"Fix" the demogame - difficulty level, etc.

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Veera Anlai
I say that if we lose, we lose, and we learn a lesson. I'm staunchly opposed to using a trainer to lower to level of difficulty; our victory would definitely be cheapened if it were achieved by such underhanded methods. Fail with honor rather than succeed by fraud.

The only problem with looking at it this way, is that, partly because we are doing reasonably well, it is going to take a long, long, long time for us to actually lose.

If there is a way to lower the AI's production and research, I say we use it. Micromanagement can be used to deal with the penalties we receive on emperor level.

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

why use the civ3 multi tool when you can use a better trainer
-cough-
powerbar, we could catch up to the AI, give ourselves all the gold in the world, amongst other things. Thats if we cheat.
I say learn from our mistakes and lose (or win). And never let outside influences get to us again

 

[Cyc]

Here's where we split trails, eyrei. I say don't monkey with the game. Everyone voted on the options chosen for this game and we are playing by the results of those votes. We will be breaking some big rules if we alter the state of our existence just because we are seeing rough road ahead (and indeed are on it now).

I will still side with you on not going above reagent on future DG's, but we have proclaimed to the world that the CFC DG2 is to be played at Emperor level. Let's stick to our word. If we cheat in this way at this time, the next cheat will be easier to make.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I am opposed to lowering our difficulty level at this point.

I am not fully convinced that the difficulty level is the reason participation in the Demo Game is low. In fact, I would argue that this level of competition provides for much more meaningful discussion of game tactics.

Certainly Shaitan is correct in that to win on Emp and Diety, you must follow a chosen victory path, and with our Civ, the military path is correct, in order to win.

However, that discussion of future strategy and goals has been void all of this game, and there has not been a national discussion of how we will win that is meaningful beyond the short term goal of killing the Aztec and Japanese hordes...

donsig points up to the leadership issues. I think that argument has merit.

In another thread, Donovan Zoi points out that the same people keep getting elected, no matter their demonstrated ability and dedication to the game. I find some merit in that thought too.

But really, perhaps donsig and disorganizers ideas from the past involving Mayorships, and local elections might add back more flavor.

The message I am hearing loud and clear isn't that the game is too difficult, but instead that the Demo Game isn't as fun as RPG. Fine, perhaps we need to focus attention on things that make the Demo Game fun.

I'll start with a question to the RPGr's. What is it about the RPG that you enjoy, and is there a way to transfer those things into the Demo Game?

 

[Octavian X]

Bill, your question may garner more answers in the RPG forum itself. The main reason I started playing was one night it Term 1 when I had WAY too much time on my hands, and it grew from there.

But really, perhaps donsig and disorganizers ideas from the past involving Mayorships, and local elections might add back more flavor.

This idea has always intrugued me, but considering the state of our last elections, the hard part would be getting people to run in the first place.

Also, I would adamantly oppose any measure to lower the difficulty level. We'll have to live up to the belligerent attitude we had when we voted.

My honest belief is that nothing can be done to 'fix' our problems. They happened without our knowing interference, and eventually will be fixed without our knowing interference.

 

[Falcon02]

I agree with discounting Emporer and Diety from future difficutly polls, but we need to stick with Emporer now, if nothing else as a matter of honor.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Octavian X
Bill, your question may garner more answers in the RPG forum itself.

But Octavian, that thought itself would prove my point on a few issues in that other thread...

Perhaps so, but I ask here, because this is a Demo Game related question, even though it is cloaked in the RPG world.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

As a fan
*cough* user *cough*
of Civ3MT, I think we shouldnt change the level. If we die, so be it. It will be with Fanatikan honor! We gave it a fair shot. Next time, however, Lets stick with my personal favorite level, Regent!. Mabey with PTW scientific civ. Babs, anyone? or dare I say it... (one of my favorites) Greece?
Civ3 DG3: Forty J's Demo Regent Chalange.
(A note to 40 and his chalange users- turn off Acc. Production)

 

[jorge_roberto]

I agree with everybody that want to maintain the Emperor Level in this game. I don't like to cheat.

I'm a newbie in Demogame. I play confortably in Regent and I'm sure I would win a Monarch game. But I'm not confortable in Emperor Level.

I always read other forums in Civfanatics and everybody say that the only way to win in Emperor and Diety is to be a warmonger. This is boring, there is no option.

And if there is no option, why to play a demogame? Let's build a economic infrastructue and a lot of units!!!

But I still like demogame. Maybe because it's new for me. And I have some requests that will facilitate the life of newbies:

- Be pleasure. Explain everything. Don't tell "go to newbie thread or read the FAQ". The rules aren't easy to read.

- We need a quick start text.

- Please, I don't know everybody. Specify you function in every post. I don't even remember who is our president!!!

- Don't use acronym. Don't request a PI. Request a public investigation.

- I don't need every information. Every leader would write 2 or 3 paragraphs explaining the situation and proposing the nexts moves. It's enough.

Thank you all

jorge_roberto (no job in demogame)

 

[FortyJ]

Jorge
Welcome to the Demogame. I'm glad you're joining and I hope to see you get more involved. There certainly are a lot of ways for you to do so.

The rules can be very intimidating and confusing. Unfortunately, I'm not exactly sure we can do anything about that (it's hard enough to make a simple change to the rules - imagine trying to change all of them to make them simpler to understand... ).

