Whats the diferance? Actuallly whats the differance between diety and lowers ones? I've played civ for a while i played like 20 full cheiftan-Regent games. Right now i'm trying to finish my monarch game. BIG differacne from others in my oppinion. What am i up against next??
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Sid vs Diety?
- Thread starter Vind2
- Start date
Well the difference between deit and sid is:
Deity def units to start 8, sid is 12.
Deity off units to start 4, sid 6.
Here is another big one:
Deity 1 extra settler, sid 2 extra ones, so they start with 3 settlers.
Deity 2 workers, sid 4 extra ones (beyond what all levels get).
Free unit support Deity 16, sid 24.
Cost factor deity 6, sid 4. So at sid they get 100 shield items for 40 shields. 400 shield wonders cost 160.
Just a few of the bonus changes. Now as to Regent, it is straight up no bonus for the AI.
Monarch they get a 10% bonus, so they pay 90 shields, you pay 100. They get no extra workers or settlers, but start with 2 def and 1 off units.
These units are the best they have tech for, so most will be warriors, but some (Germans) start with archers and spears, so do not try to rush them.
Deity def units to start 8, sid is 12.
Deity off units to start 4, sid 6.
Here is another big one:
Deity 1 extra settler, sid 2 extra ones, so they start with 3 settlers.
Deity 2 workers, sid 4 extra ones (beyond what all levels get).
Free unit support Deity 16, sid 24.
Cost factor deity 6, sid 4. So at sid they get 100 shield items for 40 shields. 400 shield wonders cost 160.
Just a few of the bonus changes. Now as to Regent, it is straight up no bonus for the AI.
Monarch they get a 10% bonus, so they pay 90 shields, you pay 100. They get no extra workers or settlers, but start with 2 def and 1 off units.
These units are the best they have tech for, so most will be warriors, but some (Germans) start with archers and spears, so do not try to rush them.
You are welcome.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
I have a question:I know in Conquests there are two more levels than in Vanilla (Demigod and Sid). What I want to ask is if the levels from Vanilla (Chieftain, Warlord, Regent, Monarch, Emperor and Diety) are equal to the levels with the same name from conquests, or they are changed because the other 2 appeared?
colontos
King
i believe that cheiftain - emperor are the same, but C3C Demigod is the same as vanilla diety, and C3C Diety and Sid are new levels.
I am sure I can state a valid comparison, but it is a lot easier to beat deity on vanilla than it is to beat it on C3C.
DG is probably a little weaker than vanilla deity, but really the games are different enough that it is not clear.
Example: I was playing sid level when a user posted a game on vanilla at Monarch and wanted to know if it could be won. After lots of post, he gave me the 4000BC and I played it.
For the first only time I build every single wonder in the game and just crushed it. That could not be done in C3C. I mean getting all wonders, you can easily crush it.
Leaders making wonders was so strong. In C3C you need SGL's and they are not so easy to come by, even at levels where you are first to techs.
Many other game changes had a large impact. Anyway that is how I see it.
DG is probably a little weaker than vanilla deity, but really the games are different enough that it is not clear.
Example: I was playing sid level when a user posted a game on vanilla at Monarch and wanted to know if it could be won. After lots of post, he gave me the 4000BC and I played it.
For the first only time I build every single wonder in the game and just crushed it. That could not be done in C3C. I mean getting all wonders, you can easily crush it.
Leaders making wonders was so strong. In C3C you need SGL's and they are not so easy to come by, even at levels where you are first to techs.
Many other game changes had a large impact. Anyway that is how I see it.
A small point but shouldn't that read 'Deity one extra settler'? IIRC Deity AI's start with two settlers.vmxa said:
@colontos: as vmxa says, it is very difficult to compare the two versions but in many respects Deity plays the same in vanilla and in C3C. The AI bonuses are the same with respect to trade, building, research and unit support. Other aspects of the game play make it a more complex issue than these raw stats suggest, though I do believe that DG is easier than vanilla Diety.
An example of Sid level stats in practice: Every AI town needs only 8 food to grow in size, which of course drops to only four if it has a granary. A settler costs only 12 shields, so any granary town that is producing just three shields/turn and has +2 food/turn can become a settler factory. This means that virtually every uncorrupted town is a settler factory to the AI that has the Pyramids! On Deity at least the civ must be agricultural or have a food bonus as well as produce on average 4.5 shields/turn for this to happen.
eldar
ChiefTank
Nope food gets the same bonus as production. Just examine an AI city. It's not so noticable at Monarch/Emp, though. A Sid AI city with a granary - now there's obvious (and scary... +4 food to grow in size; +8 from 7-12).
