I always play with 7 civs, because I assumed it is the hardest setting. However, now that I have put some thought into it, I'm not so sure anymore. At 7 civs, I can quickly take over one or two enemy civs, and immediately become the largest & strongest civ, which then gives me more and more momentum towards winning the game, whether by conquest or by sending a spaceship to Alpha Centauri. What is the general opinion on this? What number of civs is hardest to play?
Does more civs always mean more difficult?
- Thread starter hecose
- Start date
vladmir_illych_lenin
King
7 civs is hard, but so is 3 civs. When there are 7 civs, they can ally, and all declare war on you. Also, they give you less room to spread. With 3 civs, it give everyone a lot more room to grow, so it can also be hard. It depends on what you want, 7 weaker civs, or 3 stronger civs.
RedWolf
Deity
When you play for the space race like I do then it's harder with 7 civs. I try to stay peacefull as long as possible because war tends to get in the way of my civs growth.
So when I'm in that critical growth phase I have a greater chance of running into another nasty civ... leading into an early war which tends to drain my resources and time. I like playing on 5 civs. Tens to be a medium balance between 7 and 3
So when I'm in that critical growth phase I have a greater chance of running into another nasty civ... leading into an early war which tends to drain my resources and time. I like playing on 5 civs. Tens to be a medium balance between 7 and 3
Cunobelin Of Hippo
Site Pachyderm
I like to play 7 civs on a small map so that there is lots of contact. It also takes a shorter time to travel to your far off enemies.
------------------
"He who expands rapidly across the open terrain of his Civ Map is akin to he who spreads his legs widely. Both leave their Capitol in a vulnerable position, and are libel to be bagged with extreme severity."
Hear now, the Word of Hippo
------------------
"He who expands rapidly across the open terrain of his Civ Map is akin to he who spreads his legs widely. Both leave their Capitol in a vulnerable position, and are libel to be bagged with extreme severity."
Hear now, the Word of Hippo
willemvanoranje
Curitibano
I always play with 6 other civilizations. I don't know why, maybe just for alliances, or just to kick more different *** . I don't know.
I like having a "target rich environment".
Kev
Hired Goon
I've always played under the assumption that the more rivals you include the greater the effect on your final score. I hope this is true in any case.
7 civs in total can be a real pain once they begin signing pacts with each other to contain your aggression. This is when all of the tech trading starts and your tech lead can start to shrink. Having 4 or 5 rivals all trading techs with one another usually means I have to start picking some off.
------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock
7 civs in total can be a real pain once they begin signing pacts with each other to contain your aggression. This is when all of the tech trading starts and your tech lead can start to shrink. Having 4 or 5 rivals all trading techs with one another usually means I have to start picking some off.
------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock
7 civ just means more half witted playmates and targets. I like target rich environments.
edit: even the spellchecker doesn't take care of everything.
[This message has been edited by Lefty Scaevola (edited February 23, 2001).]
edit: even the spellchecker doesn't take care of everything.
[This message has been edited by Lefty Scaevola (edited February 23, 2001).]
shadowdale
CFC Drunkard
I think that more Civs only mean a higher score if you go for a conquest victory, not if you take the space way!!!
And a good strategy to prevent 4-5 other Civs to trade advances is to destroy a few of them before it get that fare.
------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.
Coolbook: Cunobelin Of Hippo, Håkan Eriksson, vladmir_illych_lenin, stellar converter, Stormerne.
And a good strategy to prevent 4-5 other Civs to trade advances is to destroy a few of them before it get that fare.
------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.
Coolbook: Cunobelin Of Hippo, Håkan Eriksson, vladmir_illych_lenin, stellar converter, Stormerne.
Warlord56
Warlord
probab;y 5 civs, not weak and not so much room for you to expand
Kev
Hired Goon
Heck, I always THOUGHT that more civs made for a better score in the end. In theory, one would think that if the amount of starting rivals has no effect, then the minimum amount would be easiest if you just had score in mind. In this way, you could get hold of the world quicker and then develop the whole thing the way you'd like (and actually make USE of the resource tiles - not build so the city radius just misses them like the dopey AI seems to do).
It would be a horribly boring game where you'd just be organizing hordes of settlers and engineers for most of it, but if you're after a score that would seem to be the way to go.
I know that the counter-argument would go something along the lines of: a minimum amount of civs will give your rivals the area and time to expand as well. Honestly, do you think the AI makes the best use of this? Some of those civs you could leave for an epoch and they will build 6 or 7 cities. With 7 civs in total there always seems to be one or two who are able to get a foothold (either by having time as you wreck the others or by taking over their own neighbors) and make taking them over a bit more dificult.
Sort of Darwinian thinking that in a larger group natural selection will produce more difficult rivals.
Is there a definitive answer to the "more civs, less civs" scoring? Let's assume going for a high score and therby developing a spaceship.
------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock
It would be a horribly boring game where you'd just be organizing hordes of settlers and engineers for most of it, but if you're after a score that would seem to be the way to go.
I know that the counter-argument would go something along the lines of: a minimum amount of civs will give your rivals the area and time to expand as well. Honestly, do you think the AI makes the best use of this? Some of those civs you could leave for an epoch and they will build 6 or 7 cities. With 7 civs in total there always seems to be one or two who are able to get a foothold (either by having time as you wreck the others or by taking over their own neighbors) and make taking them over a bit more dificult.
