I've won a few warlord games by score, space race and diplomatic victory, so I'm now thinking of trying some of the harder difficulty levels. I was just wondering if there was a complete listing of the specific differences between each difficulty level (player bonuses, handicaps, AI advantages, increased corruption etc) so I can prepare a strategy for the next difficulty level and then for the others when I get there.
Civ III Difficulty Levels
- Thread starter Krueg
- Start date
The definitive listing is the games Editor. 
You can just look in there to see what is different.
You can just look in there to see what is different.
josephstalin
Kremlin Highlander
The link below has pretty desent explanation:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/infocenter/#levels
It depends on what you are playing... Your manual should have said about difficulcy levels. But editor is the best.
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/infocenter/#levels
It depends on what you are playing... Your manual should have said about difficulcy levels. But editor is the best.
Thanks for the info and the link. I'll check it out.
Sorry, I forgot to mention I'm playing conquests.
I checked the manuel and it just gives general descriptions on the difficulty levels, like cheiftain is the easiest level, warlord is for the occasional player, diety is the ultimate civilization challange.
Sorry, I forgot to mention I'm playing conquests.
I checked the manuel and it just gives general descriptions on the difficulty levels, like cheiftain is the easiest level, warlord is for the occasional player, diety is the ultimate civilization challange.
Invisible Rhino
Prince
I would reccomend jumping up to Monarch asap. The gameplay really improves! It takes some getting used to but I highly reccomend it.
I have a hunch there are some less "empirical" changes that occur as well, as you move up in levels.
It seems your starting positions tend to degrade, your potential access to luxories and resources goes way down. It would also seem any resource advantages you get off the start, such as hay stacks, fresh water and cattle influence how aggressively the AI crowds in on you in the early game. AS if your only allowed cultural access to x amount of tiles and that number goes down as level increases.
Granted, without having a one on one with the programming team, I cant really substantiate my hunches, but I also think the AI follows a different general pattern of behavior as levels go up too, specifically I think the AI players cooperate much better, and that cooperation has more depth to it than just the AI to AI trade numbers and such--on higher levels the AI plays more like one player controlling all the countries, and unless you intervene early it will consolodate all its power into one or two mega giants (the run-a-ways some of you folks metioned).
There is a subtle way in which the amount of info available to you early in the game declines. And the AI will almost invariably attack you once your knowledge of the map and players gets past an ever diminishing point as the levels go up. It seems that if you get too nosy and dont have a decent military your doomed regardless of what leverage you got. Its as if the AI is programmed to defend itself by strictly monitoring and even rationing out the info available to you--when you think about it keeping you in the dark is the AI's only real hope of winning the game, for once you are able to start manipulating the AI effectively it is over. To make my point I guess Id ask you all to think about when a world map is honestly available to you--in conquests theres no chance of gettign one till the other civs get navigation--the games at least half over in most cases by that time--and even then it costs an arm and a leg to get a near complete picture before the AI all (well the ones that matter) go industial. Think about how easy the game would be if there was no fog of war and no black viel--even on a game where the AI was given ridiculous empirical advantages most folks who understand the game would make a complete mockery of the AI.
There is a subtle way in which the AI seeks to misdirect you when your knowledge of the map is small.
There is also an eiree way in which the AI seems to be one step ahead of you in terms of settlers and even troop movements (spooky things happen in that viel of darkness Im guessing)--the AI's "units" just MIGHT practice that "spooky action at a distance" einstein once talked about haha.
with all that said maybe I have gone beyond the threshold of total paranoia, maybe I've spent too many bleary eyed nights playing this game, maybe the AI isnt responsible for my dog running away and my grandma dying after all--but then again..........the AI is just a machine right?
It seems your starting positions tend to degrade, your potential access to luxories and resources goes way down. It would also seem any resource advantages you get off the start, such as hay stacks, fresh water and cattle influence how aggressively the AI crowds in on you in the early game. AS if your only allowed cultural access to x amount of tiles and that number goes down as level increases.
Granted, without having a one on one with the programming team, I cant really substantiate my hunches, but I also think the AI follows a different general pattern of behavior as levels go up too, specifically I think the AI players cooperate much better, and that cooperation has more depth to it than just the AI to AI trade numbers and such--on higher levels the AI plays more like one player controlling all the countries, and unless you intervene early it will consolodate all its power into one or two mega giants (the run-a-ways some of you folks metioned).
There is a subtle way in which the amount of info available to you early in the game declines. And the AI will almost invariably attack you once your knowledge of the map and players gets past an ever diminishing point as the levels go up. It seems that if you get too nosy and dont have a decent military your doomed regardless of what leverage you got. Its as if the AI is programmed to defend itself by strictly monitoring and even rationing out the info available to you--when you think about it keeping you in the dark is the AI's only real hope of winning the game, for once you are able to start manipulating the AI effectively it is over. To make my point I guess Id ask you all to think about when a world map is honestly available to you--in conquests theres no chance of gettign one till the other civs get navigation--the games at least half over in most cases by that time--and even then it costs an arm and a leg to get a near complete picture before the AI all (well the ones that matter) go industial. Think about how easy the game would be if there was no fog of war and no black viel--even on a game where the AI was given ridiculous empirical advantages most folks who understand the game would make a complete mockery of the AI.
There is a subtle way in which the AI seeks to misdirect you when your knowledge of the map is small.
There is also an eiree way in which the AI seems to be one step ahead of you in terms of settlers and even troop movements (spooky things happen in that viel of darkness Im guessing)--the AI's "units" just MIGHT practice that "spooky action at a distance" einstein once talked about haha.
with all that said maybe I have gone beyond the threshold of total paranoia, maybe I've spent too many bleary eyed nights playing this game, maybe the AI isnt responsible for my dog running away and my grandma dying after all--but then again..........the AI is just a machine right?
Similar threads