Tone, yeah that is not obvious what I meant, so I will edit it to clarify it.
It is what ultimately hurts them. They build things so fast that they end up with nothing to do except to make troops. They end broke and finally even have to disband their workers.
gmaharriet
Ancient Crone
That screenie is really amazing!!! I've never even tried playing above Emperor, so I've never seen anything like it, and I doubt I ever will. 
Don't be so sure, gmaharriet. I've seen your AW thread and I think you'll be on Deity pretty soon. Then who knows? I never thought that I would try Sid out at one stage. I'm a slow learner but I play so often that even I can't help but get better with time.
You're right though. It is quite awe inspiring how quickly the early expansion phase is for sid AIs and upon establishing my first Sid embassy, I was struck by the imbalance of power. It's a good job the AI is so dumb otherwise no one would stand a chance.
You're right though. It is quite awe inspiring how quickly the early expansion phase is for sid AIs and upon establishing my first Sid embassy, I was struck by the imbalance of power. It's a good job the AI is so dumb otherwise no one would stand a chance.
Psycho
Chieftain
Honestly, I don`t lik eplaying Emperor or Deity games. I tried it but I consider this not for enhanced AI but AI cheating. I would rather welcome AI behaving more inteligent and behave mroe strategic if playing at the highest levels than having unrealistic and unfair production, research and population growth rate. I would really want to play a multiplayer game against 8 civilziation skilled human players and no AIs, this would show real playing skills of each player. Not like those ****ty unrealistic Deity games making me furious of injustice!
Where is the unjustice? You have to give a spot when you are better than your opponent. So we give the Sid AI's a real big spot, but they still lose in most case.
When I was playing straight pool with a pro he would give me 50 to 125 and beat me most of the time. I could only run about 30 or he could run 125.
I would not waste my time if I got less than 50 as I could lose on any inning, but if I coudl run 20 or so and leave him safe, I had a chance.
Believe me you do not want to face a smart AI that could beat you even up. I played in a PBEM with some of the best players in the game and what they can do is scary.
So maybe th ebest of the best woudl be happy, but most of the casual players would not find the game fun at all. Remember they are not even beating chief.
When I was playing straight pool with a pro he would give me 50 to 125 and beat me most of the time. I could only run about 30 or he could run 125.
I would not waste my time if I got less than 50 as I could lose on any inning, but if I coudl run 20 or so and leave him safe, I had a chance.
Believe me you do not want to face a smart AI that could beat you even up. I played in a PBEM with some of the best players in the game and what they can do is scary.
So maybe th ebest of the best woudl be happy, but most of the casual players would not find the game fun at all. Remember they are not even beating chief.
Psycho
Chieftain
Doubled city production or no unit costs is unjustice. I rather prefere smart human enemy coordinating attack than attack of AI hords pillaging all infrastructure. Humans act different, smaller armies (can`t produce milions units like AIs), but use terrain defense bonuses. Not like AIs abandoning strategic montainous tile just to attack you on grassland. Human player would never make something so stupid. CIV5, CIV6 and next generations of CIV should focus on improving "brain" of AI instead of giving AI stupid production, growth rate, military costs and happiness advantages.
COmpare CIV3 with Counter Strike. AI in counter strike behaves teh same way like if playing against humans. If AI in Counter Strike would go teh sam eway like Civilization does, AI controlled bots would have 2times more leathal hits if shooting from the same weapon like humans and moving like a superhumens having extra jet installed in the ass making them moving several times faster than humans... This would make Counter Strike boring. It`s also killing the fun in CIV the same way. CIV is a superb game, my most beloved one, I fell in love to Civilization on the very first look when I come across CIV1 about 13 years ago for the first time, but the AI level is very poor there. I am not seying it`s easy to beat 15 AIs if playing Deity game, it`s almost impossible, but the current aproach of developers to AI behaviour is not good. At least I think there is much to improve yet. I am really impationt to see how CIV4 differes to CIV3, but I don`t suppose any changes regarding AIs. Still the same stupid acts of AIs balanced by its advantage in production and technologies.
Wouldn`t it be more funny facing an opponent with adequate number of military units to the size of his empire but deploying his defensive units across the empire defending the importing tiles like crossroads, slips, bridges than coming to a city of size 10 defended by 50 riflemen...