Sort of Darwinian thinking that in a larger group natural selection will produce more difficult rivals.
Is there a definitive answer to the "more civs, less civs" scoring? Let's assume going for a high score and therby developing a spaceship.
------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock
Kev
Hired Goon
Heck, I always THOUGHT that more civs made for a better score in the end. In theory, one would think that if the amount of starting rivals has no effect, then the minimum amount would be easiest if you just had score in mind. In this way, you could get hold of the world quicker and then develop the whole thing the way you'd like (and actually make USE of the resource tiles - not build so the city radius just misses them like the dopey AI seems to do).
It would be a horribly boring game where you'd just be organizing hordes of settlers and engineers for most of it, but if you're after a score that would seem to be the way to go.
I know that the counter-argument would go something along the lines of: a minimum amount of civs will give your rivals the area and time to expand as well. Honestly, do you think the AI makes the best use of this? Some of those civs you could leave for an epoch and they will build 6 or 7 cities. With 7 civs in total there always seems to be one or two who are able to get a foothold (either by having time as you wreck the others or by taking over their own neighbors) and make taking them over a bit more dificult.
Sort of Darwinian thinking that in a larger group natural selection will produce more difficult rivals.
Is there a definitive answer to the "more civs, less civs" scoring? Let's assume going for a high score and therby developing a spaceship.
------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock
It would be a horribly boring game where you'd just be organizing hordes of settlers and engineers for most of it, but if you're after a score that would seem to be the way to go.
I know that the counter-argument would go something along the lines of: a minimum amount of civs will give your rivals the area and time to expand as well. Honestly, do you think the AI makes the best use of this? Some of those civs you could leave for an epoch and they will build 6 or 7 cities. With 7 civs in total there always seems to be one or two who are able to get a foothold (either by having time as you wreck the others or by taking over their own neighbors) and make taking them over a bit more dificult.
Sort of Darwinian thinking that in a larger group natural selection will produce more difficult rivals.
Is there a definitive answer to the "more civs, less civs" scoring? Let's assume going for a high score and therby developing a spaceship.
------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock
hgengstrom
Chieftain
By looking at the last screen I don't see any way the number of civilizations will affect the final score. I play fundamentalism with spies and never go space ship so maybe the more they expand the more pre-built cities I can acquire. I am a little pissed off at the AI for building his cities in dumb locations though.
vladmir_illych_lenin
King
More civs go give you better score. I think you get a bonus for each culture you destroy.
shadowdale
CFC Drunkard
They do Vlad, but only if you win by conquest!!! Have any of you ever seen any bonus points from destroyiong others Civs in a game where you won by Space????
Well I haven't and it's been ages since I have last played a game for a conquest victory so I'm not sure if you get a bonus but I seem to remember that you do.
------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.
Coolbook:
Håkan Eriksson, Stormerne, vladmir_illych_lenin, Cunobelin Of Hippo, PaleHorse76.
Well I haven't and it's been ages since I have last played a game for a conquest victory so I'm not sure if you get a bonus but I seem to remember that you do.
------------------
Veni Vidi Vici.
Coolbook:
Håkan Eriksson, Stormerne, vladmir_illych_lenin, Cunobelin Of Hippo, PaleHorse76.
Now I'm in my first Emperor Level game. I have progressed step by step from Cheiftian to Emperor, and have always been playing 7 civs. So when I started my Emperor game, I decided I shall do a conquest game and set it to 4 civs, thinking that with fewer civs the AI's will have more time to expand, and when I'm busy killing one, the others will expand and overtake me. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, and this game turned out to be less challenging than I hoped. So, probably next time I'll play with 7 civs.
Another thing is the babarian level. I have set it to Raging Hordes. By now I can cope with it (although I still lost one or two early cities). But the AI's seem hopeless in dealing with babarians. Their continents are totally infested with babarians. So, it seems to me having high babarian activity actually makes it easier for me, because this weakens the enemy civs. What do you think?
Hmm... I have an idea. Maybe I should play 7 civs on a large map? Would that make things more challenging? Emperor, Raging Hordes, 7 civs, Large map. (as you can probably see I'm not so confident to go on Deity yet)
Another thing is the babarian level. I have set it to Raging Hordes. By now I can cope with it (although I still lost one or two early cities). But the AI's seem hopeless in dealing with babarians. Their continents are totally infested with babarians. So, it seems to me having high babarian activity actually makes it easier for me, because this weakens the enemy civs. What do you think?
Hmm... I have an idea. Maybe I should play 7 civs on a large map? Would that make things more challenging? Emperor, Raging Hordes, 7 civs, Large map. (as you can probably see I'm not so confident to go on Deity yet)
MrLeN
Prince
More civs is definitely easier. There are more resources to spunge from.
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
[This message has been edited by MrLeN (edited March 01, 2001).]
MrLeN
------------------
Where there is money, there are liars!
[This message has been edited by MrLeN (edited March 01, 2001).]
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Actually sometimes it makes it easier since I don't have to settle all the places, I just have to conquer the stuff thats already there--and usually its less hassle to do that than to settle yourself.
------------------
Fallen Angel Lord,
check out Civworld Forms
------------------
Fallen Angel Lord,
check out Civworld Forms
Similar threads
