Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
What difficulty level(s) would you like for Game 3?
Select 2 preferred settings.
Select 2 preferred settings.
Difficulty levels for Featured Games: Game 3?
- Thread starter Thalassicus
- Start date
void_genesis
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 429
Given that the majority of the current pool of GOTM seem to have won the first games a bump in difficulty could be a good idea, especially for a relatively strong starting position (perhaps would balance nicely with horrible surroundings).
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Variations in map generation can make any particular game wildly different from the next, even with the same mod version. I do my best to smooth out these random fluctuations for GotM maps but sometimes things do slip through the cracks. 
Txurce
Deity
I only voted once, but would have added a second vote for Immortal. However, I don't assume that most players won at King - nor do I see whether or not most players do win at a certain level to be a litmus test. Most players prefer playing at levels where they win most of the time.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Interesting to see almost perfect symmetry in the poll results, nearly 50/50 high and low.
Txurce
Deity
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I'm happy to stay on King if a lot of our players don't enjoy the higher levels.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
It's good to mix things up, so we could swap back-and-forth between King and Emperor for variety. I find King fun even though I normally play on Emperor, because I feel like I have more freedom to explore uncertain strategies I might not otherwise try.
Txurce
Deity
I agree, even when they backfire on me. I'm really enjoying these games. A major part of my enjoyment is the customization. Like Seek, I only wish there was more feedback!
Dunkah
Emperor
I only voted once because i don't want to play a higher level or lower level game than King yet.
That and the fact that I didn't notice the "Vote twice" advice. hehe...
That and the fact that I didn't notice the "Vote twice" advice. hehe...
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
One vote is fine too. I gave the multiple-choice option because when we last discussed difficulty levels, many people said they like 2 difficulties... one for relaxed gameplay, and one up for a hard challenge.
void_genesis
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 429
I would favour king as well after pondering it a while. It broadens the pool of players and makes new strategies worth experimenting with.
Looking forward to GOTM#3!
Looking forward to GOTM#3!
Dunkah
Emperor
Thinking aloud:
I suppose after thinking it over I would be willing to go up a level above king (emperor). If I am ever going to make the leap, doing it in a Gotm scenario would be a good choice. So I can see how everyone else handles the same situations.
[Rant]
I don't like the fact that the AI has advantages I don't have, I understand it needs it in order to actually have a chance of winning at each difficulty level at this point in time, and there is nothing we can do with the current tools we have. But I would much rather see the AI play by the same rules as me, and just have better strategies/ decisions.
My simple brain can understand things if the AI's are playing by the same rules as me. When I am just starting out and I steal a worker from another player, I think how devastating that would be if it happened to me because I spent so much time building it, or all my gold buying it. The fact that it was simply given to the AI from the start just bugs me. Makes it feel gamey when I do steal one. Makes the AI seem stupid for not protecting it in the first place.
So there is this whole other dynamic where not only do you have to understand the rules and strategies of CIV but you also have to know what advantages the AI starts with... so you can do gamey things in order to compete.
King just seems as close to equal as it gets.
In Civ IV I loved the setting for "raging barbarians" because all of the Civs would be on the defensive for 100+ turns, some would even get wiped out. They would be relentless. Ultimately I would get a source of Iron, Horses or Copper... fight my way to it and start putting out counters to their Swords, Chariots or Axes. I loved the Iron/ Horse/ Copper dynamic.
The world was a scary place. You couldn't explore very far before the Barbs came out, and had to get your Scouts back or die, so it delayed much of the diplomacy for quite some time, delayed exploration. Forced the players to build defensive units and walls and such. Forced the players to keep a garrison at home and foray in strength. Slowed down expansion. Made the players actually want to build early wonders like the Great Wall/ Temple of Zues.
Having the AI rush me just because he has an excess of free units at the start due to difficulty level seems gamey and ultimately never works. Feels simply like another contrived obstacle to slow me down before I eventually take over the world. If he wins then game over, if I win then game over for them, but I am behind everyone else that much more.
The long awaited point:
I fear that moving up to Emperor or higher means I will have to learn more gamey ways to counter the AI's bonuses, Rather than employ better Strategies and Tech Combo's. I want to know that if I go into an AI's early expansion city and Plunder the Luxury source that they are going to feel that, like I would, and protect against it. Not laugh at me becuase they have 20+ happiness given to them at the start as a bonus. I want to know that if I cut off a road that the AI is going to suffer from that gold loss and consequently protect against it... I want to know that if I take out a source of Iron they will suffer from that as I would.
[\End Rant]
Sorry if this is not the appropriate thread for this... no reply needed.