It will take some time to learn the faces and names in the demogame. All I can suggest is to visit the forums frequently as the positions change from month to month. I'd also suggest visiting the government sub forum and reading through the official office threads. Each new leader is responsible for posting an office thread for his/her department.

Also, feel free to take part in the discussion threads located in the citizens sub forum. All opinions are welcome and encouraged. You're opinions may be criticized (everyone's are from time to time), but as long as you aren't simply spamming (ie. posting with no real message, other than to see your name on the screen), the input will be appreciated.

As far as the acronyms go.... Good luck changing that. You're going to become familiar with them sooner than you might think. And if you don't know what one is, ask. Someone will tell you.

Again, welcome aboard. I hope to see you around Fanatika more often.

Stuck
You like my computer's random maps, eh?

 

[Shaitan]

Actually we've been doing pretty good with acronymns this game. Last game there was an acronymn for every possible thing you could imagine from individual offices, citizen groups, concepts, you name it. It was confusing even for us veterans.

Back to the topic at hand...

We need to evaluate this not in the light of cheating or toughing it out but as an admitted mistake that can be corrected (or at least mitigated). As eyrei and I have pointed out it takes a loooooong time to lose when your as big as we are and it also takes a looooooong time to win. Can we keep this game going when it gets even less exciting than it is now?

About what the rest of the world thinks, I couldn't care less. I'm not here to prove anything, I'm here to enjoy myself. When I wanted to prove myself I played in the tourney. I stopped that after a month because I just didn't find it to be that fun. Yes, I'm reasonably sure we can win at this level. I just don't know if it'll be that fun doing it.

I really miss things like donsig's crusade to free the slaves in DG1. He won't even suggest it here because it's suicide at our difficulty.

 

[donsig]

Those were the days.... we didn't have and build queues for Ameri and Philadelphia kept making workers so I was able to let some of our slaves settle.

Being on the edge where we can win or lose makes this DG exciting. I have confidence that we can pull off a victory at the level we started. If it becomes clear that we are going to lose, who says we have to play it out to the bitter end? We can always concede victory if defeat is clear.

 

[Octavian X]

Truth be told, emperor is good for us. I encourage all newbies who are afraid of this level to look at it like a learning experience. Think of it as a chance to make a few friends, and learn to civ.

A perfect example would be my tenure as president in the Civ2 Democracy Game. I was hestitant to run for president at first, knowing the trouble I always encounter with Deity levels. I've learned more strategies by playing that game then I would have ever bothered to read about on my own.

 

[FortyJ]

Shaitan's comments bring up the basic crux of the matter which is while playing the demogame on emperor level is do-able, it is not necessarily the most enjoyable way to play it.

Certain entertaining aspects of the demogame are obviously sacrificed (ie. crusades to free the workers, etc.) due to the difficulty of the game we're playing. As such, I must concur that demogames are better played at lesser challenging levels of difficulty so that the entertainment aspect of the game is not lost amongst the desire to do the best move every turn chat.

Nonetheless, I don't think the writing is on the wall yet for this game. We still have a good chance to win this game, and even if our chances lessen over time, we can still have a lot of fun trying.

Besides, I'm not so sure it's going to take that much time to finish this game. We are already on the brink of the industrial era and we are already starting to consider the switch from a war-oriented state to a more peaceful / don't mess with us / we'll do our own research, thank you very much kinda state. And once the wars stop, the game will progress faster. With all the civs in the game, and with their enhanced research rates, we'll all be zipping through the Industrial Age in no time (I hope).

 

[eyrei]

I would like to take this issue to poll at some point, though there is not real hurry. A simple yes, no, abstain poll with the question about whether we should lower the difficulty should be sufficient.

I do agree with Shaitan that I am here to have fun, not prove to Apolyton that we can play on emperor level.

As far as stopping before we actually get wiped out if the game takes that shape, I entirely agree. Right now we are doing pretty well, considering we are playing the hardest version of emperor level, but we may find ourselves in really bad shape as the industrial age starts.

 

[Octavian X]

If we die, we will go out fighting till the end. We took this challenge, and by God we should finish it!

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I think that our strategy to win at this point is to take all territory on our side of the land bridge, and from there we can win in multiple victory paths.

On the other hand, that puts us in a very precarious position depending on our next choices in opponent. For now though, we should stay in the current level.

 

[GenMarshall]

I beleve we should stay in the current level since it will be impossible to modify the dificulty level with C3MT.

I have asked a question regarding changing a difficulty setting with any Save and I have gotten this result:

Originally posted by sumthinelse
I don't think it will work the way you think. The problem is that once a game is created it uses the difficulty level to calculate lots of other fields in the saved game (citizens "born content", AI to AI trade rate, etc. etc.) If you change the difficulty level in C3MT I think it only changes the "Difficulty Level:...." screen displayed when you load a game and not all the other factors associated with difficulty level.

For example, I had a chieftain level game and I used C3MT to change the difficulty to deity. When I loaded the game it said "Difficulty Level: Deity" but in a size 3 city all 3 citizens were "born content" (none unhappy, luxury tax=0%, no luxuries, temples, no garrison). In a real deity game only one would have been content and the other 2 unhappy.

I say, We should stick with the difficulty level and make sure that we go for a Monarch game . C3MT would only change the title difficulty of the game, not the funtions of the Difficulty. IMO, it would be a waste of energy to try to change the Difficulty setting in the save.

 

[Shaitan]

Just about everybody except eyrei and I have voiced the desire to stick with the current settings so I'm not going to bother polling on this. If anybody else cares to do so, please feel free.