Difficulty Levels

Exile · September 21, 2000, 03:23

I must say that I am curious. The Apolyton survey indicates that most people play at (or enjoy most) the "Deity" level of play. What is it exactly that makes throwing armor at archers and losing fun? I normally play on "Prince" and, after reading that many players routinely play at the higher levels, I feel a little amateurish. I've played on King, and won, but the feel of the game was that of a race--a tech race, rather than a game simulating empire-building. Are games at the higher levels really fun? If so, I would like to hear why from some of the players who play at that level.

------------------

Ken Hinds · September 21, 2000, 06:00

Because we are all masochists and like being beat with blunt objects such as tanks, stealth bombers, and howies or wave upon wave of barbarian fanatics.

Ken

DaveV · September 21, 2000, 07:39

Exile - the short answer is that for a lot of the people who post here, even Deity level is too easy to win against the computer. After you've played a lot, read a lot of the posts here, and refined your strategy to a point where it's instinctive, the AI is a pushover.

But I think the poll was referring to multiplayer (MP) games. I think there are two reasons why people prefer Deity level in MP:

1. They're used to playing at that level (see above).
2. All civs start with two settlers. This helps give all players an even start in the game.

kcbob · September 21, 2000, 08:50

quote:

Originally posted by DaveV on 09-21-2000 07:39 AM
...even Deity level is too easy to win against the computer.

I haven't reached that point yet although ICS is helping. If you want to reach this "level of expertise", then I would suggest a few things.

Play at a difficulty level until you are fairly competent, then move to the next level.

Don't revert, i.e., save a game, make a move, and reload the game if you don't like the results. Live and learn.

Read the posts on a daily basis. Your knowledge will increase dramatically.

Don't worry. There is still a challenge for empire building at deity level.

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

Exile · September 21, 2000, 11:09

These are all good answers. Thanks. More questions arise, however. What aspects of Deity level play appear in these MP games? # of Barbs? What is the "Happiness" level at Deity? Why does the prospect of out-of-control-cities-in-disorder attract players? Do other players ENJOY the difficulties of civil unrest? More to the point, I feel like when I reach certain military watershed techs (gunpowder, Conscription,) That, at that point, I should like to go out and conquer. If the game moves at the breakneck pace of the higher difficulty levels, it seems that there is seldom an opportunity to revel in a given period. An example; at some point, my empire reaches gunpowder tech; I build an army of musketeers & pikes; but before I am actually able to put this army in action, it becomes obsolete because of the fast pace of the technology RACE. Again, there is no chance to REVEL in an attractive historical period. It goes by too fast. I feel that this is probably where scenarios come in, but I will start another thread to address that issue.

DaveV · September 21, 2000, 13:09

Exile - most people agree that the AI mimics the human player's research rate. If you want to sally forth once you achieve a certain tech level, throttle your research waaay back and go out and conquer.

Shadowstrike · September 21, 2000, 17:52

Don't worry, I still play at Prince and King.....

*Gets beaten by Diety Apolytoners*

Actually, moving up isn't that hard, go over the the Strategy forum and pick up a few hints, and move up...

Smash · September 21, 2000, 18:04

MP games go alot faster tech wise because intelligent humans are at the helm.That doesn't change with play level.In fact,the lower the level the faster things go.Most mp games don't have ais.At king level it is feasible to have 30 cities by 2000bc.Thats a bit ridiculous if you ask me.

Deity is desired because
1-all get 2 settlers.Less hassles with "clean" restarts.

1a.Happiness-you need to build more than settlers at deity level
1b-riot factor is higher and it is much harder to expand

2-barbs-raging hoardes on deity keeps you honest.Sometimes you get hammered early.But,sometimes you get lots of gold

3.Players are used to it

Emperor is a level that more MP games should be played at.With 1 settler at 1x production and 1x moves on large maps.Even that will move along quickly for some civs.

DarkCloud · September 21, 2000, 19:09

I play Prince with 'Raging Hordes' and a custom map where all civs are within 15 squares of each other on the same continent.

kcbob · September 22, 2000, 00:58

The civil unrest problem can be avoided with proper planning. A city here and there might still crop up but you can quickly fix it, e.g., a temple or Elvis.

The breakneck speed eventually becomes you're accustomed to and after a while you really don't notice it. Yes, there might be a quick jump from Gunpowder to Conscription, but beyond that, I would say that the game gives an excellent approximation for the timeline in real life... depending on your beaker count per turn.

------------------
Frodo lives!

Better dead than "Red"... or green... or blue... or yellow... or orange... or purple... or white.

Exile · September 22, 2000, 15:04

The responses have been great! thanx!

to Ken Hinds; Priceless! I laughed out loud at your response, thanx.

to Smash; a wealth of info from you. Thanx a lot!

to Shadowstrike; you know, I play solo games on prince even to this very day. I suppose its because I am perpetually fascinated with empire-building and like to watch the process. I have played at higher levels and won, so that isn't an issue. I just don't enjoy the pressure of these games. I am very seriously considering MP games as an alternative, but feel like I may be stepping off into water over my head. Does anyone play MP scenarios? I can think of several that would be enjoyable as a MP game.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Exile (edited September 22, 2000).]

Father Beast · September 23, 2000, 05:40

I am not good enough to win at the higher levels. I graduated from chieftan to warlord since joining the forums, and would probably be playing at prince if I could wean myself of "the forever war" I'm playing.
I played a game at deity a while back to see how bad it was. I was so pathetic, the romans launched their spaceship about the time I discovered gunpowder. The english came and wiped my worthless civilization off the map before the roman ship actually landed.
maybe with more experience...

