Annoyances with difficulty levels

[Blue Moose]

I think I am a pretty good Civ3 player, but there is something about the two highest difficulty levels that really irks me. I guess it is just the blatant cheating of the AI...totally impossible not to notice. On Emperor it gets an extra settler, and 6 extra land units, and deity gives it two extra settlers, a worker, and 12 extra land units.....to say nothing of the fact that everything is cheaper for the AI to build.

I recognize and understand that in any game on those difficulty levels you are going to be behind the AI for a long time...but I just can't get myself to play for very long. Maybe it's my ego, or maybe I just want a fair fight, but I just feel irked whenever I am playing on the high difficulties.

It seems the AI cheats even more in Civ3 than in Civ2....I don't think the game is that much more complicated...so you'd think they'd have had some advances with AI development so it wouldn't need to cheat as much. Anyhow, does anyone else feel the same as me on this?

It would have been nice to have multiple difficulty sliders, some for giving the AI cheating abilities, and some for just a harder AI. As it is though...it seems the AI is basically the same on all difficulty levels, and only wether it is handicapped or allowed to cheat is changed.

[miccofl]

it seems the AI is basically the same on all difficulty levels, and only wether it is handicapped or allowed to cheat is changed.

That is correct. Open the editor, click on the dificulty levels tab and you will see how it is set up - you can change it if you like.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
It would have been nice to have multiple difficulty sliders, some for giving the AI cheating abilities, and some for just a harder AI. As it is though...it seems the AI is basically the same on all difficulty levels, and only wether it is handicapped or allowed to cheat is changed.

Blue Moose, you are mixing two different things together. The AIs are playing with an advantage on the higher difficulty levels (more free units on turn 1, lower production/research requirements etc.). IOW, they do not have to be that good in terms of their intelligence to be worthy opponents.

OTOH, cheating is something different. The amount of "cheating" (doing things you can't) is the same on all levels and AFAIK there are only very few cheats actually confirmed.

IIRC, there is no difference in the AI intelligence between various difficulty levels, the only thing that gets adjusted are production/research bonuses, free units on turn 1 and support costs. Maybe the agressiveness level, too, I am not sure.

You can't have your "AI intelligence level" slider, as the AI engine is not scalable. It's the same on all difficulty levels, at least AFAIK.

If you consider Emperor/Deity no fun, play on Monarch. You are facing the same AI brain all the time, just your handicap is different.

[jshelr]

If you are beating Monarch too easily and getting bored, then I'd advise moving up. If you keep bashing at Emperor, you will find it is regularly beatable and that you can catch up from the early deficit quite quickly.

Deity is, for me anyway, another story........

[wohmongarinf00l]

there is indeed a change in the AI aggression level on the higher difficulties. basically it just becomes a more brutal environment. it gets so that things left alone, they break down faster.

[HazieDaVampire]

don't worry, some people find it a nice challenge, some people find it off putting to be 200 units, 20citys and a hole age behind the AI.

[Thrawn05]

Emperor and Deity are mostly for those Warmongers out there, because a building a like me can't handle it, and even my resent warmongering ability are unable to handle it (see the second link in my sig).


I can play monarch, but I lose usualy due to an AI culture, Diplo or Space Race win. Somthing I have to handle.

I general stay a Regent. It makes for a nice even game, of course I increase corruption a little to make more fun.

[vmxa1]

All levels are beatable, you just have to learn the curve. It was the same in Moo/Moo2. Once you figure out where you have to be at what point, you get that peacefulness. When you first try the highest level, you get intimitated, but then you see the milestones and learn to reach them and you can handle it. Knowing the AI will not make good use of its extra resources, allows you to get back in the game at Deity. You can even take down a city while they have their 14-16 warriors as they will foolishly spread them out and they will seldom have anything but regulars. Just don't fail at the attempt. You just have to find the level that is fun for you. That could be Warlord, Monarch or Deity, it is all good. Like Thrawn05 said, builders will not enjoy the higer levels, warmongers may.

[Minmaster]

hang in there, when u get ur first diety victory it will be sweet...i, like many others was diety only player for civ series and smac series. diety on those games were way too easy though and i like the challenge of the civ3 diety. yea it does tick me off when the AI has 3-4 cities with a horde of units when i get my first settler, and most of the games i play are huge struggles just to stay competitive. although i exclusively play diety only on civ3, but i am not saying i dominate it by any means. i find emperor although just one level below not tough enough. one thing i do is, at some point in the ancient age, i know whether i have a chance or no chance in being a world power. if i am too behind in AI, i usually give up and start another one. yes, i too had to learn to be a warmonger because on diety i've only won maybe 2-3 diety games without fighting wars. however, the warmongering makes the game so tedious for me that even when i find myself whoopin AI ass, i usually dont have the urge to finish the game. however, i think diety level is a good thing, we always need more challenge. it is diety after all, u have to be very good to win. but i dont think there will be a simple strategy for winning on diety. i just accept the fact that most diety games, ill lose, but few i will win.

