difficulty :)

rattlecage · July 28, 2003, 17:33

here comes a new question ...

as i said before i play civ for a verrrryyy long time but i still have too much to learn and need to read civilopedia more often

and i still play at regent skill? what do you choose for difficuty?

ChrisiusMaximus · July 28, 2003, 17:43

I play Regent most often for a challenging but even playing field, no AI bonuses or Human player bonuses on this level.

I have played several monarch games with varying degrees of success, and find it winnable approx 50% of the time.

Warlord or below I find too easy and unsatisfying, but as with most others who post here I too had to start from the easiest setting and work my way up.

Have tried the higher levels but really did not enjoy them though I would say they are winnable if you can be bothered.

I much prefer the Regent level experience and I only play Single Player against the AI.

Rhothaerill · July 28, 2003, 17:46

I've played monarch level for awhile and only recently moved up to emperor level. After a few fits and starts I'm becoming competitive at that level....finally.

If I may put in a plug...over in the strategy forum and on MZO, Theseus and others are currently designing an Apolyton University Introduction Game designed especially for regent level players and below to help improve their game. EDIT: if that sounded uppity, I didn't mean it that way. It's just a way for anyone to pick up tips to improve their game. Despite it being geared as an introduction game, anyone can pick up tips to improve their games, even monarch players and above.

Keep an eye on the strategy forum in the near future and think about trying the course when it comes out.

TheArsenal · July 28, 2003, 18:16

I play Regent. It is "forgiving" of my mistakes. I've come to the point where I can pretty much thrash about the globe like a crazed militarist and there's little the AI can do about stopping my win. But when I step up to Monarch, which I do from time to time, I have a devil of a go at it, and don't have a whole lot of fun. This means I have glaring errors in my game play somewhere and have to step back and take a good look at how I'm doing things. May have to start posting savegames to get some input.

Rhothaerill · July 28, 2003, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by TheArsenal
I play Regent. It is "forgiving" of my mistakes. I've come to the point where I can pretty much thrash about the globe like a crazed militarist and there's little the AI can do about stopping my win. But when I step up to Monarch, which I do from time to time, I have a devil of a go at it, and don't have a whole lot of fun. This means I have glaring errors in my game play somewhere and have to step back and take a good look at how I'm doing things. May have to start posting savegames to get some input.

I had the exact same experience. I could win on regent but would always get toasted on monarch. Then I started following the strategy forum and took a lot of that into my gameplay. It helped to make me a better player because it broadened the way I think about the game.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make earlier (I just made it very poorly

) with trying out the AU introduction course when it is up.

David Murray · July 28, 2003, 18:51

Don't forget that the difficulty level is not the only thing that can make a dramatic difference to the overall difficulty of the game. I would say that beating the computer at Emperor on a small Pangaea with a half-decent start is much easier than beating it at Monarch level, huge map.

I have perfected my Emperor-beating skills on small maps, but find it much more difficult even on a standard map!

Shogun Gunner · July 28, 2003, 19:57

where's that cheat feature from Civ II??????

eric2075 · July 28, 2003, 20:54

Rhothaerill, which thread are you talking about? I would be interested in playing the same start as others and seeing the differences in play-styles. I've been playing at Monarch for a little while but there's all kinds of room for improvement.

A big part of my problem is that I get locked into a certain way of playing and it's hard for me to vary from it.

vmxa1 · July 28, 2003, 21:52

I agree that maps size and start locations are very important to the difficulty of winning a game, regardless of the setting.
I like Monarch games for the most part as you do not have to pay close attention to them to win. My current game is a cakewalk at emperor, because it is mostly on one big land mass and I had a good start (except for food bonus).
I only pay Deity once in about 8 games, as I find it too much work. I guess I have not adjusted my additude to deal with the bully at deity. I am use to the hole I have at emperor, but not deity.

Rhothaerill · July 29, 2003, 00:34

Quote:

Originally posted by eric2075
Rhothaerill, which thread are you talking about? I would be interested in playing the same start as others and seeing the differences in play-styles. I've been playing at Monarch for a little while but there's all kinds of room for improvement.

A big part of my problem is that I get locked into a certain way of playing and it's hard for me to vary from it.

The introduction game hasn't been introduced yet because it is still being worked on. In the meantime though, go to http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showt...threadid=83557 for all the other Apolyton University courses. The most recent is AU402, but I have to warn you, it takes A LOT of computer resources.

I'd suggest starting with one of the later 20*'s (* being the number of the course). That thread also contains links to all the After Action Reports (AARs) too so don't read them yet if you're planning on playing one of the games. You can write up and post your own AAR if you want to and ask people to comment on it.

