This is embarrassing.

[Buttercup]

The risk about AI aggression is that it may be more aggresive than is smart. AI may start wars it better may not have started. Generally i think that the impact of AI aggression and Barbarians level on the "absolute difficulty level" is rather limited. The impact of starting position is a lot lot stronger.



The plural appears to be axes.

http://www.dict.cc/?s=axis

I think axes would have been more confusing! Lol.

There are too many 'mays' and 'I thinks' in that explanation, considering those are phrases you rarely use, for me to consider that a 'done and dusted' answer. You have to admit, you do advise people to always reduce those axes don't you and the HoF rarely, if ever, uses those axes...

 

[Lanzelot]

All those "axes" do have a definite influence on the "difficulty" of a particular game. I remember one Regent Tundra start, which was a hell of a game, much harder than a Demigod game with 5 cows...

However, I don't think it is a "linear" relationship, such that "moving up" one axis always makes the game harder. It all depends on everything. Let me explain what I mean by two examples:
a) If the conditions are right (i.e. you alone on a nice small continent/large island and the AIs together on one big continent), then increasing the AI agressiveness actually makes the game easier: the AI will start more wars among each other and wear each other down, while you can develop quite undisturbedly...
b) Try for a Domination victory on Warlord. It will take forever, because basically you have to settle all the 66% of the land yourself... Now play the same map on Emperor: here Domination can be reached much easier, because the AI will settle quite fast and you can simply take their cities.
This is a common pattern: some things actually become easier on the higher difficulty levels, because you can let the AI do the hard work for you... But if you increase the difficulty level beyond a certain point, it becomes harder again. (E.g. if you play the Domination game mentioned above on Deity instead of Emperor, it will now get harder again, because the AI towns are now better defended, so it becomes harder to take them...)

 

[Buttercup]

I can understand your position, but for a) in your above example, your initial expansion would be somewhat hampered and controlled by the Raging Barbarians. Being alone on a large landmass with nothing but Barbarians could be argued to be worse than starting next to an AI, because the Barbs will always just be attacking you, ransacking you and making it altogether more important to deal with them before you can settle comfortably. While Raging Barbs might actually be beneficial on the lower difficulties because they're so weak, they're not disadvantaged on higher difficulties.

Also, with regards to the AI aggressiveness, the main downside is not that they're more inclined to declare war, but rather that they start out being more hostile diplomatically, making trading techs with them, either through money or exchange, all the more expensive. Even on Regent with Normal AI it's extremely rare to get an exchange that doesn't weigh heavily in the AI's favour, so if you're entirely relying on buying all your early techs from the AI and later trading anything, it's going to be progressively more expensive.

If it was a case of assuming the game would be easier with both AI and barbs set to max, then that's what people would advise. The general advise or method people use to approach the higher levels, when going for max scores/dates, is to turn them both to minimum. There must be a reason for that.

 

[Lanzelot]

Yes, it doesn't apply to all factors. I only said: "some things become easier on higher levels". Barbs and goody hut probabilities certainly don't.

For example:
a) A quick look at the HoF tables for Spaceship/Standard Map reveals that the finish date on the lower difficulty levels is faster than on the higher difficulty levels: Chieftain 550AD, Warlord710 AD, Regent 700AD, Monarch 1020AD, Emperor 1130AD, Demigod 1120AD, Deity 1200AD, Sid 1370AD.

This can basically be explained by the fact that the goody hut probabilities get worse with increasing difficulty level. On Chieftain/Warlord you basically build a few scouts and pop almost all ancient age techs from huts. On higher levels this is no longer possible, as you mainly get barbs from the huts... --> So clearly one example where something gets harder with increasing difficulty level.

b) Now taking a look at the tables for Domination/Large Map we see:
Chieftain 350BC, Warlord 610BC, Regent 450BC, Monarch 530BC, Emperor 350BC, Demigod 150BC, Deity 50BC, Sid 1600AD
So in this special case it looks like it is easier to do on Warlord, Regent and Monarch than on Chieftain! Only with Emperor it again starts getting harder. --> Here we have an "overlay" of two curves going into opposite directions: 1. Ability of the AI to fill the map with towns - this increases with the difficulty, making it easier for the human player to reach 66%. 2. Ability to take away these towns from the AI - this decreases with the difficulty, making it harder for the human player to reach 66%. Both curves combined explain the observed result.