[Lord Merciless]

I have to say that I don't enjoy the Deity level. It basically requires non-stop warmongerings with (maybe) some short peace times between. Any game that only allows 1 type effective strategy is boring.

[Blue Moose]

It isn't that I don't think I can win....I guess I am just annoyed by the fact that the AI isn't scaleable. I'd just prefer to be playing against a smarter AI, as opposed to what I shall call the "Hulk" system. There's just something annoying about it. I'll still try those levels now and then....but I guess it just peeves me a bit (as opposed to Monarch where the AI has the same resources as you...more or less). I guess it sounds silly, but it is sort of an aesthetics thing. I'm annoyed that the game didn't come with an AI that scales. (I guess I also get annoyed that CivIII seems a lot worse at giving you a decent starting location compared to CivII). It's all manageable....I think I'll like playing multiplayer.

To sum up. I'd prefer to play against Bruce Banner as opposed to the Hulk....I think they could have made a more scaleable AI. (They could have used genetic algorithms to make a good AI, I think).

I think I have been somewhat repetitive, hmm.

[vmxa1]

Maybe they could have, but understand the game has a lot to contend with. It is not just a simple chess game. Designing a game to be unique for several levels with this many variable to deal with is a big under taking. Look at all the fixes that were required to deal with the myrid of tactics that the players can come up with. The board is not even constant, it can be many sizes and content (water area,land, islands)

[Catt]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
I have to say that I don't enjoy the Deity level. It basically requires non-stop warmongerings with (maybe) some short peace times between. Any game that only allows 1 type effective strategy is boring.

I largely agree with LM - it could be that I'm just not good enough, but my Deity games always channel me into one macro startegy - early, constant, oscillating warfare. I just don't have as much fun when I'm forced to follow the same overall approach regardless of civ, map, start location, etc.

I also think the early unit bonuses are peanuts compared to the production bonuses - 60% cost for pop growth, all build items, tech costs, etc. makes it (seemingly) impossible to keep up without aggressive expansion at the expense of your neighbors.

I have more fun on Emperor, with occasional forays into Monarch and Deity, and so that's what I play. (I also just had a good deal of fun playing a Regent OCC game).

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Emperor and Deity are mostly for those Warmongers out there, because a building a like me can't handle it, and even my resent warmongering ability are unable to handle it (see the second link in my sig).

I've actually found that largely peaceful games are more viable under 1.29f (assuming you play on a PC and not a Mac). The first couple of games I played under 1.29f I kind of got shafted with the random civ / random map selector and felt I was largely forced into a peaceful early game. Both early experiments were both winnable and won, and I now don't discount the viability of playing a largely peaceful game on Emperor -- I say largely peaceful because I generally will have to go to war several times because (1) an AI civ will attack, (2) I really need a luxury or strategic resource that I can get only through warfare, or (3) I just get bored playing purely peacefully .

Blue Moose - I found the biggest change between Monarch and Emperor was going from 2 content citizens to 1 content citizen -- once you get a better handle on happiness and city pop management under the 1-born-content regime, I think Emperor will provide a good challenge. By contrast, the biggest challenge for me between Emperor and Deity is the jump from 80% AI production bonuses to 60% AI production bonuses - tough to keep up for me without a lot of aggressive expansion and wars targeted at crippling other civs.

At the end of the day, I still lose on Emperor often enough to make the game both fun and challenging. If I can almost always win from a variety of start situations, maybe I'll mod Deity to follow the other levels' 10% progressions (making Deity a 70% production bonus instead of 60%) until I get a handle on that (if ever).

Catt

[cracker]

I am with Catt on most of this discussion of Difficulty levels.

I play at Emperor level most of the time because I still have a few extra drops of blood to squeeze out of different areas of the game play.

I would play diety type games more often, but I find that the "one size fits all" approach that Soren has hard coded into the game is absolutely irresponsible. There should be different AI cost factor advantages for: unit production, growth, tech research, city improvement/small wonders, and great wonders.

If I were setting the difficulty levels to match what I would think to be a challenging but enjoyable game then Diety would look like:

AI unit production costs: 50-60% of the human
AI city improvement cost: 60% of the human
AI growth advantage: 80% of the human (instead of the current 60%)
AI great wonder cost: 80% of the human (instead of the current 60%)
Human tech research cost: 125% of the AI (instead of the current 167%)

Current tech research in V1.29 on Diety is totally dependendent on the AI players. If you start on an isolated island or if the AIs engange in early wars and incapacitate each other then the game becomes a tedious mess where the human player is too incapacitated to even participate in research progression. The current AI cost factors and human cost factors lead the Diety AIs to research techs for 40 coins and then demand 60-80 coins for the same tech when they try to sell it to the human.