COmpare CIV3 with Counter Strike. AI in counter strike behaves teh same way like if playing against humans. If AI in Counter Strike would go teh sam eway like Civilization does, AI controlled bots would have 2times more leathal hits if shooting from the same weapon like humans and moving like a superhumens having extra jet installed in the ass making them moving several times faster than humans... This would make Counter Strike boring. It`s also killing the fun in CIV the same way. CIV is a superb game, my most beloved one, I fell in love to Civilization on the very first look when I come across CIV1 about 13 years ago for the first time, but the AI level is very poor there. I am not seying it`s easy to beat 15 AIs if playing Deity game, it`s almost impossible, but the current aproach of developers to AI behaviour is not good. At least I think there is much to improve yet. I am really impationt to see how CIV4 differes to CIV3, but I don`t suppose any changes regarding AIs. Still the same stupid acts of AIs balanced by its advantage in production and technologies.
Wouldn`t it be more funny facing an opponent with adequate number of military units to the size of his empire but deploying his defensive units across the empire defending the importing tiles like crossroads, slips, bridges than coming to a city of size 10 defended by 50 riflemen...
I cannot speak to Counter Strike. I can only say that if the AI was smarter by any significant degree, the game would not sell much.
Then you have to face making the game to be strong as the strongest player, that is not profitable. It is the same with TV. If they made it so shows were inteligent, not many would watch. They have to gear it mostly towards the least common denominator.
Maybe they could make it some what sharper, but that cost money. It takes more time and delays the game getting on the shelf. That is not good for business.
Making TBS strategy games is a lot harder than other games, anyway I have no problem with the spot they get. It makes it fun and rewarding to finally beat the highest level.
It is even fun to get run over once in awhile. When I looked at a civ that had about 2000 units, and I had 400, I was happy to have taken them down (no nukes either).
I enjoyed founding a town and having hundreds of units show up to pay me a call. I did not like waiting for the battle to end though.
Then you have to face making the game to be strong as the strongest player, that is not profitable. It is the same with TV. If they made it so shows were inteligent, not many would watch. They have to gear it mostly towards the least common denominator.
Maybe they could make it some what sharper, but that cost money. It takes more time and delays the game getting on the shelf. That is not good for business.
Making TBS strategy games is a lot harder than other games, anyway I have no problem with the spot they get. It makes it fun and rewarding to finally beat the highest level.
It is even fun to get run over once in awhile. When I looked at a civ that had about 2000 units, and I had 400, I was happy to have taken them down (no nukes either).
I enjoyed founding a town and having hundreds of units show up to pay me a call. I did not like waiting for the battle to end though.
Psycho
Chieftain
I don`t think comparison with TV is the best example. TV is made for big mass of people, stupid crowd while PC games are focused on certain type of players. I don`t think there are many people horny to get and play CIV4 who have not played CIV1-CIV3. Lot of Civilization games players have 10 years of experience and expect AI improvement. Practicaly AI`s inteligence didn`t change since Civ1 which was published in 1991 if not mistaken.
I also don`t understand your pointing on the issue if making the game too difficult would cause worse selling thereafter. On chieftain level AI would behave the same stupid way like now, but on Deity level it would act like human. Currently I am playing Deity game, that`s the reason why am I not sleeping yet (it`s 1:30am here) and it makes me sick if seeking the second stronghest and most advanced Egyptian empire consists of several cities of size 2-3 placed in hilly or mountainous terrain. If human player playing there he wouldn`t invent even Pottery while the AI bastard have already discovered almost all Ancient technologies.
Strategy should be realistic and this AI cheating is turning TB strategy to some "magic and action stuff". Something like Diablo. You are outnumbered by the hordes attacking you from all sides and you have to manage to kill them all to win the game...
God thanks there`s a multiplayer feature in CIV!
I also don`t understand your pointing on the issue if making the game too difficult would cause worse selling thereafter. On chieftain level AI would behave the same stupid way like now, but on Deity level it would act like human. Currently I am playing Deity game, that`s the reason why am I not sleeping yet (it`s 1:30am here) and it makes me sick if seeking the second stronghest and most advanced Egyptian empire consists of several cities of size 2-3 placed in hilly or mountainous terrain. If human player playing there he wouldn`t invent even Pottery while the AI bastard have already discovered almost all Ancient technologies.
Strategy should be realistic and this AI cheating is turning TB strategy to some "magic and action stuff". Something like Diablo. You are outnumbered by the hordes attacking you from all sides and you have to manage to kill them all to win the game...
God thanks there`s a multiplayer feature in CIV!
