09-12-2004 05:19									#1
	What level do you play (and discuss strategy) on? Suffering from ads?

My experiences with TBS have been largely playing Civ2, SMAC, Imp2. Most of all Civ2.

In that game its pretty much taken for granted that any serious player is playing on diety, the highest level. Strat tips in the forum, when they were for SP (and the hardcore mainly played MP) were assumed to be for deity, unless otherwise specified. Same for transcend level in SMAC, I think (transcend being even easier to win on than Civ2 deity) Imp2 had a complex difficulty system, aside from being much harder on the higher levels.

My impression from browsing here is that the impossible level of MoO2 is harder than Civ2 Deity. Nonetheless its also my impression that most serious players are playing on impossible, though not expecting to win as consistently as a serious Civ2 player in deity, SP. Is that correct? Are your strat comments here assuming impossible level play, unless otherwise specified?

	09-12-2004 06:33									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I can hardly remember Civ2 any longer, but it was qutie easy to win at all levels. It just had too many exploits. SMAC I only played for one year and can remember very little, except mind stapling was funny.

Moo2 is probably harder to win at impossible than Civ2, but is not very hard with a good race and a reasonable location.

None are as hard as Civ3 on Sid, which is what I tend to play lately.

Never play Imp more than once. Basically what can one do if they have played tons of times, they end up moving to the highest level.

Civ3 is the only game that I have lost at at the highest level after finally winning once. It is very hard to beat with out some friendly map settings.

	09-12-2004 19:54									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

When I played Civ2 I didn't know any of the exploits so I couldn't win on the higher levels.

I could win on SMAC on transcend, but preferred to play the second highest level because I was lazy with monitoring drones.

If I am trying a handicapped race I will play Moo2 on hard, but most of the games I play are on impossible. Compared to the previous 2 examples I find Moo2 on impossible easier, but that might just come from experience.

	09-12-2004 21:23									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Moo2 on immposible is definitly much easier then civ on deity.
On mp we always play imposibble, but rarely with AIs.

PK

	09-12-2004 23:34									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ummm, P-K, difficulty level only effects the AIs. You do realize that, don't you?

The strategic difference of only being able to settle and exploit discrete points on the map makes more of a difference for MoO2 than difficulty level. It's like playing Civ on a map with nothing but small islands. If only crappy systems are in range you are screwed.

That said, certain AI combinations at Impossible do make the game very difficult. When you get agressive empires with augmented growth rates all around you they can easily swamp you.

	10-12-2004 01:35									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Straybow Ummm, P-K, difficulty level only effects the AIs. You do realize that, don't you?

In that it would be different from Civ2, where there are different happiness factors at every difficulty level, as well as the double settlers on deity, so that it DOES matter what difficulty level you play on MP. Is that correct? That in MoO2 difficulty ONLY affects the AI?

	10-12-2004 03:15									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Close, I think the strength of the guardian is difficulty related. At least it was in Moo.

	10-12-2004 07:05									#8
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Hi "mark" , well, most of the experienced multi-player MOOers can beat the AI on impossible (almost) every time, it is safe to say.

(i don't believe in always and never, hence why i added words such as "most" and "almost")

	11-12-2004 00:35									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Ummm, P-K, difficulty level only effects the AIs. You do realize that, don't you?"

Of course it affects AIs level. So what ? We talked about which is harder : civ2 on deity or moo2 on impossible. Both computers are cheating, but in moo2 u can defend yourself in battles with good ships and tactics while civ2 u cant do that. If i would have to fight with AIs ships by they designs and tactics only, moo2 would be harder to win, but its not!

"The strategic difference of only being able to settle and exploit discrete points on the map makes more of a difference for MoO2 than difficulty level. It's like playing Civ on a map with nothing but small islands. If only crappy systems are in range you are screwed."

Not quite. Bad luck happens but AI is so dump that human player can easly overcome even much worse conditions. If two human players are in game, then map is a very strong factor.

"That said, certain AI combinations at Impossible do make the game very difficult. When you get agressive empires with augmented growth rates all around you they can easily swamp you."

Easily? Well i bet AI can easly kill newbies moo2 players, but hardly ever a veteran human opponent.