I suppose after thinking it over I would be willing to go up a level above king (emperor). If I am ever going to make the leap, doing it in a Gotm scenario would be a good choice. So I can see how everyone else handles the same situations.
[Rant]
I don't like the fact that the AI has advantages I don't have, I understand it needs it in order to actually have a chance of winning at each difficulty level at this point in time, and there is nothing we can do with the current tools we have. But I would much rather see the AI play by the same rules as me, and just have better strategies/ decisions.
My simple brain can understand things if the AI's are playing by the same rules as me. When I am just starting out and I steal a worker from another player, I think how devastating that would be if it happened to me because I spent so much time building it, or all my gold buying it. The fact that it was simply given to the AI from the start just bugs me. Makes it feel gamey when I do steal one. Makes the AI seem stupid for not protecting it in the first place.
So there is this whole other dynamic where not only do you have to understand the rules and strategies of CIV but you also have to know what advantages the AI starts with... so you can do gamey things in order to compete.
King just seems as close to equal as it gets.
In Civ IV I loved the setting for "raging barbarians" because all of the Civs would be on the defensive for 100+ turns, some would even get wiped out. They would be relentless. Ultimately I would get a source of Iron, Horses or Copper... fight my way to it and start putting out counters to their Swords, Chariots or Axes. I loved the Iron/ Horse/ Copper dynamic.
The world was a scary place. You couldn't explore very far before the Barbs came out, and had to get your Scouts back or die, so it delayed much of the diplomacy for quite some time, delayed exploration. Forced the players to build defensive units and walls and such. Forced the players to keep a garrison at home and foray in strength. Slowed down expansion. Made the players actually want to build early wonders like the Great Wall/ Temple of Zues.
Having the AI rush me just because he has an excess of free units at the start due to difficulty level seems gamey and ultimately never works. Feels simply like another contrived obstacle to slow me down before I eventually take over the world. If he wins then game over, if I win then game over for them, but I am behind everyone else that much more.
The long awaited point:
I fear that moving up to Emperor or higher means I will have to learn more gamey ways to counter the AI's bonuses, Rather than employ better Strategies and Tech Combo's. I want to know that if I go into an AI's early expansion city and Plunder the Luxury source that they are going to feel that, like I would, and protect against it. Not laugh at me becuase they have 20+ happiness given to them at the start as a bonus. I want to know that if I cut off a road that the AI is going to suffer from that gold loss and consequently protect against it... I want to know that if I take out a source of Iron they will suffer from that as I would.
[\End Rant]
Sorry if this is not the appropriate thread for this... no reply needed.
Txurce
Deity
A GOTM game is definitely an excellent place to learn - especially if you ask questions.
Actually, it's Prince.
The AI has a meaningful number of free units only at higher levels. But I'm hoping that we can eventually get to a place where the AI's bonuses ramp up by era to the point that they don't need a head start that includes too many freebies.
Dunkah
Emperor
Yeah Prince has other problems that make it kind of reDQulous to play. Way too simple.
I'm not against playing at higher levels per se', it just seems that strategies are taken away from the player at higher levels due to gamey AI bonuses.
I'm not against playing at higher levels per se', it just seems that strategies are taken away from the player at higher levels due to gamey AI bonuses.
Txurce
Deity
I think this has been generally true, with each player having a different threshold. For example, EsoEs felt Immortal was too limiting, and Sneaks seemed to say that Deity also limited strategic choices. Many players here feel all strategies are possible on Emperor, so it's certainly worth your while to fish around for those. And as I've said a few times recently, VEM now seems balanced well enough that strategies don't seem taken away at Immortal; to me, they all seem hard but possible to pull off.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
I win handily on Emperor without exploits like worker stealing, prewar loans, skewed peace deals, and so on. I avoid such things. I call something an "exploit" when we maneuver AIs into actions a human would not allow. I don't think they become necessary until Deity.
I agree completely about this. I've disliked the AI rushes ever since Firaxis introduced them half a year ago. They should rush vulnerable citystates, not major civs! But I've never been able to figure out how to change this.
I agree completely about this. I've disliked the AI rushes ever since Firaxis introduced them half a year ago. They should rush vulnerable citystates, not major civs! But I've never been able to figure out how to change this.
Txurce
Deity
Don't you think it's eased up? I feel like I get attacked most of the time when going tall, but at different intervals... and rarely at the very start.
Dunkah
Emperor
I haven't been rushed on King level in a quite some time. And even when they do I can usually overcome it with an archer and a single warrior. Lots of experience for me. 
Similar threads