MacUser · September 23, 2000, 14:31

quote:

Originally posted by kcbob on 09-21-2000 08:50 AMDon't revert, i.e., save a game, make a move, and reload the game if you don't like the results. Live and learn.

Now THAT'S the really hard part! It's like ignoring a plate of cookies while on a diet! And no, I've never met a cookie I didn't like!

------------------
"And now for something completely different..."
- John Cleese

Ken Hinds · September 23, 2000, 20:44

Exile,

On a more serious note this time. You have mentioned that you too prefer to be the Good Little Barbarian Who Peacefully Coexists With Everyone as long as they can be the First to arrive on AC. Try playing Jesus' Phillip II or Wilson Theodoro's Ice Realms scenarios on Diety. If you play as Philip II or the protagonist in Ice Realms I think you will find that the qualities that you are getting in regular civ at prince will be available in these at Diety. Ice Realms most of all, since it is much less of a conquest scenario and more of a build and support your civ type of scenario. You will have to defend yourself in both but it is extremely easy to do as Philip and in my several attempts at Ice Realms the AI has been quite open and friendly,for MGE that is, even though you are actually at war with them. The barbarians in Ice Realms are irritating, but by no means devestating. One bit of advise that I obtained from Wilson in my e-mail with him that was not available with the scenario, since there is no readme. If you let your leader get killed you should start over.

Philip II is available here in the CSC and Ice Realms at http://www.geocities.com/theodoro.geo/

Ken

Exile · September 24, 2000, 00:00

Ken Hinds; thanx again for the laughs, & thanx for the serious reply too. For whatever reason, I really enjoy the historical scenarios much more than the sci-fi scens. I do have a downloaded version of Phillip II (from this very site) but have not played it on deity. Ever. I'll try it. Maybe I'll learn something.

Later,
Exile

------------------

Exile · September 24, 2000, 00:38

Father Beast; thanx for commiserating. My own experiences w/deity level play have only been w/OCC mode. Nevertheless, those experiences parallel yours. Wiped out when they finally found me. How's life out in Utah, getting any snow? Or are you up in the mountains?
Hey, Exile.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Exile (edited September 24, 2000).]

Empress · September 24, 2000, 01:42

personally I prefer to play King level, right in the middle

Exile · September 24, 2000, 02:19

Empress; Right in middle is where I used to play Civ1, the old game, and I enjoyed the setting, until I got totally bored with it. I kept on playing though, mainly because there just wasn't anything better. I would've thought that King would be the level most folks would want to play on, even though I've only played at that level a few times just to see if I could beat the machine. I did, (eventually) but it just wasn't as much fun as playing at a slightly less hectic pace on prince. However, I'm starting to get bored w/prince level play now, so I guess its inevitable that I'll join you sometime soon in King level play.

The responses from the forum participants have all been so positive! thanks.

------------------

SandMonkey · September 24, 2000, 13:56

I play mostly on Emperor now, which is a far cry from the chieftain i played on when i first came to this site (a year and a half ago). One of the differences that gets to me is the dates at which I finish... it got to the point on easier levels where I could be up to spaceflight before AD times! And now, usually on my first or second game on a level, I have trouble finishing before the time limit. I don't get as annoyed when I lose units on the higher levels, unlike when i played on the lower ones and I would flip out when I lost a battle I should have easily won.

Shadowstrike · September 24, 2000, 15:07

Its wierd, but I can actually achieve more growth on Prince then I can on Chieftain.... Once you get to 60+ cities before AD times, it gets tedious.....

Exile · September 24, 2000, 16:21

Sandmonkey (Great handle!) and Shadowstrike; Thanx for the response. It sounds like you guys have been playing using the Infinite City Sleeze (tm) method. 60 cities! Before when? I've also seen folks claiming 200+ cities at such-and-such a point in the game. Managing around 30-40 can be a chore, 200 sounds exasperating! Yeah, I used to flip out over unrealistic losses, but that hasn't been so much of a problem on Prince (and w/Civ2!). I did notice that a vet ironclad could sometimes beat a cruiser at King, which sorta seemed questionable, realism-wise. I don't mind the idea of cities out of control, not really. If that's all there was to it. I saw a thread around here somewhere where somebody claimed that they actually enjoyed (!) city disorder problems in deity! Hey, more power to him! What I don't like is when the game begins to weigh the combats WAY too much on the side of AI units. Talk to Ken Hinds; some folks apparently LIKE getting "hit with blunt objects."

My sensibilities are invariably as outraged when an advanced unit is killed by pikemen or something else as when, in Civ1, I would lose a battleship to a phalanx that was fortified in a city. There are some questions I'd also like to ask about those that use the ICS method, but maybe I should start a new thread.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Exile (edited September 24, 2000).]

Mark von Wagner · October 4, 2000, 16:57

200+, if done properly, isn't much of a chore. In the game I played where I had 254 cities, I founded about 45 early in the game. I got those cities to the point where there were no more buildings to construct around 1500AD, and started conquering the world. By about 1850, I'd conquered the world, and started improving the 150 or so captured cities. Since most of these cities had been improved by the AI, I didn't need to do much managing. Around 1900, I started my second wave of expansion, with all of my cities that had maxed out on population building settlers and sending them to found or join new cities. At no point did I have more than about 50 cities that needed detailed management -- most of the cities were simply building either settlers or Capitalization.