Have fun.

vmxa1 · July 29, 2003, 02:08

Yes watch out for Au402 and AU208, they were some what extreme.

eric2075 · July 29, 2003, 07:41

Great, I'll have to try some of these. Hope they are for vanilla civ. I understand what to do with the .savs, but it looks like some of them are .bic and bix. How do those work?

CerberusIV · July 29, 2003, 07:44

Download the file and put it in the appropriate scenarios folder (Civ3 or PTW). Then click load scenario from the main screen. Choose the one you want and away you go.

bic files are civ3, bix files are PTW.

Cort Haus · July 29, 2003, 08:11

Usually Monarch on Standard Pangea. I play the occasional game at Emp, but it's not so much fun. It's much easier to beat emp militarily than peacefully.

TheArsenal · July 29, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by David Murray
Don't forget that the difficulty level is not the only thing that can make a dramatic difference to the overall difficulty of the game. I would say that beating the computer at Emperor on a small Pangaea with a half-decent start is much easier than beating it at Monarch level, huge map.

I have perfected my Emperor-beating skills on small maps, but find it much more difficult even on a standard map!

Good point. I always alternate between huge and large map size, depending on what kind of game I want. I have tried playing on standard maps, but I find it difficult transition (twice, actually. And one of those was the fearsome AU 208). The game feels claustrophobic and the terrain abrupt and choppy. But as the game is, I assume, designed with standard map play in mind, it may be instructive to go back and force myself to play on these maps. It would make issues of micro management more bearable, and maybe give me a better idea of what level player I am or am not.

edit - grammar

Panag · July 29, 2003, 16:58

hi ,

own modified version of deity , .....

example , basic barbs are infantry , advanced are cavalry , higher costs for techs , etc , ....

have a nice day

gunkulator · July 29, 2003, 17:27

Regent only so far. Standard sized worlds. Is the consensus that large are huge worlds are easier?

Panag · July 29, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
Regent only so far. Standard sized worlds. Is the consensus that large are huge worlds are easier?

hi ,

depends , ....

you get more time to build something serious before you get a WW , .....

362X362 with 24 or more civs are not that easy , .....

have a nice day

TheArsenal · July 29, 2003, 18:43

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
Regent only so far. Standard sized worlds. Is the consensus that large are huge worlds are easier?

I would say not necessarily.

My opinion - speaking to the differences between Huge and Large maps and speaking as a militarist: On a large map it is still possible to wield your military power globally, at a fairly reasonable point in the game, although with some great effort. With a huge map, this is not always desirable, or anywhere near possible, because clearing your continent is a time consuming full effort task. But necessary to keep big, nasty, annoyed AIs with lots of production centers off of your border. Stacks of 20-50 units marching into your territory is always an eye opener. Alliances between huge civs out get you are even nastier.

And as often as not, when left alone without the human to cripple it, an AI superpower emerges on the other side of the world after gobbling up weak civs. At my skill level, this AI remains competitive for quite some time in the game - because I can't get overseas with enough force early to cripple it, and I can't out research or out culture it. So there is none of this winning by 1600 A.D. stuff for me.

Also, I find that some of the most tried and true strategies on these boards are not always suited for the huge map. Take the archer rush. Depending on the map configuration, it is very difficult to take out an AI early with a single movement unit. It's too spread out. And, for me anyway, early wars over all are less desirable. You expend much energy warring across a vast area while the other civs race ahead of you in all categories. So even if you're on a single land mass, crippling your opponents early and gaining a lead that way, seems more difficult. So wars come later, bigger, and with more coordinated movement to deal with the size of the civ you are taking out and the number of units needed to do it.

Your mileage may vary.

David Murray · July 29, 2003, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by gunkulator
Regent only so far. Standard sized worlds. Is the consensus that large are huge worlds are easier?

The easiest map type is definitely a tiny Pangaea. All you need to do on all difficulty levels is build lots of troops and raze all enemy cities. I think it's possible to get an early deity win on tiny (i.e. BC)

Don K Hotay · July 29, 2003, 21:31

I'm wondering if there'll ever be a way to make the AI more competitive without giving it bonus units or production advantages.

Theseus · July 30, 2003, 00:29

Quote:

Originally posted by TheArsenal

I would say not necessarily.

My opinion - speaking to the differences between Huge and Large maps and speaking as a militarist: On a large map it is still possible to wield your military power globally, at a fairly reasonable point in the game, although with some great effort. With a huge map, this is not always desirable, or anywhere near possible, because clearing your continent is a time consuming full effort task. But necessary to keep big, nasty, annoyed AIs with lots of production centers off of your border. Stacks of 20-50 units marching into your territory is always an eye opener. Alliances between huge civs out get you are even nastier.

