Difficulty Levels

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Hi again, Guys,

Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best ones to play
on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the advantage well and truly
in the computers hands? I like to play Civ, but don't want to have a too
easy time, but I don't want to have a disadvantage over the computer
opponents either!

Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not actually
tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ playing abiltity
by that much!

Thanks!

Contro.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
om> wrote in news:c5rb3o$mpn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:

> Hi again, Guys,
>
> Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best
> ones to play on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the
> advantage well and truly in the computers hands? I like to play
> Civ, but don't want to have a too easy time, but I don't want to
> have a disadvantage over the computer opponents either!

I play at Monarch mostly. The computer has slight advantages at
that level, but the AI needs some kind of advantage since it can't
actually think.
Above Monarch I find that you have to play a certain style in order
to win, and I don't really enjoy that.
Below Monarch the AI simply can't keep up with a good player.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

> Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best ones to
> play on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the advantage well and
> truly
> in the computers hands? I like to play Civ, but don't want to have a too
> easy time, but I don't want to have a disadvantage over the computer
> opponents either!
>
> Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not actually
> tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ playing
> abiltity by that much!
>
Of course it's possible. But I tend to prefer monarch for a good game.
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Kevin 'Keeper' Foster" <thekeeper@canada.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94CE8E974E60Ckdfosterrogerscom@130.133.1.4...
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingd
> om> wrote in news:c5rb3o$mpn$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
> > Hi again, Guys,
> >
> > Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best
> > ones to play on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the
> > advantage well and truly in the computers hands? I like to play
> > Civ, but don't want to have a too easy time, but I don't want to
> > have a disadvantage over the computer opponents either!
>
> I play at Monarch mostly. The computer has slight advantages at
> that level, but the AI needs some kind of advantage since it can't
> actually think.
> Above Monarch I find that you have to play a certain style in order
> to win, and I don't really enjoy that.
> Below Monarch the AI simply can't keep up with a good player.

ahh, so Monarch is the middle ground difficulty is it? I see what you mean
about the AI needing a bit of an advantage...what sort of advantage do they
get? is it things like less production time and things like that?

I'm not really a "good player" yet though. So no monarch for me yet! But I
hope to get there some day!
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"MikeyD" <m_donaghy50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1082232598.5690.1@damia.uk.clara.net...
> > Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best ones to
> > play on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the advantage well
and
> > truly
> > in the computers hands? I like to play Civ, but don't want to have a
too
> > easy time, but I don't want to have a disadvantage over the computer
> > opponents either!
> >
> > Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not actually
> > tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ playing
> > abiltity by that much!
> >
> Of course it's possible. But I tend to prefer monarch for a good game.

Yes, as Kevin Foster said in the other post, I prefer a game where I don't
have to stick to a certain tactic to win, so monarch seems to be the
difficulty level to go for.

Well, I knew Sid would probably be possible, but I have a feeling that there
are quite a number of things in life that are easier!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

You may want to try the level a step below Monarch, I think it is Regent.
It puts you and the computer at the same level in all areas. If you can
easily win at Regent, then jump to Monarch. I started out at Chieftain
myself just to get a feel for the game then moved up to Warlord. Recently,
I've been playing at Regent. Having some difficulty because war is always
inevitable and I like playing a peaceful game most of the time....

Tzar Sasha

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c5s615$l4d$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "MikeyD" <m_donaghy50@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1082232598.5690.1@damia.uk.clara.net...
> > > Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best ones
to
> > > play on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the advantage well
> and
> > > truly
> > > in the computers hands? I like to play Civ, but don't want to have a
> too
> > > easy time, but I don't want to have a disadvantage over the computer
> > > opponents either!
> > >
> > > Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not
actually
> > > tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ playing
> > > abiltity by that much!
> > >
> > Of course it's possible. But I tend to prefer monarch for a good game.
>
> Yes, as Kevin Foster said in the other post, I prefer a game where I don't
> have to stick to a certain tactic to win, so monarch seems to be the
> difficulty level to go for.
>
> Well, I knew Sid would probably be possible, but I have a feeling that
there
> are quite a number of things in life that are easier!
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c5s5tp$cfu$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> ahh, so Monarch is the middle ground difficulty is it? I see what you
mean
> about the AI needing a bit of an advantage...what sort of advantage do
they
> get? is it things like less production time and things like that?

At monarch, the AI research and build costs are 90% of the human. A warrior
for example will only cost the ai 9 shields. City growth is is the same way.

Even regent isn't 100% even. The AI gets better trades between itself than
the human will.


> I'm not really a "good player" yet though. So no monarch for me yet! But
I
> hope to get there some day!