And then there are also factors which make one aspect of the game easier and another aspect harder. Like the AI agressiveness. Trading becomes harder for you, but warfare will be easier for you, if the AIs have first worn each other down...

All in all, combining all these contradicting factors will result in a pretty complex mechanism. I guess that's pretty much what you say: difficulty level isn't everything...

 

[justanick]

You have to admit, you do advise people to always reduce those axes don't you and the HoF rarely, if ever, uses those axes...

I donnot advise to go for HoF. I donnot recall advising to change barbs, i tend to think of them as a given, possibly being random or at least prechosen. As for AI aggression i donnot change that setting at all, i implicitly assume that the standard setting is not changed by others aswell. Also i wonder how effective changing it really is, some civs already do start at maximum(?).

As for Barbs i may have a bias in favour of none, but i am not sure that it has been relevant so far, nor do i expect it to be very relevant. The net effect may be small. One would have course need to adapt tactics, but the result will be similar. Greater amounts of money harvested from villages may help to progress faster in tech, one can argue that more barbs make the game easier. Barbs are a good way to keep AI occupied to attack some else, namely those barbarians. The net effect may be zero or negative.

 

[agonistes]

The HoF games/scores don't mean much in terms of ideal play.

The hardest game, in my opinion, without modding, would be on the smaller maps, high aggression, one land mass.

The higher the level, the more bonuses the AI receives at the beginning of the game. Time and space cut into the AI advantage. If the AI/game setup lets me free build, I'm going to destroy them. If they start harassing me right away, its going to cause more problems.

Barbarians cut either way I think. They don't ignore the AI as far as I know. Possibly its a player advantage, as the AI may send out settlers without enough of a vanguard. I know in Civ V that I find captured settlers and workers all over the place. I guess you would have to play a few thousand games keeping in mind AI expansion rates at various barbarian settings before you knew for sure. Maybe someone like Takhisis or Moonsinger would know.

But lets all keep in mind that there are a lot of subjective views on this board. We are all walking on different planets. And sometimes the planet we are on is a lot further out in the solar system than we think it is... or a lot closer to the sun.

 

[Zorrukk]

In order to get the feel for it, I recommend you try a training game as follows:

• Pick the Netherlands as your civ. They start with the perfect combination of starting techs (Pottery for an early Granary and Alphabet for a quick run on Republic), and as an added bonus they are agricultural (the strongest trait of them all).
• Expand as fast as possible (but never let your capital fall below size 3. Best is to build settlers in a cycle starting a size 5, growing to 6, then growing to 7 the same turn as the settler is finished and dropping back to 5). This allows the fastest settler production and the highest research output at the same time.
• Research the following 3 techs in this order at full speed: 1. Writing, 2. Code of Laws, 3. Philosophy
• Pick Republic as your free tech and voila: with the investment of only a few hundred beakers you have obtained the most expensive tech of the ancient age for free!

So anyway, you see: there isn't any reason to go for Monarchy: Republic is much more poweful and at the same time much cheaper/faster to obtain.

As Harry Carey used to say "HOLY COW"

1st off thanks to jkk for starting this thread because I was in the exact same place or maybe a little behind him. I've never won a game on regent.

That being said my training game is progressing well so far. I was out of anarchy at 1600BC. Then did some trading for techs(which I don't usually do any trading).

I still have the tech lead and just hit the Industrial age in 1200's AD unheard of for me.

My problem is no coal so I currently building up my army and am thinking of buying MA's with Portugal,Byzantines and Greece against Zulus since they have the coal and saltpeter I need. Also that's everyone with a major presence on my continent.

Or would I be better off buying everyone into the war and then what's the best way to start? Should I declare or is there a better option?.

Thanks to everyone who was involved in this discussion I'm still rereading and have checked some of walletas post also.

 

[Lanzelot]

Did you make a general game plan in the early stages of the game? If yes, what did you decide to go for in this game? Military victory with industrial units (Tanks and Bombers) or keep going for a space victory or diplomatic victory? Also better post a .sav, so we can see where exactly in the tech tree you currently are.