And as often as not, when left alone without the human to cripple it, an AI superpower emerges on the other side of the world after gobbling up weak civs. At my skill level, this AI remains competitive for quite some time in the game - because I can't get overseas with enough force early to cripple it, and I can't out research or out culture it. So there is none of this winning by 1600 A.D. stuff for me.

Also, I find that some of the most tried and true strategies on these boards are not always suited for the huge map. Take the archer rush. Depending on the map configuration, it is very difficult to take out an AI early with a single movement unit. It's too spread out. And, for me anyway, early wars over all are less desirable. You expend much energy warring across a vast area while the other civs race ahead of you in all categories. So even if you're on a single land mass, crippling your opponents early and gaining a lead that way, seems more difficult. So wars come later, bigger, and with more coordinated movement to deal with the size of the civ you are taking out and the number of units needed to do it.

Your mileage may vary.

TA, your post just hit me in the head like a ton of bricks.

Has anyone noticed in the last several months, maybe more, that bigger games are better?

I think it's pretty much accepted that bigger maps are better... but what about the rest? I think back to my own early thoughts on conditions for the development of KAIs... makes sense to me.

A conundrum: Players' computers, and the general timeframe that it takes to play out the bigger games, versus the quality of what AI civs can achieve in anything less

vmxa1 · July 30, 2003, 01:28

A regular huge map with 16 civs is not so bad, make it 24 civs like AU402 and that is another matter.
KAI come from just what Arsenal said.

Cort Haus · July 30, 2003, 04:53

I've never tried huge on my weedy PC, but even on large it got too slow, so I just play standard, and I haven't tried any larger since PTW. What kind of machine is needed to run

1) large?
2) huge?

I might have to borrow my girlfriend's whizzy laptop...

georges bonbon · July 30, 2003, 07:21

Fed up with Monarch level, so going up to Emperor level.

Always playing on huge maps (continents or pangea; I hate the AI-seabombardements).

Depending on the starting position, I generally manage to end the game, though winning is maybe once out of 7.

But I am always way back in science development. For example my current game (huge, 15 civs, continents, PTW 1.21, slightly modified) I am researching Refining and Electricity whereas at least 5 AI's are building the Internet.

Oh yes, I do not have one Big Wonder.

Panag · July 30, 2003, 09:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Cort Haus
I've never tried huge on my weedy PC, but even on large it got too slow, so I just play standard, and I haven't tried any larger since PTW. What kind of machine is needed to run

1) large?
2) huge?

I might have to borrow my girlfriend's whizzy laptop...

hi ,

seen a game ones a week ago on a 650 amd duron with 512 ram , windows98se and a 24 civ , 352X352 map , ......

max time in between turns ( timed ) 2.4 min , ......

have a nice day

vmxa1 · July 30, 2003, 14:07

Wow pang that sound to good to be true to me.
I have several PC's. On AU402 (250x250, 24 civs) I was seeign more than 25 mins on ome turns on my 3.06GH with 1GB mem and 128MB 9800 PRO video card.
I dropped it on a 1.7GH machine and it took an hour for a single turn.
Once everyone went to war, the turns got vey ugly.
Yeah some when much faster, but not many were under 3 minutes from industrious age on.
A std huge map with 16 civs is quite fast. If you do not have a ton of islands and hence harbors all over the place and not too many civs at war, it goes quickly.
15-20 civs with several hundred units warring is painful.

TheArsenal · July 30, 2003, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
15-20 civs with several hundred units warring is painful.

I've had Huge/Large map situations where I've been particularly adventurous and have cities all over the globe, and a fairly substantial navy off of several coasts. Meaning: not a whole lot hidden from my view. With the entire planet practically at war, there are turns where most of the game's battles and movement seem to take place within my unit/city's field of vision, and there is nothing I can do but watch it play out. Add a few rally points/units on path finder and automated workers on my part, and the in between turns were more like a movie I was watching than a game I am playing in.

That can definitely be painful or amusing, depending on what mood I'm in. Or if its 3 am or not.

georges bonbon · July 31, 2003, 04:44

I have an average of 8-10 minutes between turns.

So I am always reading the newspaper between turns.

Once the newspaper is finished, I start a reading a book.

Shogun Gunner · July 31, 2003, 08:23

I have a browser open to Apolyton when I'm playing. I size the browser into one corner so I can see 75% of the screen while reading and posting.

I wonder if I'm hurting performance for Civ III when I do this....