Dear Pros: Much Harder Now?

Yahweh Sabaoth · November 17, 2003, 12:19

Ok. This is Conquests related thread, but I thought I should put it here as it concerns purely strategy.

I recently moved from Regent to Monarch. On PTW I played two Monarch games to glorious victory, as the Romans and French. Monarch didn't seem to be much harder than Regent, although I did notice a difference and definitely restarted a fair number of times.

The question I have - really for all of you who play Monarch, Emperor or Diety regularly - is how much harder now is Monarch level under Conquests?

I find myself consistently out-REXed, agressed upon and out-researched by the AI. Is this simply because of Monarch level? Or is C3C truly radically different?

If y'all are now having a hard time where once you might have taken the game somewhat for granted, then I'll know that it's C3C that's causing me my headache.

On the other hand, if you find the game is still basically the same, albeit with some new twists, then I'll know I'm just facing the difficult of a new level.

ps: I'd also like to know if anyone has tried (in the ancient era) a mass upgrade yet and how effective it's proven to be, and how people are feeling about just setting the tech to 50 turns as opposed to cranking it up to get techs first... let me know.

Thanks everyone...

vmxa1 · November 17, 2003, 13:48

I voted it is too soon to tell for me. I just have not played enough games to say. I have only finished one and most were played only the first age.

It did seem that they are doing better at research, but it was misleading. I had the impression I was trailing, but in fact I was leading. I got that idea, because I did not get any advances or SGL's. I finally was clued in that you only get an free tech from te one break through. I finally got some SGL's and realized I was never really behind in tech. If anything their lack of being able to trade maps early hurts the AI. The gpt bug has done a lot to any civs able to made deals.

I have found that it is easier to make wonders in some games than it was before. I suspect that is due to the fact that there are so many now in the ancient age.

Catt · November 17, 2003, 18:25

IMHO it is too soon to tell. Playing games with the gpt bug and the corruption bugs makes it hard to compare to PTW with any degree of confidence -- I am playing my third game overall, and the second game where I deliberately do not build the FP if I can get my Palace centered well.

My first game was very, very experimental -- doing all sorts of things I wouldn't normally do -- and a true "Killer AI" arose that secured and maintained the tech lead for a long, long time -- this despite many other posters' reports that it was easier to take and hold a tech lead very early in the game. My second and third games have been more in line with other reports -- I found it pretty easy to secure an ancient age tech lead and then never lose it for the rest of the game if I didn;t want to. Until the bugs are fixed, we won't know exactly why that is, but early speculation, perhaps not misguided, lays some blame on the unit costs of Republic for hampering the AI in the early middle ages.

Again IMHO, until the radical gpt and corruption bugs are fixed in a patcg, it is too difficult to accurately compare games from PTW ad C3C -- we just don't know what the bugs are doing to the AIs (positively or negatively).

Catt

Theseus · November 17, 2003, 22:33

Hard to tell so far... mostly cause I just entered the Medieval Age in my first epic game!!

The relative lack of resources is making a huge difference for both me and the AI civs... I HAVE NO LUXURIES... making comparison very difficult with such a small sample. I'm also playing demi-god, so I'm dealing with a new level of AI civ advantage.

Feels better / tougher though. The Ottomans are out there somewhere, building GWs well before I get to the respective techs. The Persians have been destroyed, presumably at their hands... I am shaking in my boots.

/me has been having nightmares about Sipahi Armies.

oh:

grappleman · November 17, 2003, 22:37

i immediately switched up to emperor when i started c3c. I find the ai to make better choices in the early game i.e. time to switch gvts., wonder building etc. but i voted to early to tell as i have only played one or two full games. I have been too absorbed in the scenarios to give a full report however

Colonel E · November 17, 2003, 22:56

It's much harder. I could win all the time on Warlord (okay, I suck) but now it's a challenge for me.

Yahweh Sabaoth · November 18, 2003, 11:58

It does seem too soon to tell... but aside from a few games where I either got creamed or had a huge tech lead, it seems pretty much par for the course. More wonders are being built in the ancient era, but they're distributed fairly evenly.

The games where one civ sits astride the others, and the others don't meet until much later, seem the most skewed.

What are the gpt and other bugs you were referring to? Am I missing something? Heard some craziness about the FP but that's about it...

MyOlde · November 19, 2003, 07:44

I voted yes but it probably is too soon to tell. It just feels as though the AI is smarter and more aggressive.