The current AI cost advantage applied to great wonders means that successful human players can rarely build even one of the early great wonders and if they do it usually comes at the substantial risk of loosing the whole game just because of a single great wonder decision.

It would also be nice to have a slider that would determine, the percentage of performance of the AIs so we could get a better distribution of high performers and low performers as opponents in the game. This slider would just let us select the probability that there would be more than one super AI in each game. Currently the AI's are very borgesque at the diety level because they all have the same advantages that play into and reinforce they singular hardcoded strategy

[Theseus]

Originally posted by cracker
It would also be nice to have a slider that would determine, the percentage of performance of the AIs so we could get a better distribution of high performers and low performers as opponents in the game. This slider would just let us select the probability that there would be more than one super AI in each game. Currently the AI's are very borgesque at the diety level because they all have the same advantages that play into and reinforce they singular hardcoded strategy

3B, wet, warm, on standard or large maps, will create a spectrum of AI civ success.

Of course, this means the AI winners will be that much harder to deal with... re-starting for a good position provides reasonable balance for the player.

[Thrawn05]

Here's an idea.

Why not let the AI learn from your style.

Example:

After every game (that is, when the player wins or loses), the computer compiles a list of averages on what you did. Every time you finish a game, it recalcalcuates from this file.

When you start a new game, it sees this files and gives it guidence on what to do next.


See where I'm getting at?

[Tuberski]

like Wargames and the tic tac toe thing?

Then the AI wouldn't want to play.

[Barchan]

I don't really see any problems with the difficulty levels. Emperor and Deity are *supposed* to be tough. That's what makes them a challenge to play. Sure, it'd be great if it was tougher because the AI was "smarter" and played better, but that's just not particularly feasible at this time, so it'll have to be given a "head start" instead.

I think some of the complaints stem from two basic problems: 1) people used to be able to beat the highest levels of the old Civ games regularly by employing particular strategies that no longer work, and 2) a lot of people seem to think that winning on Deity gives you a larger wee-wee. But look, people, it really doesn't. It's a game you should play because you enjoy it, not in some feeble attempt to impress anyone else with your gaming prowess (which, in the real world, I’m sorry to say impresses no one at all). If you're a builder and the AI is too powerful to compete with at Deity, play Monarch or Regent. There's no shame in it, man! If it's not fun to play the higher levels, don't. But if a challenge is your idea of fun, then move up. It's just that simple.

As a runner, I can offer this analogy. I can run a ten-minute mile or a six-minute mile. Ten-minute miles are easy, but six-minute miles are more challenging and take focus and a lot of effort. Sometimes, if the weather is really nice and I feel like enjoying myself, I'll run a nice, easy 30-minute 3-mile run. On other times, I'll try to challenge myself to run the 3 miles in under 20 minutes. If I can, I feel good about having overcome the challenge and succeeded. If not, I'll try to figure out what went wrong and improve my "score" next time. But if the next day is nice and sunny, should I feel bad that I'd rather have a 30-minute run? Am I less of a person because I can't run 3 miles in under 20 minutes? Or 15 minutes? There are people who could do so in under 13. Should I quit running because I can't? Should I complain that 3-minute miles are just too hard and refuse to run until I'm given an advantage or the faster people are somehow handicapped?

Obviously not. I run because I enjoy it, and I play games for the same reason. I think too many people attach too much value to titles, labels and ranking for what is supposed to be entertainment. If you're training for competition, that's one thing. But if it's just recreational, figure out what you like and do it, and don't worry what the other people think about it.

Anyway, I guess that was a bit more than $.02. I’ll be quiet now....

[Wormwood]

Originally posted by Barchan

a lot of people seem to think that winning on Deity gives you a larger wee-wee.

Try telling that to some woman at a bar!

Civer-Hey baby, I just beat Civ3 on diety. Oh yeah!

Woman- Oh, you're so hot! Using version 1.29f?!

Civer-You know it baby!!!

[Jawa Jocky]

Originally posted by Catt

At the end of the day, I still lose on Emperor often enough to make the game both fun and challenging.

Catt

I find Emperor to be the best level too. With rare exceptions (like banana island) I never lose on Monarchy or lower. How can the game be fun if you don't have the possibility of losing? Emperor gives the AI a boost (some call it cheating) to make up for the fact that HI>AI.

