04-01-2004 07:30									#1
	Is Conquests easier? Support Apolyton

I have played two conquests games

both on emperor

in both I kicked the computers ass

while for one I followed some special limitations (see thread I posted in general Civ3)

for the other anything went (I picked Incas, but I didn't scout and I was not next to any fresh water)

I remember having some challenge in emporer

when they made the new levels, did they make emperor easier?

the only other tihng I can think of is if tiny worlds (which I played on because I wanted a faster game) are easier

Jon Miller

	04-01-2004 07:38									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

btw

if all this is known, sorry

I haven't played Civ3 SP in years other than 3 games of conquests, which I have mentioned in recent threads

Jon Miller

	04-01-2004 08:46									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

The AIs never make stacks of doom anymore.

	04-01-2004 08:55									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

ah


that is really important

I shouldn't do attacks, or else should limit how large of stacks I make myself

Jon Miller

	04-01-2004 08:57									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Emperor is the same as it was.

The key difference is comunication trading has been significantly delayed. That lowers tech pace of AI, so that the game seems easier.

	04-01-2004 10:35									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yea that sure is nice, now they don't go running off into the future when you have archers... and you actually have a chance to keep up.

	04-01-2004 11:42									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Stacks of doom never seemed to do much anyway. Yours will, but the computer was easily fooled by say, abandoning the defenses of a semi-rear-echelon city with a key resource by it. I don't think it cheats the map locations as much now.. not sure. Meanwhile you were shelling the bejeezus out of this stack of doom as it treks useless about. Instead the computer can and seems to actually attempt to attack/counter-attack meaningfully... albeit still predictably.

Your stack sizes shouldn't matter, the computer rarely has more than say.. 10 or so units in a city, and armies are insane now. Lower stacks of bombers and artillery (or just using them for defense or taking out resources) might be a more meaningful self-imposed element.

If you check the editor emperor looks about the same as it did before; changes in the techs (philosophy!) seem to account for the slight ease of early tech pains.

	04-01-2004 12:13									#8
	Remove this text

I submit that a few games is not an indicator of much. Especially since all the game before 1.12 where useless.

	04-01-2004 12:58									#9
	Remove this text

well I know the difference between really easy

and something that isn't (is eevn difficult)

Jon Miller

	04-01-2004 15:33									#10
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Im playing a game ATM where the dutch have got a stack of 60 plus units in one of their distant cities, I just wish I had a couple of ICBM's

	04-01-2004 15:44									#11
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

in my personal experience a tiny map is much easier than letīs say a huge map.

edit: in one of my games (pre 1.12) the english sent like 60-80 tanks and mech inf on my only city on their continent, Iīd say thatīs pretty good... tobad for them I had a nice stack of mech inf myself in that city, and a lot of bombers and artillary, somthing the AI (as always) lacked.