If you know when you start the game that you are going to win, it is time to
move up :)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:23:04 +0100, "Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote:

>Hi again, Guys,
>
>Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best ones to play
>on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the advantage well and truly
>in the computers hands? I like to play Civ, but don't want to have a too
>easy time, but I don't want to have a disadvantage over the computer
>opponents either!
>
>Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not actually
>tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ playing abiltity
>by that much!

I always play at Monarch level. I think Regent is the last level
where things are fair. But the computer needs the unfair advantage to
keep up. During PTW I had gone on to Emperor once and was put off by
the AI aggressiveness. Germany declared war on me after dropping
down my first city. One of these days I am tempted to try again with
the new Coquest adjustable aggressiveness.

BTW I picked picked Monarch level because it keeps me competive with
the other civs. At Regent I was able to grab nearly every Great
Wonder. If you always dominate the game early on then it is probably
time to move up a level.
 

alex

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
896
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message news:b1b48014896th3k89iokq1bp17l7tob5fi@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:23:04 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi again, Guys,
> >
> >Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best ones to play
> >on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the advantage well and truly
> >in the computers hands? I like to play Civ, but don't want to have a too
> >easy time, but I don't want to have a disadvantage over the computer
> >opponents either!
> >
> >Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not actually
> >tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ playing abiltity
> >by that much!
>
> I always play at Monarch level. I think Regent is the last level
> where things are fair. But the computer needs the unfair advantage to
> keep up. During PTW I had gone on to Emperor once and was put off by
> the AI aggressiveness. Germany declared war on me after dropping
> down my first city. One of these days I am tempted to try again with
> the new Coquest adjustable aggressiveness.
>
> BTW I picked picked Monarch level because it keeps me competive with
> the other civs. At Regent I was able to grab nearly every Great
> Wonder. If you always dominate the game early on then it is probably
> time to move up a level.

In my experience it's impossible to keep AI competitive at all times.
Early in the game the world is simple, but as time goes by new things
come into play: world map, MPP, espionage, aviation, etc...
As complexity of the game rapidly increases the relative strength of AI
goes down, approximately one level of difficulty per era.

When I play at Monarch I become competitive in the end
of Middle Ages. But in this case the game is essentially over by the
end of Industrial era and I cannot wage competitive modern wars,
which is my ultimate goal. On the other hand, when I play at Emperor
the relative strength of my nation hits rock bottom in the end of
Middle Ages and the game seems to be absolutely hopeless at this point.
I usually feel ultimate frustration and psychologically it's hard
to continue the game. However from this moment on things begin to
improve rapidly and I will enter Modern Era as an equal in a company
of three-four strongest AI nations. Until this moment I was in survival
mode, now begins the real fun (modern wars of world conquest).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message
news:b1b48014896th3k89iokq1bp17l7tob5fi@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:23:04 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi again, Guys,
> >
> >Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best ones to
play
> >on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the advantage well and
truly
> >in the computers hands? I like to play Civ, but don't want to have a too
> >easy time, but I don't want to have a disadvantage over the computer
> >opponents either!
> >
> >Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not actually
> >tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ playing
abiltity
> >by that much!
>
> I always play at Monarch level. I think Regent is the last level
> where things are fair. But the computer needs the unfair advantage to
> keep up. During PTW I had gone on to Emperor once and was put off by
> the AI aggressiveness. Germany declared war on me after dropping
> down my first city. One of these days I am tempted to try again with
> the new Coquest adjustable aggressiveness.
>
> BTW I picked picked Monarch level because it keeps me competive with
> the other civs. At Regent I was able to grab nearly every Great
> Wonder. If you always dominate the game early on then it is probably
> time to move up a level.

I have been playing on Monarch level with the AI agressiveness turned up one
notch. That makes for a "fair" and challenging game. The AI does need a
production advantage to make up for the sometimes stupid moves it makes.

GWB
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:59:51 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>In my experience it's impossible to keep AI competitive at all times.
>Early in the game the world is simple, but as time goes by new things
>come into play: world map, MPP, espionage, aviation, etc...
>As complexity of the game rapidly increases the relative strength of AI
>goes down, approximately one level of difficulty per era.
>
>When I play at Monarch I become competitive in the end
>of Middle Ages. But in this case the game is essentially over by the
>end of Industrial era and I cannot wage competitive modern wars,
>which is my ultimate goal. On the other hand, when I play at Emperor
>the relative strength of my nation hits rock bottom in the end of
>Middle Ages and the game seems to be absolutely hopeless at this point.
>I usually feel ultimate frustration and psychologically it's hard
>to continue the game. However from this moment on things begin to
>improve rapidly and I will enter Modern Era as an equal in a company
>of three-four strongest AI nations. Until this moment I was in survival
>mode, now begins the real fun (modern wars of world conquest).