I'd like to know about this gpt bug too. What is it and when does it happen?

jshelr · November 19, 2003, 09:18

It's early days, but there are even some advantages to the human player. If you play all random with culture links turned off, consider Portugal, for example. You start with both an explorer and alpha. You can beeline for Philosophy and choose your free tech depending on how the map turns out. The seafaring trait and early mapmaking will get you off that isolated island, while early writing can be traded for all the available tech and gold on a pangea map. Philosophy is also good for tech trading and whatever the free tech that you choose is, it will keep you even on tech for a good while. And their UU is late -- so no trouble from an early GA. Later in the game, when you have a science lead, a science great leader can be "game over." Just got one while researching magnitism -- wow.

I posted this elsewhere but it appllies here too. I'm coming around to the view that the additional wonders help the human player. They keep the AI from building units and their are so many of them that the impact on unit builds may be big. Watch out for the "disappearing temples" you get with the Temple of Artemis. It creates imaginary temples in your cities that disappear when you get educated. (This should be turned off for America which is a country that still believes in temples even after university educations.)

Yahweh Sabaoth · November 19, 2003, 11:17

I have yet to get a single SGL from having a tech lead, and I'm starting to get aggravated. I mean, please! With the mass upgrade now so expensive, I've been focusing on building wonders, and I'm consistently beaten to all of them... I can get the M of M pretty easily and the GLibrary, but I have yet to build Artemis, the HG, or even the GW once! It seems ridiculous. The AI certainly puts a lot of focus on getting these wonders built but still has plenty of units to throw around.

Maybe I'm just on a string of bad luck.

ducki · November 19, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
I have yet to get a single SGL from having a tech lead, and I'm starting to get aggravated. I mean, please!
...
Maybe I'm just on a string of bad luck.

This reminds me of how I felt when I first started playing C3 and PtW in regards to GLeaders. I'd go games and games and games without any.

Then I did an experiment - http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...26#post1491726 - and found that I was just at the mercy of the RNG.

Sometimes it's nice, sometimes not.
And back then, each elite victory was approx 6% chance. Didn't I read somewhere that SGLs are approx half that for each time you research a tech before anyone else?

So the odds are even worse for SGLs over the old MGLs and there's not much you can do to maximize your chances like - http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=44520 - since if you are not in the lead on at least some tree, you have a 0% chance - or have I misunderstood the docs/posts about SGL chances?

Anyway, my point is, don't get too frustrated. Just remember waaaay back when you (or am I the only one) would go several games in a row without any MGLs because the RNG was feeling cranky.

I just wish there was a way a player could consciously maximize his chances at a SGL the same way you can with Elites-MGLs.

asleepathewheel · November 19, 2003, 12:23

yeah, once the gpt and corruption are fixed, it will be easier to tell. In my current Maya game (kickass civ, probably my new favorite) at times 3 or 4 of the AI has had well over 10-15k gold. I sold atomic theory to persia for 10k!I won't do large gpt deals until patched, the small ones I will do. Now if the AI would actually use that gold it would be much improved, I would hate to see 10k worth of cavs advancing. But I hate cheats like that, the AI getting 2x gold that you do (since I don't do the trades now), so oh well.

and with corruption screwed, no fp, definately weakens my empire, and probably the AI's if they build it.

so need to wait a few weeks (only I hope)

I have noticed the Barbs aren't as good, at least in my pov. they just sit there at times and I can just walk by. they are bad in the conquests, I stumbled upon a ton of keshiks in southern israel in the middle ages and they just sat there, waiting I suppose for a larger force to awaken them...

Yahweh Sabaoth · November 19, 2003, 12:24

Quote:

Originally posted by ducki
I just wish there was a way a player could consciously maximize his chances at a SGL the same way you can with Elites-MGLs.

Well, there must be. Simply put, it's to get, and stay, in the tech lead. Certainly theories will doubtless emerge as we all get better at C3C.

But then again, more theories will probably emerge regarding how to cope without SGLs, as they're so dang rare. It's easy to fight battle after battle and eventually get a MGL, but there's only so many techs in the game...

vmxa1 · November 19, 2003, 12:30

Just for you YS. I will go out on a limb and say it is too easy now.
Yes, I have only finished one game and may finish my current game. I have only played a few partial games at emp/mon so far.

The AI I can not address yet, but two huge exploits are now available IMO.

