Memories of CIV

[Ned]

I haven't played CIV in perhaps five years. However, I distinctly remember it being a lot harder than subsequent games in the series. So recently I have tried a few games. I get killed every time - within the first 30 or 40 moves - by extremely powerful barbarian armies. You are fighting legion and calvary with skirmishers! Further, one they took a base, they used it to create further barbarians. You had to take it back or else!

So, I guess one the the things the designers when they updated the game from Civ to SMAC is to defang the barbarians - er - natives.

To make the game harder, it would be interesting if the early worms were boils so that your defense of a base against their attack would be iffy at best.

Ned

[Wiglaf]

To make the game harder, it would be interesting if the early worms were boils so that your defense of a base against their attack would be iffy at best.

That would only affect the early game, and I'm sure boils aren't anything a few trance units can't stop. The core problem that causes alpha centauri to be easier than previous civ games, IMO isn't the barbarians. Play enough and you can stop them. It lies in the AI and its management woes.

A good thought, though, and it'd be interesting to see just how tough the game would become.

[Vale Lurk]

>>It lies in the AI and its management woes.

A good point.

My theory is that SMAC/X uses essentially the same AI engine that Civ2 used, but SMAC/X is a more complicated game, with as the designers put it "more different strategies to pursue", or somesuch. So the game is more complex (great!), but because of that, the AI struggles more: More Complexity -> More Stupid AI.
Not only that: More Complexity -> More chance of game unbalancing strategies.

Let's hope they put in more effort for AIs in Civ3, Smac2 ...
(but my No.1 worry is that they won't)

[johndmuller]

I played a lot of CIV when it came out and agree that it was much harder to do well. I frequently tried to play as Great Britain, but found it to be almost impossible, especially if you didn't start out fast and get a major foothold in Europe proper before it was too late (and even then). I think it would make a great Challenge game, starting in UK and trying to recreate Kipling's empire.

I don't think my biggest problem was the barbarians (I think one needs to be more careful about home garrisons than in SMAC); I think it was that the game balancing mechanisms were kind of coarse and perhaps too heavy handed. For example, I don't think that I was ever so far ahead that the spaceship construction race was a slam dunk - it always seemed that the AI could build the ship really fast, even without having shown that kind of industry durilng the regular part of the game; even if I had stockpiled caravans and had some cities with obsolete "wonder" production that could be switched to spaceship parts it was not guaranteed that I would get to AC first.

I still play it a bit, although mostly just a few minutes at a time rather than complete games, but I've forgotten some of the fine points of difference compared to SMAC and sometimes do CIV-stupid things (like building a base-I-mean-city on a barren tile) without thinking. I do even worse now if I start in England.

Of course, there are all the warm fuzzies from the Wonders that are less meaningful in SMAC's SPs.

[MattyBoy]

It's funny.
My memory of Civ is that it became easy to beat resoundingly via ICS.
I'm probably deluding myself.

My approach was to develop cities fully where good tiles existed and just fill in the gaps with cities that did nothing more than support a settler (quicker than building a road, too). Try to use almost all of the tiles in your territory pretty early in the game and expand extremely fast, building roads and developing only the tiles that will be working immediately.

(If you meet anybody early, just refocus entirely on a chariot-rush)

Soon you would have much more pop, hence much more trade, than the AI. This means better technology for war. Then, you just build settlers in your original cities as you run out of tiles to work, and send these settlers to the conquered territories.

Then you can choose whether to leave one enemy city intact and build up the conquered cities and head into space or just conquer all as quickly as possible. Not a hard decision, given the amount of micromanagement involved.

Eventually, I got sick of the ICS and sick of just trying to win by conquest at the earliest possible date. I actually found that I was boosting my enemies early in the game so that I could get more from them when I conquered them. This gave bigger scores and often didn't slow me down.

Until I developed this technique, I loved Civ, but I now have more fun with SMAC as the game remains in the balance for a bit longer and it has less micromanagement and more character.

[Misotu]

This is funny, I don't remember losing a game of Civ in aeons. The barbarians were quite tough if you had the "raging masses" setting or whatever it was (you know what I mean ) but otherwise, not really a problem. Even at their worst, I only used to lose the odd city to them, no big deal.

That's an interesting thought though. It's such a long time since I played Civ. Perhaps now I'd find the Civ AI superior, given the constraints of the game itself. There has to some reason why people are still playing it

[Wiglaf]

*raging hordes*, Misotu, *raging hordes*

ore Complexity -> More Stupid AI.
Not only that: More Complexity -> More chance of game unbalancing strategies.

Looking on the bright side: complexity could mean more interesting multiplayer. Of course, since I don't play MP much...I'd rather the AI be good. Then again, wouldn't we all, if not just for the sake of completion.

Perhaps now I'd find the Civ AI superior, given the constraints of the game itself. There has to some reason why people are still playing it

That's my reason for not jumping ship. Constraints (cough, blatant ai cheats, cough) or not, it's hard, and I like it for that.

[EtheMind]

I think Civ2 is considerably more harder than SMAC. Much because of the complexity. Because of variable strategy options in SMAC AI won't stand a chance in the long run. For example AI really has no idea about missile defense, or efficient invaison, nor optimal base building.

