduced them one after one... The remaining civs apparently never caught on that I was a warmongering bastard. It felt like fighting a world led by Chamberlains...

------------------
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine

tanks in 1400ad?
i'm doing something wrong in my games....

[Tilemacho]

Mark: I know about that and I already tried it...the problem is that after that I get this "corrupted saves bug" which is VERY ANNOYING

I also tried to play with 28 civs and again the same problem appeared (...but I guess I can't complane about that since "officialy" no more than 8 civs are supported... )
[This message has been edited by Tilemacho (edited December 01, 2000).]

[Men]

I also feel that the ai isnt very strong. I waited until I had played a bunch of games to come to this conclusion. As soon as I get bombers and tanks its all over for the poor ai civs.

At impossible I trailed behind quite a bit but played nice and minded my manners. When I get nationalism I start spying to build up my tech. Again, once I get bombers and tanks I build up and airforce and ground force and systematically take one city after the other. No counter attacks, very little seen for defensive tactics. Once, they did create a counter strike of about 6 fighters but this was easily squashed and my scourge continued.

If any of my neighbors had pressed home an attack at my core cities I would have been crushed. As another poster said the rest of the civs just sat back and watched as I rubbed them out one by one. By creating two bomber/fighter (8 bomber/4 fighters per group) groups and about 18 tanks I slowly become the world ruler.

It was fun while it lasted. I will not be playing any other single player games. Thankfully there is multiplayer.

[wheathin]

Civ 2 solved this problem in an easy way:

1. The weaker A is relative to B, the less likely A is to do anything B asks. (Unless A is completely irrelevant - i.e. down to two cities, or has just been brutalized and crushed into submission by B, etc.)

2. This is doubly true is B is the civ currently in first place.

3. This is doubly true again! if B is human.

4. If the A-B gulf gets too big, and B is too powerful, A *or* B will attack no matter what. (This ensures that tiny powers will band together to try 'one last gasp' to thwart a hegemon, but also that a large powerful AI civ will gobble up its weak neighbors.)


Since humans were frequently in the lead early, all the computers would ally, and share research. If you counterattacked any single AI, they would all declare war because of the interlocking alliances. And for some reason the AI was smart enough to avoid multi-front wars if possible, so it kept inter-AI fighting to a minimum, unless at peace with the human.

This shouldn't be too tough to incorporate in the CTP2 AI.


But a word of caution. It will solve some of the CtP problems, such as the computers never being willing to gang up, and it might lead to the emergence of larger empires as AI's go for the jugular and wipe each other out.

But it will mean that the AIs will be tougher to control as the game goes on. CTP1 players complained about the AI not making or honoring treaties with them, even when the player was so far ahead that dispatching a pesky civ was like swatting a fly. Honestly, how many times in Civ2 could you get enemy civs to do anything in the late stages of the game without the UN wonder and the Statue of Liberty?

If you want a nastier AI, you'll get it. But it'll be tougher all around - more suspicious and aggressive in diplomacy and non-conventional warfare as well as in miltary matters. You'll get different problems, but they may not be any better, or any more fun.

[DarkOrder]

Well, I agree that the AI is not always difficult. There is a reason for that. What type of AI is it?

Let me give you a little story that happened last week:

I played a MP game with 3 other guys against 4 AI. 1 AI (AI1) went to war with me and another human player by turn 30 (started in Rennaisance, huge map, with lots of islands). The other player had to retreat to another island (lost about 6 cities). It took me about 20 turns to launch a successful counter offensive into the AI's empire. I took 3 of his cities and then came up against some major resistence. I was at peace with another AI (AI2), but that AI had attacked our 3rd human player and was quickly wiping him out. Our 4th player was playing isolationist and just grew his cities on his small island and defended it. The game was about 6 hours old at this point when we found the other 2 AI. These AI had the highest scientific and military ranking.

Needless to say, the AI can be very difficult. I am sure that I could have taken all 4 AI out, with the help of the other 4 guys, but it would have taken a while.

Maybe if you are really good, you should find others to play online with. That may give you the challenge you desire. Oh, I almost forgot: If you think that I and my friends suck at this game, let me let you in on a little secret: We QA'd this thing. The AI can be very hard to defeat. Just because you wiped out the AI a few times, don't think every game will be like that. You can also set the AI to a certain empire type in the game text files. I like Evil Genius or Idealistic Isolationist myself.


Smooshies

[MrFun]

Ok - I HAVE to find a way to modify any text file where I can enable AI opponents to transport an army overseas and with the Cargo Helicopter.

Does anyone know how to do this?

[Darkknight]

There is a txt. file Strategy.txt or something.I heard there is a line (AIAttack or something) if you move it further up the file or change the no. . there should be a AIDefense line or something change the Attack line to the same no. position in file.

I just heard this i don't even have the game so i can't check it out.if someone sends me the strategy.txt file I'd look over it see what i can do (if you're too engrossed in the game to bother, I don't have it for 7 more days.