I still haven't won on Deity yet It is still too hard for me, but I keep getting better at Emperor so I will have to move up some day. With practice and some strategy reading I think anybody can move up through the levels (if your open to play style changes).

[jshelr]

I've never beaten Deity myself either, in the sense of really dominating and controlling the outcome, although the AI civs have handed me a couple of games I should have lost.

My question relates to a neighboring thread. I put the city governors on and that thread says there are big savings to be had from managing the cities yourself. Do those of you who have experience with this believe that the governors cost enough to be the difference between winning and losing on Deity???

[vmxa1]

In a word, yes. Would'nt a better question be how to manage them. This is what I think would make a good topic for some of the posters who have the talent to detail usage. Making the points and giving the information in a readable manner is not easy and takes time.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Tuberski
like Wargames and the tic tac toe thing?

Then the AI wouldn't want to play.

Well... I'm not thinking about that advanced.


All I'm saying is if you keep playing warmonger... it will see this in the file, and try to aim for building units only.

[bigvic]

try modding the game to allow all civs on all world sizes. 16 on a standard world at regebt or monarch is a challenge, esp. fpr early uu challenged powers. unless on your own island - very unlikely, you will fight early, but if honorable and diplomatically savvy, can then settle down to a nice long developmental game, thoug usually biggererer than all. but then, just sit back and let them darwinistically weed out the weaklings til its scary again. or do something stupid and or bizarre and try to come back. lots of things u can do.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by jshelr
I've never beaten Deity myself either, in the sense of really dominating and controlling the outcome, although the AI civs have handed me a couple of games I should have lost.

I think that's how most Deity wins will come about. Since you're so shafted from the get-go, you will almost never have a chance to dominate or control the outcome until much later in the game. Deity wins, pretty much by definition, are going to be come-from-behind affairs.

I've also found that you really can't do it alone. You've *got* to make friends and allies on Deity to have any chance of surviving. You can't possibly be self-sustaining (in terms of production or tech) and try to compete with the rest of the world, and you can rarely (except for a few very early minor wars for turf) survive a full-on war against a similarly-sized AI Civ. I've been most successful when I can team up with a powerful ally, declare war on an enemy and let the two of them duke it out. They weaken each other nicely and I wind up being comparatively more powerful. Three simple words sum up how to survive and succeed on Deity: War By Proxy.

Anyway, I think that in this regard, Deity is an excellent training ground for MP, since any player who seems to be too far ahead of the others is a surefire candidate to make the top of the "global coalition smackdown list." As the Japanese proverb goes: the raised nail will be hammered down. Deity forces you to play from the back or middle of the pack and time your ascendancy so that when you do break away from the pack, it'll be very difficult for anyone else to catch you.

[Blue Moose]

Then again, Deity is bad for multiplayer in that it trains you not to go after wonders. Also, considering some of the stupidty of the AI, going against it might make you to used to an opponent that can't hold off an invasion. Also, deity makes you very used to being behind, which shouldn't happen on multiplayer as much (unless you are a bad player, have a poor starting location, or just plain bad luck). Monarch and Emperor are probably a bit better for the early game, in that the AI expansion rate is a little bit closer to what another player's might be. However, you run into the same problems with the AI being stupid when dealing with invasions. Hmm, in general the AI probably only gives you an idea of how a human might act during the peace-time. I think war-time will require the most adjustment. Expect more competent responses to invasions, actual competence with sea invasions, and better uses of troops (sometimes the AI is really stupid about deciding wether to attack or not).

The one thing that is sure is that multiplayer is going to be a lot different from any of the AI difficulty levels.

[des-esseintes]

Playing against the AI is completely pathetic. Oooh, I'm so excited, I have piled up my 40 cavs, 20 riflemen and 30 artillery outside his country in ingeniously thought out, strategic positions... will I accomplish my goal of taking those 4 cities that are most fertile, one of which has Coal? *4 turns later* well i killed off his homeland with my first 10 cavs, demanded all of his colonies in tribute, then killed his capital. None of his cities had more than 2 pikemen for defense, even though he had the tech for Riflemen and was furious towards me.

I have almost doubled the size of my empire through aggressive war, and my other neighbour is sure to be next, although he has no damn clue, and is still Gracious towards me. *sigh* I wonder if i'll need as many as 10 Cavs to kill him ...'


Seriously. The AI is so laughably stupid that it's a damn disgrace to even mention its name, let alone play it. And if you think you're GOOD at the game once you win against the 50%-cost-on-everything-but-still-defends-like-the-french-in-WWII Artificial "Intelligence" you just make me laugh.

Wait till MP ya hear!

[vondrack]

[vmxa1]

Ouch

[Blue Moose]

eep