I like the diplomacy more in SMAC. Civ2 had a great interface for diplomacy though. But I think a game such as this needs an ideology perspective. In Civ game it could be handheld through goverment. Same goverment forms have diplomacy advantages and are more likely to make an alliance. Cooperative victory is also essential feature, missing in Civ2.

I tried Civ2 a while ago...and I was bad. Some of it because I tried a new strategy that didn't worked out. I love Civ2, it's where I got started. It's a fantastic game. I still believe SMAC adds a lot to the consept. And I only hope that they understand to implant good features of SMAC into Civ3...

I'm not going to get started about what they should do with Civ3, and what not, I'd never have it finished...

[Basil]

I found Civ II to be easier to win than Civ I, and SMAC to be easier to win than Civ II. In Civ I the barbarians/AI would kill you early - if your city was empty and they found it, you were dead. In Civ II that had been coded away - if worst came to worst, the barbarians/AI would always accept a bribe (I'm talking very early game here) and leave your empty city alone.

As people have said, it's easier to beat the AI in SMAC than in Civ II because the SMAC AI doesn't know how to do various things, starting with terraforming . The attempt in SMAC to make the AI clever by delaying its attack until it had built up its forces backfired too - yes, that makes sense for rovers in the early game, but it makes no sense with missiles, or with 8-1-10 needlejets. *sigh*

[Googlie]

Last 3 weeks (when I found I couldn't connect to the 'net for my PBEM turns) I played a lot of CivII. Forgot just how addicitve that game could be. Couple of all-nighters (or at least till the wee hours)

That's what I miss about smac/x. The "I can't put this game down - just one more turn" feeling. Epitomised in the end game when the AI launches their skeletal spaceship with 13 years to go and you hope that you can complete a full one with the 5.7 years journey in time to win.

Am serously tempted to try my hand at CivII PBEMs (slapping self around head - just what I need, ten more PBEMs !!)

G.

[Misotu]

Groan ... that does it. I have to go dig out CivII again ... now look what you've done

[johndmuller]

Ned, we were talking about CIV I weren't we (I was at least). Having not ever gotten CIV II due to being ticked off by ripoff subsequent products WinCIV and CIVnet, I can't say for sure, but I get the impression that CIV II was easier than CIV I.

[EtheMind]

That's what I miss about smac/x. The "I can't put this game down - just one more turn" feeling.

I have this "One More Turn" problem in just about any fair heavy strategy game. Especially in Civ and SMAC. And in both of them. I do remember though that the feeling of One More Turn was little more present when playing Civ2. I'm not sure why. I think you're right about Civ2 when saying it's more challenge in the late game. I can usually say that I've won the game hands down when I reach 2250 in SMAC, so it's ought to be less appealing ...but it's not

[Misotu]

CivI vs CivII ... hmm. Pedants' Corner I guess

Unless I'm mistaken, CivII was actually harder than CivI, as they limited production switching? And I think the caravans worked differently too somehow, but my memory is hazy now. Perhaps not.

In any event, the graphics and diplomacy were a lot better in CivII. Played it once, put CivI back in the box and left it there IIRC. If there is a difference in difficulty, it was not apparent to me ... unbeaten on deity level, or whatever it's called (SP of course), in both I and II ...

[EtheMind]

At least Sid Meier feels that Civ2 is harder than Civ, they like to point that out in the manual, I remember that. I guess he knows better...

Civ2 is pretty much Civ with all those little tweaks into gameplay itself ang quite huge improvement on graphics. I see little point going back for Civ with any other than nostalgic reasons.

[Ned]

John, Yes I was talking about Civ I. WinCiv had some interesting bugs and was a lot slower on the that day's PC's.

The reason I think CIV I was harder than all subsequent versions is that that the AI could get trade routes without actually sending caravan. This provided then with significant trade income that has not been enjoyed by the AI until the recent changes we have suggested here to make the AI passive.

Ned

[Blake]

Didn't the Civ1 AI cheat like crazy? Like getting free Wonders / spaceships...

[EtheMind]

Doesn't all Civ serie AI players "cheat like crazy"?

[Ned]

Blake, I don't know if the wonders were free or not since we didn't have infiltrator ability in that game. However, after the AI had researched a tech, it would soon get the wonder.

I suspect what was actually happening was this:

It built caravans in other cities, which when built could automatically be cashed in a city building an SP. This probably made it seem as if there was a cheat going on. Even today the AI builds crawlers to rush build an SP. I don't this this behavior is anything new.

I am also convinced that the AI rush builds SP using EC's. I have been monitoring competitive AI SP builds. Many times it has, for example, 10 turns to go. Maybe one or two adjacent cities are building crawlers. However, the next time you check, there are 0 turns to go. How did this happen? It either cashed a lot of crawlers that we could not see, or else used money to rush build.

Obviously, the AI was doing the same thing in CIV I, but we simply could not see it.

Also, does anyone remember seeing an AI diplomat in CIV I? Not me. However, I have had numerous cities captured by AI dipllomats I never saw.

Ned

[EtheMind]

Spooky ... I have never played Civ I. That sounds terrible Ned. We're all with you on this one!