 |
|  |
 |
|
jshelr
|
 |
pittsburgh
Apr 2002 time: 00:33
|
|
I was hoping that Demi was the level that would provide a good end game without making me ill during the early game. To a modest extent, that has turned out to be true. I would be interested in other experiences.
As a decent Emperor player, I've gotten into the rut of moving ahead at the turn into the industrial era and having the game all over before the modern era. On Demi, I have not managed to do well in the ancient era with two exceptions
1) Persia, where I adopt the subtle strat of building the UU and breaking things to extort tech
2) Egypt, where I adopt the subtle strat of building the UU and hitting anything that moves to extort tech
Persia works better since the UU lasts well into the middle ages where it is a really cheap 4-pt attacker and the science trait really helps. Egypt with a bunch of closely packed cities can get out of the early squeeze a bit more easily, however.
So, I'm happy with the fact that the Demi games are far from over heading into the modern era but I have not got a clue how to manage the ancient era in anything other than total-warmonger-all-the-time fashion.
In that sense, the Demi level trades an interesting late game for a rigid and, perhaps, strategically less interesting early game. What I'm doing is playing three or four games in order to get past the start once. That's not really a successful approach.
So, the questions are, do others who were successful much of the time on Deity level believe that Demi level is appreciably easier? Do they agree that you can't play Demi without all out war and are there ways to make non-industrious civs get the job done?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominae
|
|
jshelr, how far into your peaceful Demigod games do you get before you call it quits and start a warmonger one? The Industrial era? The Modern era?
I'm guessing here, but could it be that you stop to assess your peaceful games, and stop playing them because you're still not at parity by the end of the Medieval era? If so, what's the problem?! That's exactly the kind of challenge you're looking for!
Have you ever played a game where you did not get parity until the Modern era, but then pulled ahead for the win? Admittedly it takes patience to trudge along for so long (but in-game and in number of hours).
There's no question that warmongering is better than building in Civ3. Players who think that they can accomplish the same as the former with the latter are simply wrong; you can win the game without a fight, but you'll win the game faster and more convincingly if you get your swords bloody. Demigod and Deity do not require warmongering, but since warmongering is better, it's easier to win on those difficulties when you engage in it.
Dominae
Last edited by Dominae on 07-01-2004 at 22:37
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002 time: 21:33
|
|
Maybe this sounds a little negative, but I think the game plays out the same overarching way at any level -- you may or may not secure parity or a lead at some point, but once you do, it is likely over from there. In your own words, at Emperor the turning point for you came around the end of Middle Ages / Beginning of Industrial -- I would be willing to hazard a guess that a step up to Demi-God would not appreciably change the face of the game, but might push the "turning point" further out a bit (provided you maintained the patience to play from behind for a lot longer time - don't know how often you played Deity and whether you were generally successful or not).
I wasn't a beta tester and therefore have only played a half-dozen or so epic games through, perhaps 3 of them at DG level. Feels a bit like the old Deity level (free AI settler; slightly faster pace than Emperor). But based on previous experience on Monarch-Emperor-Deity and limited experience with the new Demi-God, I'm still not expecting a more challenging late game -- I'm simply expecting the turning point, if it comes, to come at different points in my civ's development (which has its entertainment value, but does not equal a game-long challenge).
quote: Originally posted by jshelr
So, the questions are, do others who were successful much of the time on Deity level believe that Demi level is appreciably easier? Do they agree that you can't play Demi without all out war and are there ways to make non-industrious civs get the job done? |
I didn't play Deity a lot - I preferred Emperor - but I like to think I gave Deity a fair shake. I've played only 3 epic Demi-God full games (2 since the 1.12 patch), and it feels quite a bit more like pre-C3C Deity than pre-C3C Emperor; due principally, in my own speculation, to the free AI settler at the start.
But I don't think all-out war has ever been required. My very first v1.12 patch game was Demi-God, standard map, all random. I drew the Germans (Mil / Sci). I had some good and some bad early luck (good=free hut settler for my fourth or fifth city although popped pretty far from home; bad=disease in city 2 early and an early settler lost to raging barbs). Didn't get Philosophy (and its free tech) first. The start terrain / circumstances was average, IMO. By pure happenstance, I ended up playing the game without any of the following: (1) war, of any kind, for the entire game; (2) an FP; or (3) a golden age. It had been a long time since I played a pure peace Deity game pre-C3C, but the experience here reminded me of it very much; and reminded me that war is not required in the vast majority of situations.
If you didn't play Deity much in PTW and you're finding the Demi-God early game to be too strategically straight-jacketed by the need for early warfare, I'd suggest you stick with Demi-God for a while longer but don't rely on early warfare as an equalizer -- play peacefully even when it means you're entering the Middle Ages as someone is building Copernicus' Observatory. I suspect you're far beyond the skill level needed to win at every level but maybe you just haven't had enough experience with playing from behind (far behind!) and come to a conclusion (erroneously) that warfare, now!, is needed, when more experience might allow you to conclude that your position didn't require that warfare.
All of that said . . .
quote: Originally posted by Dominae
There's no question that warmongering is better than building in Civ3. Players who think that they can accomplish the same as the former with the latter are simply wrong; you can win the game without a fight, but you'll win the game faster and more convincingly if you get your swords bloody. Demigod and Deity do not require warmongering, but since warmongering is better, it's easier to win on those difficulties when you engage in it. |
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Catt 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|