True, if the game where level throughout I would probably stay at
Regent. It seems to me human players spend more time building up
their cities at the expense of a weaker military. Whereas the AI will
keep pumping out spearmen even if they are not at war. In later years
the temples and libraries are much more valuable then the spearmen.
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

The Stare wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c5s5tp$cfu$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>> ahh, so Monarch is the middle ground difficulty is it? I see what
>> you mean about the AI needing a bit of an advantage...what sort of
>> advantage do they get? is it things like less production time and
>> things like that?
>
> At monarch, the AI research and build costs are 90% of the human. A
> warrior for example will only cost the ai 9 shields. City growth is
> is the same way.
>

ahhh, I see!

> Even regent isn't 100% even. The AI gets better trades between itself
> than the human will.
>

I'm currently playing Regent level. Not doing very well though! But I'm
doing okay, as it's my first go on this level, but I've avoided war at all
costs, as I'll just get battered. Might try to go for a space race victory
or something, as while I was very backward in the game for a long time, now
that it's nearing modern times, I've almost caught up.

Speaking of trades though, what I find really annoying is when your trade
runs out with someone (say for coal), but it doesn't stop to let you
renegociate, so when you are finally in control, they've traded with someone
else! A pain!

>
>> I'm not really a "good player" yet though. So no monarch for me
>> yet! But I hope to get there some day!
>
> If you know when you start the game that you are going to win, it is
> time to move up :)

True! I've only really had that on the easiest level though really. Mind
you, I only played one full game on Warlord, which I won on the space race
victory (not culture in the end). Thing is, when it started out, I wasn't
doing that well, but when it comes to later years, I found it quite easy to
catch up. It was a good moment though, as I had avoided all wars right up
until about the 1970's or something, then the Cartesians (or whatever they
are callled!) just would not get out of my territory. Then they ended up
declaring war on me! "Right" I thought, and got in touch with every other
nation, and for reasons why I'm not sure, they were all too happy to enter
mutual protection pacts with me! Going so far as to be Gracious towards me
afterwards! There was only one country that I didn't agree to it with,
which was because they were my rival for most things, and I would have had
to trade something with them in order to get them to agree to the pact. But
it was amazing having all bar 1 of the other nations declare war on the
Cartesians because of them messing about in my land! Serves them right!
Needless to say, despite them being a reasonably big nation, I think they
were extinct within 30 - 40 years.
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Tzar Sasha wrote:
> You may want to try the level a step below Monarch, I think it is
> Regent. It puts you and the computer at the same level in all areas.
> If you can easily win at Regent, then jump to Monarch. I started out
> at Chieftain myself just to get a feel for the game then moved up to
> Warlord. Recently, I've been playing at Regent. Having some
> difficulty because war is always inevitable and I like playing a
> peaceful game most of the time....

Yes, I'm currently on Regent too. Not easy though, as I've had no wars, but
only because I've been paying off the other nations to leave me alone.
However, I'm catching up now with the techs, so am going to try to get a
space race victory...but not sure I will. it is my first game on Regent
though, so I can't expect to win straight away.

Horrible thing is though, is the size of the other nations armies! I've no
idea how they get them to be that big, but basically I just don't think I
could win a war with them! They just have far too many troops! I guess I'd
have to negociate a deal between countries to get some allies on my side,
but even then it would be hard.
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

P12 wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:23:04 +0100, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi again, Guys,
>>
>> Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best ones
>> to play on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the advantage
>> well and truly in the computers hands? I like to play Civ, but
>> don't want to have a too easy time, but I don't want to have a
>> disadvantage over the computer opponents either!
>>
>> Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not
>> actually tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ
>> playing abiltity by that much!
>
> I always play at Monarch level. I think Regent is the last level
> where things are fair.

I think theStare said Regent did have some bias towards the computer, but
nothing as noticable...it seems that a lot of people recommend the monarch
difficulty as being the best one to play under. Obviously I want to finish
Regent first, but I'm glad I'm not that far away from the "correct"
difficulty to play under. I would like to try the harder ones though! But
well, it won't be for a while yet.


But the computer needs the unfair advantage to
> keep up. During PTW I had gone on to Emperor once and was put off by
> the AI aggressiveness. Germany declared war on me after dropping
> down my first city. One of these days I am tempted to try again with
> the new Coquest adjustable aggressiveness.

Thing is with you mentioning Germany declaring war on you: I think that
might just have been unlucky (although obviously, I'm guessing with the
harder difficulties, there is more chance of being "unlucky" and the bad
luck is a lot more severe, as was the case with you). As I remember on a
Warlord game once, I was against the Germans, and they pretty much did the
same thing, except they didn't do it after just one city, I think it was
two. I think they made a demand of me, and I said no, and then they
declared war. I thought it would have been a bluff! I think it might be to
do with Iron really...if the Germans get their hands on Iron, then they will
go to war with you no matter what. I've no idea how long it takes Germany
to get Iron working, but they are militaristic, and the computer, so
probably not as long as it would take you or I! I'm sure I hadn't played
for that many turns in my Warlord game, and they had swordsman. I basically
had no chance, so had to start again, as they kept demanding things of me
and beating me up!