------------------
" mind over body "

check this thread about the time the ai has... http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum44/HTML/000082.html

[Solver]

It's not so easy, all in all. However, to get real challenge, there are 2 things to do:
a) Play multiplayer
b) Get (or create) some mods to get it harder

After Civ2, I have tried SMAC. It seemed nice, and had some aspects of the game I really missed in Civ2 (and CTP), but it was so easy... Damned SMAC AI. When I said theat on one of the forums, there was a reply : "you probably are an experienced Civ player". In SMAC, I have done Librarian in a week, Trascend in 10 days. After some 2 weeks it got boring, I could handle him at any level.

------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com

[vstamenov]

I played CTP II on impossible and it isn't really difficult. It seems that it is even easier than CTP I.
The problem here is that (if I am not mistaken) the difference between the different levels is in the initial advantage the computer players receive. So it all comes down to surviving the first hundred turns. After that your better management and strategy will help you overcome the AIs. Compare this with the CIV II where the computer players have advantage in production , research and happiness management. But we all know that CIV II is still too easy- I cannot remember the last time I lost on deity level.

[Celestial_Dawn]

No kidding. My first game was Impossible, Normal size map and I had communism in 1520. Game is too easy - difficulty settings need to be tweaked.

Artillery unit is unbalanced and available too early - I got them like 15 or so turns after Cannon - used them guarded by MGs to totally wipe out all my nearby opponents. If not for the city size limit probably could have won the game from there but it got boring.

Also noticed that Infantrymen do a damage of 3? It's a 2 point jump from 1. For the cost of that unit it's really overpowered vs ancient units.

I think there is a lot of scope for modifications in a mod-pack.

I'm not sure if I ever want to play a Normal map again, even with max players ... the later stages of the game are mind-numbing boring when you have to move 40 or so different units every turn ... and manage production for 55 odd cities.

The Mayors pretty much suck - they only "Build" not "Manage" ie they do not tweak your specialist count nor do they know how to use entertainers to keep your individual cities happy. As a result, once you get over 30 cities micro is a PITA.

Grrrr. Someone design a mod with a smart Mayor or something. Out.

first of all, hi CD, glad to have you back!
and i hope you're staying!

quote: Originally posted by Celestial_Dawn on 12-10-2000 05:51 AM Game is too easy - difficulty settings need to be tweaked.

yeah, but you've been INTO the ctp1/2 game mechanics for over 1.5 years now! if you cant win it on impossible on your first game, i would be surprised

quote: I think there is a lot of scope for modifications in a mod-pack.

sounds good!

quote: the later stages of the game are mind-numbing boring when you have to move 40 or so different units every turn ... and manage production for 55 odd cities.

i find myself aiming for the diplomatic or the scientific victory instead of conquest to avoid the end-less war with everyone...

quote: The Mayors pretty much suck - they only "Build" not "Manage" ie they do not tweak your specialist count

actually they do change your specialists.

quote: nor do they know how to use entertainers to keep your individual cities happy.

eya, i'm not 100% sure about that, but i saw the same thing...
there is also no way to override their specialist changes, except from turning them off
they could be better...

[Celestial_Dawn]

Hi Mark

We'll see about whether I'm staying or not - I had this huge urge to mod the thing (CtP2) to my satisfaction when I was playing through it the first time. If so, I'd probably work with WesW on this.

But the 55 city micro really got to me Plus there were only remnants of 3 civilisations which were a) almost dead or b) dying to take care of, so I didn't really see the point of playing further. The date? 1924AD (I think).

Well, to do a proper job on modding I'd have to do some heavy spreadsheeting but I'm having crunch time at work right now, and unless someone solves the 55 city micro problem, I might get bored of the game too quick to actually sit down and do this

Re: too easy

Errr, I dunno, I haven't played CtP1/2 for a while, I'd expect to have forgotten a couple of things (actually I've forgotten almost everything) and I'd expect to lose the first time.

Reason I won I think was because of the power of artillery protected by MGs -> this implies game imbalance (even on Impossible), not my godly CtP playing skills.

Off-topic, but I'd love to get a PBEM going someday ... if only to see how good I am vs other real life players. But PBEM I think might take too long ... maybe if we kept the group small? Want to organise one?

Hope you guys have got your complimentary copy already - Dave Fischer (or was it White or Stewart? argh) wrote to me but I wrote back telling him I had resigned and while I wouldn't mind a copy, I didn't expect one. The copy I have is borrowed.

Re: scientific and diplomatic victory

Hmmmm, I've always been a kill-everything-in-sight guy. They're not alive, you don't have to worry about them. Plus it works. But I'll give the other options some thought next time round.

Re: Mayors changing specialists

Yes, the Mayors do change specialists but they change the wrong ones. Case in point - I go set my cities for Growth after I've already built the Granary and Food Silo. What does the dumb Mayor do? He goes and builds Artillery, puts 2 farmers when he could have maxed the farmers while maintaining happiness. I had cities rioting every turn under the guise of this "Growth" mayor.