1) Curragh

This is too strong for humans if you are in a max water game.
If you can drop your second city on the coast, the game is over.
You can get out and make all the contacts and probably get both Colossus and GL, at least Colossus. This is without Seafaring trait.
The AI will not run any ocean tiles, until it can safely make teh run. This gives you a long time to be the only one in contact as you can not trade contacts until PP. Often, you will not have to risk sea/ocean tiles for much of the time.

2) Zues

If you have Ivory and get this puppy, you win. Ihave gotten this more often than not. The AI will even trade you ivory. The AI seems not to rush for Math and if ti does beat you, will still not beat you to the wonder all that often.
Ancient cavs built for free in a city with a barracks come out with 5HP's and go elite for 6. They are up against mostly spears and archers with 322 and 5HP, not to mention retreat.
I get a MGL and make an army with them and they just wlak over things. Really with 5 or 6 HP, they stand up well against even knights. One evry 5 turns and you can still build things in that city, man that is strong.

You add in the no pain for staying in despotism and you can do what ever you please. I have been just so nasty to the civs on my land mass. I will attack all settlers, even the same turn as agreement of peace were made. what do I care, no one will know. Before contact with the rest of the world, they will be gone. I just get free workers by the numbers.
right now I have one army siting next to the babs and a chunk of open land past me. They just keep sending combo for me to axe. Then they will do a few turns of sending spear and or archers to my other cities. They go right past my army and of course they do not make (18HP). It is very sad. I am doing the same thing to the Arabs (I eliminated the other civ). No WW so I can go to war as often as I feel like it. Once they are gone, I will go to Republic for good.

ducki · November 19, 2003, 12:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Well, there must be. Simply put, it's to get, and stay, in the tech lead. Certainly theories will doubtless emerge as we all get better at C3C.

That's not quite something a player can consciously do to maximize their odds the way they can with Elite units described in the ooold strat threads on generating Leaders.

To say that the "strategy" or "tactic" for maximizing your chances of getting a SGL is "get a tech lead" is like saying the "strategy" for winning is to outsmart the AI.

My hope was for something like the old posts by the oldtimers about holding your Elites in reserve and using them to mop up wounded enemy units - maximizing their odds of winning the battle and living, thus ensuring if they don't generate a leader now, they will have another chance in the near future.

It's a decision the player can make.
"Get a tech lead" isn't quite the same.
Maybe if using a Scientist to add to your research doubled your odds to 6%, then it could be a conscious strategic decision. As it is now, it's just an extra reward for winning the tech race, which is its own reward anyway.

I've rambled, but hopefully I've made it clearer what I meant about SGLs should be based/influenced by conscious, strategic/tactical decisions made by the player and not just extra reward for winning the tech race.

Catt · November 19, 2003, 14:46

YS - I think I've seen you post elsewhere that you're playing repeated attempts in the ancient age and then starting over -- if you are doing this, keep in mind that you're giving yourself very few chances at an SGL. Most likely, the entire first row of techs is known at the start by at least one civ. I doubt that you will be successful at researching more than 2, out the outside 3, second level techs with any degree of regularity. That leaves just a few additional chances for SGLs. My tentative early view is that securing ancient age SGLs will be harder than securing ancient age MGLs is (or was in PTW).

For those asking about the corruption and gpt bugs, just check out alexman's topped thread in the conquest forum, or the bug reports toppedthread in the conquests forum. The short answer is: (1) the FP and SPHQ will actually increase your corruption, or in the most ideal of circumstances, show no overall increase in corruption but provide no benefit either; (2) a "fix" to RCP has resulted in higher corruption than was found in PTW; and (3) any gold-per-turn payments are counted twice by the civ receiving gpt -- if you get 100 gpt for a tech trade, you'll get 100 gpt to spend and your treasury will also grow by 100 gpt too.

Catt

Edit: spelling and clarity

vmxa1 · November 19, 2003, 18:43

I concur, I have not gotten an ancient age SGL in any game. I have ToE done in this game and have help 3-4 tech lead for the last age and still have no SGL's.

so if you want to see one, you should at least play through the middle ages, even that is not looking all that strong.

geniemalin · November 29, 2003, 19:49

Playing as the Byzantines I got an early tech lead and kept it (Seafaring gives you a coastal capital for Colossus and a fast Curragh for contacts, so is the perfect early synergiser with Scientific) and have gotten one late Ancient and one Middle Ages SGL so far.