I think it might just be a German thing.

>
> BTW I picked picked Monarch level because it keeps me competive with
> the other civs. At Regent I was able to grab nearly every Great
> Wonder. If you always dominate the game early on then it is probably
> time to move up a level.

well in Warlord I didn't really dominate that well. It was only later on
that I came on top. But well, I think I'm ready for Regent. I'm not doing
too bad on it. I'm surviving at least! But as I was saying in another
post, the other civs armies are just too big. I couldn't win a war against
them at all. Not yet anyway. We'll have to see what the modern era brings!
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

alex wrote:
> "P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message
> news:b1b48014896th3k89iokq1bp17l7tob5fi@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:23:04 +0100, "Contro"
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again, Guys,
>>>
>>> Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best
>>> ones to play on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the
>>> advantage well and truly in the computers hands? I like to play
>>> Civ, but don't want to have a too easy time, but I don't want to
>>> have a disadvantage over the computer opponents either!
>>>
>>> Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not
>>> actually tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ
>>> playing abiltity by that much!
>>
>> I always play at Monarch level. I think Regent is the last level
>> where things are fair. But the computer needs the unfair advantage
>> to keep up. During PTW I had gone on to Emperor once and was put
>> off by the AI aggressiveness. Germany declared war on me after
>> dropping down my first city. One of these days I am tempted to try
>> again with the new Coquest adjustable aggressiveness.
>>
>> BTW I picked picked Monarch level because it keeps me competive with
>> the other civs. At Regent I was able to grab nearly every Great
>> Wonder. If you always dominate the game early on then it is probably
>> time to move up a level.
>
> In my experience it's impossible to keep AI competitive at all times.
> Early in the game the world is simple, but as time goes by new things
> come into play: world map, MPP, espionage, aviation, etc...
> As complexity of the game rapidly increases the relative strength of
> AI
> goes down, approximately one level of difficulty per era.
>
> When I play at Monarch I become competitive in the end
> of Middle Ages. But in this case the game is essentially over by the
> end of Industrial era and I cannot wage competitive modern wars,
> which is my ultimate goal. On the other hand, when I play at Emperor
> the relative strength of my nation hits rock bottom in the end of
> Middle Ages and the game seems to be absolutely hopeless at this
> point.
> I usually feel ultimate frustration and psychologically it's hard
> to continue the game. However from this moment on things begin to
> improve rapidly and I will enter Modern Era as an equal in a company
> of three-four strongest AI nations. Until this moment I was in
> survival
> mode, now begins the real fun (modern wars of world conquest).

I know what you mean about this...I found the same on Warlord and on Regent
difficulty levels, as I was not doing well in Warlord until about the Modern
era, where I became totally dominant, and on Regent, I'm doing better than I
was earlier on in the game now that I reached the middle of the Industrial
times. I'm not doing great in the Regent game though...but doing better
than I was earlier on, similarly to what you have found in Monarch.
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

P12 wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:59:51 GMT, "alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> In my experience it's impossible to keep AI competitive at all times.
>> Early in the game the world is simple, but as time goes by new things
>> come into play: world map, MPP, espionage, aviation, etc...
>> As complexity of the game rapidly increases the relative strength of
>> AI goes down, approximately one level of difficulty per era.
>>
>> When I play at Monarch I become competitive in the end
>> of Middle Ages. But in this case the game is essentially over by the
>> end of Industrial era and I cannot wage competitive modern wars,
>> which is my ultimate goal. On the other hand, when I play at Emperor
>> the relative strength of my nation hits rock bottom in the end of
>> Middle Ages and the game seems to be absolutely hopeless at this
>> point. I usually feel ultimate frustration and psychologically it's
>> hard
>> to continue the game. However from this moment on things begin to
>> improve rapidly and I will enter Modern Era as an equal in a company
>> of three-four strongest AI nations. Until this moment I was in
>> survival mode, now begins the real fun (modern wars of world
>> conquest).
>
> True, if the game where level throughout I would probably stay at
> Regent. It seems to me human players spend more time building up
> their cities at the expense of a weaker military. Whereas the AI will
> keep pumping out spearmen even if they are not at war. In later years
> the temples and libraries are much more valuable then the spearmen.

annoying though when they keep sending them into your territory! You think
they won't be a problem, but then you realise that they will have loads of
infantry units all packed away just in case you decide to declare war on
them for messing about in your territory.
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