The "Science" mayor wasn't much better either. He never made a single scientist specialist. All he knew to do was build a Publishing House, after which it was Artillery again. Groan. Yeah, and they were all rioting too, doesn't he understand what "entertainers" are?

So I might as well micro the cities myself - the mayors are a joke

I wonder if playing small map, 8 civs changes the game dynamic too much. In which case it might not be the appropriate test platform for balancing ...

Re: diplomacy

Ummmm, I spend my entire game telling them not to pirate, they pirate. Please STOP TRESPASSING, damn AI says "Ok" but his stupid Archer / Settler group still sits there. I tell them to trade stuff with me, I'm giving them GUNPOWDER for Concrete - and they say "No." Hey, sounds very familiar (CtP1) right?

Plus, almost all of them refuse peace treaties with me (hehe, and you wonder why I just prefer to kill the ungrateful SOBs). By the time I reach Nationalism and Spies, I'm already ahead of them in tech ... so nothing to trade for ... (and this is Impossible ugh - my gut feeling is we need to make the Diplomats come earlier like I originally modded for CtP1).

Dunno, there are a lot of places that can improved on as far as modding is concerned. Unit balance too ... fighters also seem a little powerful ... also notice how overpowered Archers are? The new combat mechanism in CtP2 actually seems to give ranged units first strike capability even in the front ranks. Maybe I'm imagining it, but I'm finding that a huge group of ranged units protected by front line units with high defense (Hoplite, Pikeman) are better than some ranged units and more offense units (Samurai). My 8 Archer, 4 Hoplite group kicks a lot more ass than my 5 Archer, 7 Samurai group ... If it is true that ranged units now have first strike capability, then their costs need to be seriously revised upwards. Right now, it's just a gut feeling from my observations, but my gut feelings are usually pretty accurate. Given time, will bear more investigation.

Hmmmmm, and the "remember combat result" feature of CtP is going to make testing combat a real PITA. Have to reload Scen Editor everytime to try another random result sigh ... or has this been removed? I don't know.

Personally I find that CtP1 modded gives a much better challenge than CtP2. Of course, CtP2 modded will be superior ... but buying CtP2 means that you paid Activision for what CtP1 should have been in the first place, and which is not as good as CtP1 modded, with the exception of borders (great thing!).

I know, wrong place to post all this, should be in Modding forum, but I'm short of time right now. Maybe later I'll drop by in the other forum and cut-paste relevant parts.

Can't say for now what I'll be doing with this game (if at all). First, let me get RL work out of the way, and then we'll see.

Have great fun with CtP2 Mark!
[This message has been edited by Celestial_Dawn (edited December 11, 2000).]

quote: Originally posted by Celestial_Dawn on 12-11-2000 01:16 AM and unless someone solves the 55 city micro problem, I might get bored of the game too quick to actually sit down and do this

havent you tried giving build orders to multiple cities at once?

quote: Off-topic, but I'd love to get a PBEM going someday ...

only thing, pbem is cut in ctp2
(there is an unofficial way to do it though. dont know how it good it works. check the multiplaying forum)

quote: Hope you guys have got your complimentary copy already - Dave Fischer (or was it White or Stewart? argh) wrote to me but I wrote back telling him I had resigned and while I wouldn't mind a copy, I didn't expect one. The copy I have is borrowed.

Dave White. I think almost all of the A-Team has got their final copies. 3-4 people got it on Friday

quote: I go set my cities for Growth after I've already built the Granary and Food Silo. What does the dumb Mayor do? He goes and builds Artillery,

yes, cause there is nothing else to build which can improve growth...

btw, the build lists are editable...

quote: puts 2 farmers when he could have maxed the farmers while maintaining happiness. I had cities rioting every turn under the guise of this "Growth" mayor.

yeah, it seems that the mayors dont care if the city is under the normal happiness level.

quote: Ummmm, I spend my entire game telling them not to pirate, they pirate. Please STOP TRESPASSING, damn AI says "Ok" but his stupid Archer / Settler group still sits there.

i tend to believe that you have to "prove your power" to the AI in order to start listening to you. the lack of feedback when you're rejected leaves experience as your only tool to figure out how to do well in diplomacy...

check the diplomacies.txt to see the negative and positive regard bonuses according to your actions

quote: my gut feeling is we need to make the Diplomats come earlier like I originally modded for CtP1).

yeah, i think it would be interesting to try that. i believe it would make the game shorter too, due the trade of techs...

quote: but I'm finding that a huge group of ranged units protected by front line units with high defense (Hoplite, Pikeman) are better than some ranged units and more offense units (Samurai).

that is correct, and i think it's a "feature" not a "bug"

quote: but buying CtP2 means that you paid Activision for what CtP1 should have been in the first place, and which is not as good as CtP1 modded, with the exception of borders (great thing!).

i dont know. ctp1 kempt me busy for months, with and without mods. and that's all it matter to me. not what i would like ctp1 to be or what it was advertized to be. as for ctp2, i find it to be different enough to be called a sequel

oh, and no offence but i believe that

CtP1 + Mods < CtP2