 

[Zorrukk]

I was going to go for a cultural win, so with that in mind I turned the AI aggressiveness to the lowest level. I'm not sure cultural is an option now though.

 

[Zorrukk]

OK I finished this game with a Diplo win( I think maybe my first ever).

Comments and Critique VERY much welcome.

 

[Theov]

Not much to add - you clearly went for the non-war route. Did Mbondo flip to you? Or was that through war?
You city spacing could be a bit tighter - a lot of tiles go to waste if you space too far out those tiles will only be used when you get Hospitals.

 

[Zorrukk]

Mbondo flipped to me.

 

[Lanzelot]

I was going to go for a cultural win, so with that in mind I turned the AI aggressiveness to the lowest level. I'm not sure cultural is an option now though.

Looking at the 1395AD save, I think that a cultural 20K victory is still possible at that point. However, you should have concentrated more on Shakespeare's Theater. You are already well into the Industrial Age, and Shakespeare not yet finished?!? Instead building Universal Sufferage, which costs almost twice the shields and yields only half the culture?!?
Shakespeare should be built as soon as Free Artistry completes, which is in the first half of the Middle Ages. It's the most important wonder for a 20K victory, not only because the 8 cpt, but also because it allows growth beyond size 12 and that way speeds up all remaining wonders. (However, in this particular case, Amsterdam doesn't benefit from it before Offshore Platforms, because it does not have any more useful land tiles available.)

If you want to play a completely peaceful game, you could gift the Zulus Steam Power and then buy their second coal resource. (Should already have been done right when you got Steam Power.) Also there should already have been a stack of minimum 24 workers prepared for that occasion at Amsterdam, which could quickly rail (and mine) every tile around Amsterdam to double the shield output.

PS: why did you never put a mine on that tile SE of Amsterdam?

 

[Zorrukk]

Ok not starting Shakespeare's a rookie mistake.

If you mean the tile with the forest and silk that would be another mistake, I wasn't sure if a mine was better than the forest. If you mean a different tile then purely an oversight.

I can't check my game save until I get home later this week. I'm a truck driver and my A/C power outlets are not working right now so I am currently don't have my laptop with me. On the plus side my boss is putting an inverter in in a week or two so I'll be able to play when I'm on the road..

 

[Buttercup]

I find going for a 20k win to be, personally, the most interesting win condition the game offers and you're right to use the UN as a back-up win, I'll sometimes do that as well if I'm enjoying a game but it looks like any other win condition might drag on for too long.

A 20k win begins right at the year 4000BC, the slightest change in your tactics can have gigantic implications down the road, and this is why I think its the best target to play for, because its always the BC years that are most fun in any civ game IMO.

The main points to concentrate on are:

Getting your capital to size 12.
Having enough food to squeeze out a Settler fairly quick while also ensuring production stays high.
Looking for Wonder techs while also ensuring you can get to Republic without too much delay.
Making sure you get one or two of the initial first tier Wonders before the AI.

It can be really quite gripping stuff, right down to how many Workers you choose to use and what order they work their tiles in.

 

[Lanzelot]

On the plus side my boss is putting an inverter in in a week or two so I'll be able to play when I'm on the road..

Don't know whether that is a good idea... Can you let me know, where you are driving, so I can avoid that area?

I agree with Buttercup that 20K is the most interesting and challenging VC. It takes a lot of trial and error, before you figure out the best sequence of steps for this kind of victory, and it is also very difficult to recover from a mistake in the early stages of the game. More than in any other game you need to find the right balance between conflicting interests. ("Make your 20K city as strong as possible as fast as possible, so it can quickly build those wonders, but don't neglect the rest of your empire too much, so that you are able to research the necessary techs and don't get run over by a nearby neighbor....")

 

[Zorrukk]

Don't know whether that is a good idea... Can you let me know, where you are driving, so I can avoid that area?

Well week 1 is leave on Sunday morning 1st stop is usually in Illinois, then more stops in Iowa, Nebraska, and finishing up in Denver and home usually home Friday morning.

Week 2 is leave Tuesday Afternoon for stops in Chicagoland on Wednesday then sometimes followed by stops in Northern Indiana Thursday usually home Thursday night then back to week 1.

That is my usual schedule but it can and does change depending on many factors.

I've never managed a 20k win so I'll have to try for that at some point in time.