GWB wrote:
> "P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message
> news:b1b48014896th3k89iokq1bp17l7tob5fi@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:23:04 +0100, "Contro"
>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi again, Guys,
>>>
>>> Just wondering what difficulty levels do you think are the best
>>> ones to play on, and when does it stop being fair, and put the
>>> advantage well and truly in the computers hands? I like to play
>>> Civ, but don't want to have a too easy time, but I don't want to
>>> have a disadvantage over the computer opponents either!
>>>
>>> Plus, is the Sid difficulty level actually possible?! I've not
>>> actually tried it yet, as I'm not ready to be demoralised in my Civ
>>> playing abiltity by that much!
>>
>> I always play at Monarch level. I think Regent is the last level
>> where things are fair. But the computer needs the unfair advantage
>> to keep up. During PTW I had gone on to Emperor once and was put
>> off by the AI aggressiveness. Germany declared war on me after
>> dropping down my first city. One of these days I am tempted to try
>> again with the new Coquest adjustable aggressiveness.
>>
>> BTW I picked picked Monarch level because it keeps me competive with
>> the other civs. At Regent I was able to grab nearly every Great
>> Wonder. If you always dominate the game early on then it is probably
>> time to move up a level.
>
> I have been playing on Monarch level with the AI agressiveness turned
> up one notch. That makes for a "fair" and challenging game. The AI
> does need a production advantage to make up for the sometimes stupid
> moves it makes.
>

So it basically seems that monarch is the level to be at. Obviously I'll
see how I find it without the AI turned up first! But what essential
differences do you find between having monarch and AI turned up, and the
next difficulty level (emperor is it?)? Is the next difficulty level just
too much of a leap of unfairness?

The main thing I don't understand, and this would appear to be on any
difficulty level, is just how the computer gets so many army units so
quickly at the start of the game! Do they just basically churn out tons of
units before they do any city improvements?! but then how on earth do they
manage to build settlers and workers at the same time?!
 

alex

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
896
0
18,980
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro" <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote in message
news:c60ah8$m4l$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> P12 wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 14:23:04 +0100, "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>

> But the computer needs the unfair advantage to
> > keep up. During PTW I had gone on to Emperor once and was put off by
> > the AI aggressiveness. Germany declared war on me after dropping
> > down my first city. One of these days I am tempted to try again with
> > the new Coquest adjustable aggressiveness.
>
> Thing is with you mentioning Germany declaring war on you: I think that
> might just have been unlucky (although obviously, I'm guessing with the
> harder difficulties, there is more chance of being "unlucky" and the bad
> luck is a lot more severe, as was the case with you). As I remember on a
> Warlord game once, I was against the Germans, and they pretty much did the
> same thing, except they didn't do it after just one city, I think it was
> two. I think they made a demand of me, and I said no, and then they
> declared war. I thought it would have been a bluff! I think it might be to
> do with Iron really...if the Germans get their hands on Iron, then they will
> go to war with you no matter what. I've no idea how long it takes Germany
> to get Iron working, but they are militaristic, and the computer, so
> probably not as long as it would take you or I! I'm sure I hadn't played
> for that many turns in my Warlord game, and they had swordsman. I basically
> had no chance, so had to start again, as they kept demanding things of me
> and beating me up!
>
> I think it might just be a German thing.
>
> >
> > BTW I picked picked Monarch level because it keeps me competive with
> > the other civs. At Regent I was able to grab nearly every Great
> > Wonder. If you always dominate the game early on then it is probably
> > time to move up a level.
>
> well in Warlord I didn't really dominate that well. It was only later on
> that I came on top. But well, I think I'm ready for Regent. I'm not doing
> too bad on it. I'm surviving at least! But as I was saying in another
> post, the other civs armies are just too big. I couldn't win a war against
> them at all. Not yet anyway. We'll have to see what the modern era brings!
>

It's true that AI often has lots of military units, but
it's also true that AI doen not know how to use them.
Most importantly AI does not know how to concentrate.
When enemy troops invade your territory they become clumpsy
and vulnerable. Two dozens of artillery units is all you need
to contain enemy invasion and turn the tables on them in three-four turns.

But even more important is that it's not necessary to wipe out all
enemy troops by yourself. As you've mentioned elsewhere sign MPP
and let your allies to do the job. Even better thing
is to let them fight well-balanced world war and stay aside.

In original Civ3 WWI in the middle of Industrial era
was 99% guaranteed by the fact that there were simply no
city improvements to build at that time. As a result AI had
no choice other than to beef up its military and go to war.
All you had to do was to remain in good relations with all your
neighbors and wait till they declare war on somebody else.
This war was always bloody and useless as cavalry was no
match for infantry fortified in a city. In C3C they
introduced stock exchange and commercial dock, so inflaming
WWI may take some effort. It's conveniently done through
joining the system of MPPs and declaring a war some
10 turns before your obligations expire. Human player is
far far better than AI in such strategic planning.

There are also non-military means to keep AI war burning.
Help losing side of the war by trade.
Give them ROP so they can retain mobility in your territory.
Give scientifically backward nations key defense
technologies like replaceable parts and computers for free.

Aggressive neighbor is unpleasant thing and should be
handled along the same lines: appease your neighbor and
redirect their aggression. In one of my games
(Americans/Emperor/Standard size archipelago) I found myself
sharing a continent with the Vikings. 10 of my 11 cities were
built on seashore and were vulnerable to amphibious berserks.
In addition I had two horses and two gems and nothing else
(later I found one uranium).
Around 1000BC Persians arrived across the strait and demanded
Literature from me. I declined, it was my only chance. Namely,
in response to declaration of war I signed alliance with Vikings
against Persians, killed single Persian warrior and had no further
combat practice until 1840AD. On the other hand the Vikings have not
seen a single day of peace until their end in 1850AD.
Between 1000BC and 1840AD the only priority of my foreign policy
was to appease the Vikings. Now, what happened between 1840 and 1850?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c609rq$5m7$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> The Stare wrote:
> > "Contro"
> > <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> > wrote in message news:c5s5tp$cfu$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >>
> >> ahh, so Monarch is the middle ground difficulty is it? I see what
> >> you mean about the AI needing a bit of an advantage...what sort of
> >> advantage do they get? is it things like less production time and
> >> things like that?
> >
> > At monarch, the AI research and build costs are 90% of the human. A
> > warrior for example will only cost the ai 9 shields. City growth is
> > is the same way.
> >
>
> ahhh, I see!
>
> > Even regent isn't 100% even. The AI gets better trades between itself
> > than the human will.
> >
>
> I'm currently playing Regent level. Not doing very well though! But I'm
> doing okay, as it's my first go on this level, but I've avoided war at all
> costs, as I'll just get battered. Might try to go for a space race
victory
> or something, as while I was very backward in the game for a long time,
now
> that it's nearing modern times, I've almost caught up.
>
> Speaking of trades though, what I find really annoying is when your trade
> runs out with someone (say for coal), but it doesn't stop to let you
> renegociate, so when you are finally in control, they've traded with
someone
> else! A pain!

Check the preference, "Always renegotiate deals". Turn it on and it may do
what you want or be a step in the right direction.

GWB
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Contro"
<moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
wrote in message news:c60atv$6g6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> GWB wrote:
> > I have been playing on Monarch level with the AI agressiveness turned
> > up one notch. That makes for a "fair" and challenging game. The AI
> > does need a production advantage to make up for the sometimes stupid
> > moves it makes.
>
> So it basically seems that monarch is the level to be at. Obviously I'll
> see how I find it without the AI turned up first! But what essential
> differences do you find between having monarch and AI turned up, and the
> next difficulty level (emperor is it?)? Is the next difficulty level just
> too much of a leap of unfairness?

For me at least Emperor is too much of a leap. Although I did win the WWII
conquest as the Americans on "Demigod", but that's not the same as a regular
game. What you could do when you move to Monarch is turn down the AI
aggressiveness one notch or all the way down...that might help you make the
transition.

> The main thing I don't understand, and this would appear to be on any
> difficulty level, is just how the computer gets so many army units so
> quickly at the start of the game! Do they just basically churn out tons
of
> units before they do any city improvements?! but then how on earth do
they
> manage to build settlers and workers at the same time?!

I *think* the higher levels the AI starts with more than just a settler and
a worker. (Don't quote me on that- could be wrong). Also, the AI can build
settlers and workers w/o regard to city size. IOW, an AI city sized 1 can
still churn out a settler, unlike human players. This I know for a fact to
be true.

GWB
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <c609rq$5m7$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro" <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote:
<snip>
>
>True! I've only really had that on the easiest level though really. Mind
>you, I only played one full game on Warlord, which I won on the space race
>victory (not culture in the end).

That is impressive. I can't get far enough up the tech tree before 2050 to
build the spaceship below Regent.


>Thing is, when it started out, I wasn't
>doing that well, but when it comes to later years, I found it quite easy to
>catch up.

I get in the same head space. I keep thinking I'm behind right up to the
point where the war machine goes into high gear and I start to roll up the
map.


>It was a good moment though, as I had avoided all wars right up
>until about the 1970's or something, then the Cartesians (or whatever they
>are callled!) just would not get out of my territory. Then they ended up
>declaring war on me! "Right" I thought, and got in touch with every other
>nation, and for reasons why I'm not sure, they were all too happy to enter
>mutual protection pacts with me! Going so far as to be Gracious towards me
>afterwards! There was only one country that I didn't agree to it with,
>which was because they were my rival for most things, and I would have had
>to trade something with them in order to get them to agree to the pact. But
>it was amazing having all bar 1 of the other nations declare war on the
>Cartesians because of them messing about in my land! Serves them right!

Carthage -- Carthaginians.

If you are going to get in a fight, bring your friends. To quote the famous
Corsican general "God is on the side of the big battalions." The other part
is that the Carthaginians could not trade with anyone so they would lack
Luxuries and they may not have been able to build modern units.


>Needless to say, despite them being a reasonably big nation, I think they
>were extinct within 30 - 40 years.

It works the other way too. If you are going to get into a war you don't want
the AI civ ganging up on you. Always get allies.

Mike G
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <qQRgc.166181$w54.1118509@attbi_s01>, GWB wrote:
>
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c60atv$6g6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> GWB wrote:
>> > I have been playing on Monarch level with the AI agressiveness turned
>> > up one notch. That makes for a "fair" and challenging game. The AI
>> > does need a production advantage to make up for the sometimes stupid
>> > moves it makes.
>>
>> So it basically seems that monarch is the level to be at. Obviously I'll
>> see how I find it without the AI turned up first! But what essential
>> differences do you find between having monarch and AI turned up, and the
>> next difficulty level (emperor is it?)? Is the next difficulty level just
>> too much of a leap of unfairness?
>
> For me at least Emperor is too much of a leap. Although I did win the WWII
> conquest as the Americans on "Demigod", but that's not the same as a regular
> game. What you could do when you move to Monarch is turn down the AI
> aggressiveness one notch or all the way down...that might help you make the
> transition.

One thing people tend to forget in these discussions is the start
position. For instance, to me, Regent -> Monarch was a big leap, and I
won Monarch only on my third try. Looking back, I attribute it to
difficult maps. Monarch -> Emperor, OTOH, was very easy for me, because
in my first 2 Emperor games, I had excellent start positions. For
instance, Trondheim, on an occasion has no less than 3 plains cattle.

Of course, Emperor -> Deity *is* a huge leap, simply because of the way
the bonuses work. 100 -> 90 and 90 -> 80 are comparable, but 80 -> 60 is
much worse.

Lastly, I don't quite understand this emphasis on "fairness", whatever
it means. Although Regent might be "fair" in one sense of the word, the
AI is so bad there's no way it's fair. The AI doesn't *pre-build*, for
heaven's sake. In any case, I don't see what's wrong in graduating to
Emperor and Deity once you've become good enough at Monarch you're
confident of winning just about every game.

Just my 2 paise,
--
Ambarish
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <c60a0p$uhn$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro" <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom> wrote:
>
>Horrible thing is though, is the size of the other nations armies! I've no
>idea how they get them to be that big, ...

While you have been building Temples and Libraries they have been cranking out
military units. The huge size of the AI armies (and the associated maintenance
costs) is one of the reasons you can out research them later in the game.

>... but basically I just don't think I could win a war with them! They just
>have far too many troops! I guess I'd have to negotiate a deal between
>countries to get some allies on my side, but even then it would be hard.

You can beat the AI even if your territory is smaller and you have fewer
units.

The AI does not usually build Barracks. If you do you will have a 33% edge
over the AI (4 hp -vs- 3 hp) before the fighting starts.

You need to understand what will happen when the AI attacks you. The AI will
send all of its offensive units (well _almost_ all) at your weakest city.
Before railroads they will show up as stream of units that will eventually run
out. After railroads they will show up as a huge stack (called the Stack of
Doom).

If you can get allies, the AI's Stack of Doom may go somewhere else. :)

You want to use your roads and fast movers to hit and retreat to wear down the
AI's attacking units. Injured AI units will retreat to heal up. You don't
want your fast movers close enough to be attacked in turn. Use your defensive
units to cover your attackers.

The AI knows where all your units are and it will advance toward your weakest
city. Pull all the defenders out of a city and the AI will move toward it.
Put the defenders back in and pull them out of another city and the AI will
change course. I think of it as AI ping pong.

After you get Replaceable Parts you can build Artillery. Build huge stacks.
Use your railroads to get your Artillery to range 2 and pound the Stack of
Doom. Protect your Artillery.

After you get Flight build hordes of Bombers.

Once you go on the offensive you need to know roughly how many defenders are
in each AI city. It is usually the same in all of the AI's core cities except
for the capital. You want to attack with enough units to win in one round.
Want you don't want is to have the defenders win two battles (and get
promoted) and survive. Bombard units help. As silly as they are, Catapults
can take point or two off the AI's best defender. (And they grow up to be
Artillery.)

Mike G
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

GWB wrote:
> "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote in message news:c609rq$5m7$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> The Stare wrote:
>>> "Contro"
>>> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
>>> wrote in message news:c5s5tp$cfu$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> ahh, so Monarch is the middle ground difficulty is it? I see what
>>>> you mean about the AI needing a bit of an advantage...what sort of
>>>> advantage do they get? is it things like less production time and
>>>> things like that?
>>>
>>> At monarch, the AI research and build costs are 90% of the human. A
>>> warrior for example will only cost the ai 9 shields. City growth is
>>> is the same way.
>>>
>>
>> ahhh, I see!
>>
>>> Even regent isn't 100% even. The AI gets better trades between
>>> itself than the human will.
>>>
>>
>> I'm currently playing Regent level. Not doing very well though!
>> But I'm doing okay, as it's my first go on this level, but I've
>> avoided war at all costs, as I'll just get battered. Might try to
>> go for a space race victory or something, as while I was very
>> backward in the game for a long time, now that it's nearing modern
>> times, I've almost caught up.
>>
>> Speaking of trades though, what I find really annoying is when your
>> trade runs out with someone (say for coal), but it doesn't stop to
>> let you renegociate, so when you are finally in control, they've
>> traded with someone else! A pain!
>
> Check the preference, "Always renegotiate deals". Turn it on and it
> may do what you want or be a step in the right direction.
>
> GWB

Great! Will do! I didn't know about that. I'm sure it used to go into the
trade screen after a deal expired....but recently it has not been doing so.

Thanks again for that!
 

contro

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
297
0
18,780
Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Mike Garcia wrote:
> In article <c609rq$5m7$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Contro"
> <moridin@contro.freeserve.co.remove.then.add.initials.of.united.kingdom>
> wrote: <snip>
>>
>> True! I've only really had that on the easiest level though really.
>> Mind you, I only played one full game on Warlord, which I won on the
>> space race victory (not culture in the end).
>
> That is impressive. I can't get far enough up the tech tree before
> 2050 to
> build the spaceship below Regent.

LOL I probably fluked it in that case! Well, I admit it was a close shave,
as I think there was only about 22 turns left before the end of the game. I
was really lucky, as somehow I was piling in the money, and basically had
90% funds going towards science (I think I might have had 100% at the end,
but this was due to the fact that I was trying to win the space race as soon
as possible, and was losing money. But I got my money from having lots of
cities on wealth (only about 3 were on it and still had other buildings to
make, but this was because they were newly aquired buidings from Carthage
(spelt it right this time!) as well as selling technologies).

>
>
>> Thing is, when it started out, I wasn't
>> doing that well, but when it comes to later years, I found it quite
>> easy to catch up.
>
> I get in the same head space. I keep thinking I'm behind right up to
> the
> point where the war machine goes into high gear and I start to roll
> up the
> map.
>

it's really strange. I think it might be because human players tend to go
for techs the computer doesn't go for, and can therefore trade them with the
computer players to get the other techs. When there are three you haven't
got, usually all the computer players have them, so you can trade the same
thing for three different things because of there being many computer
players with the same techs to trade.

Possibly anyway! I'm sure that can only help!

>
>> It was a good moment though, as I had avoided all wars right up
>> until about the 1970's or something, then the Cartesians (or
>> whatever they are callled!) just would not get out of my territory.
>> Then they ended up declaring war on me! "Right" I thought, and got
>> in touch with every other nation, and for reasons why I'm not sure,
>> they were all too happy to enter mutual protection pacts with me!
>> Going so far as to be Gracious towards me afterwards! There was
>> only one country that I didn't agree to it with, which was because
>> they were my rival for most things, and I would have had to trade
>> something with them in order to get them to agree to the pact. But
>> it was amazing having all bar 1 of the other nations declare war on
>> the Cartesians because of them messing about in my land! Serves
>> them right!
>
> Carthage -- Carthaginians.

LOL yes, those are the ones!

>
> If you are going to get in a fight, bring your friends. To quote the
> famous
> Corsican general "God is on the side of the big battalions." The
> other part
> is that the Carthaginians could not trade with anyone so they would
> lack
> Luxuries and they may not have been able to build modern units.
>

very true! it was very interesting, it had to be said. usually when I try
to get mutual protection pacts, the other player isn't interested at all.
But this time they were jumping at the chance! I don't know why. Mind you,
throughout the game, I had civs offering me the MPPs but I was turning them
down, since I was a purely peaceful country. but well, when I was forced
into war, it did work out well for me, it has to be said!

>
>> Needless to say, despite them being a reasonably big nation, I think
>> they were extinct within 30 - 40 years.
>
> It works the other way too. If you are going to get into a war you
> don't want
> the AI civ ganging up on you. Always get allies.
>
> Mike G

True true. In my current game I'm not sure I will be able to do this, as I
just don't have anything to offer. Although having said that, there are
many civs at war which I have managed to keep out of...I could always join
the winning team side! What's better is that at the momet it appears to be
America who are leading the wars, but they are behind on tech compared to
the other nations. So if I could help them win, however that may be, it
means that the more advanced cultures get wiped out, and I can trade with
the US, as I can't with the other nations. could be interesting if I can
get it to work!