PK

	14-12-2004 12:58									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

In MOO2, I always play Impossible; although I used MeltingPot to beef up the AI races to close to maximum extent, I haven't lost in ages. One time, a Darloks with +36 picks did beat me.

A COrion2 boosted race with +12 research and +12 industry that I wasn't expecting to be up against, was encountered at around turn 50 (prewarp) after it had conquered half the huge map , but it eventually fell to my gritted determination.

In SMAC/X I've been playing Transcend for about 5 years, and rarely lose. Two occasions stick in my memory. One was on a small map when I was on a shoreline and the Usurpers landed right next to me. Replaying the game over and over never got me to survive more than a few turns extra.

The second memorable defeat was when I generated a map of scattered islands. I played as the Drones, landed on a 3x3 island, and spent turns 20 to 70 being bombarded silly by the Pirates. Technically, I didn't lose the game so much as my patience, but I'm sure they would have landed ground forces eventually.

The only Alien Crossfire faction I have real difficulty playing is the Spartans, whom I find unbearably slow, which is odd given that the fastest recorded Transcend-level wins by any player are with them. Maybe it's just that I'm an incorrigible Builder.

Civ2 I find a struggle at anything above King. I've only won one game at Emperor, and the best I did at Deity was to come second, and that was only because the first-placed Romans took such pity on me and generously donated me ample tech without having to be asked. Until Space Flight, that is: they were determined to reach Alpha Centauri before me (and they did). Perhaps they knew they'd need a head start once they got there.

As for Civ3, I still struggle at the lowest levels. I'm worse at that than I am at one of my favorite series, the Heroes of Might & Magic games, where I always play at the pawn or knight levels.

In Civ3, one of the few things I have learnt is that mobility is important: producing Cossacks continually will beat large number of foot soldiers when at war, and in peacetime a wall of Cossacks keeps those pesky rival settlers off my land.

The other thing I learnt in Civ3 was to make more and more Workers, whatever the cost in food. Mother Ant knows that's the way to dominate the world.

	16-12-2004 06:23									#11
	Increase Your PM Length

I always play on impossible (with huge galaxy) and I rarely lose, provided I don't select very bad race characteristics (uncreative being the worst IMO). When I lose it's usually due to me researching techs in my home system, forgetting about building defense and then suddenly the silicoid or sakkra show up on my doorstep with 10+ BB.
Lately I've been playing a lot with Lith/Tol races and I haven't lost a single game with that combination, yet.
I once played an 'impossible' game with just -10 picks and I still managed to win. It's really a matter of whether you start close to another very aggressive expansionist race.


I haven't played civ2 on deity extensively, but I still managed to win most games. I just played a Red Front 1.4 campaign on deity (ie Marshal, no airlifting from UK and no disbanding red armies in 1941 were among the house rules I used) and I conquered Berlin in June 1944.

I also played SMAC on transcend and I found it's still possible to win almost every game, it's just that I don't get nearly all of the wonders like on thinker/librarian.

Of those three I found civ2 to be hardest on the highest difficulty level, but I also had the least amount of experience on diety. I think there might be some correlation there.

	16-12-2004 08:13									#12
	Increase the size of your Attachments

So who among you play Europa Universalis 2?

Amazing strategy game, although I can understand why its appeal would be more limited than the Civ series, since EU2 is based on about 400 years of history, rather than the whole expanse from prehistory to the info age.

But that finite time period is something I appreciate about it. You can play the whole grand campaign, without ever having such a technological lead over your opponents that they're helpless against you, apart from natives. And even as the major powers, you're not expected to conquer the whole world.

	17-12-2004 10:45									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I find small/impossible to be fairly interesting, though easier then huge because the ai can't really crank out the kinds of doom fleets as early as it can on huge. I can win from a good start most of the time with a good race on Huge. Starting in the middle of the map with all the hostile aliens is a challenge.

	18-12-2004 19:59									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Whoha I find small/impossible to be fairly interesting, though easier then huge because the ai can't really crank out the kinds of doom fleets as early as it can on huge. I can win from a good start most of the time with a good race on Huge. Starting in the middle of the map with all the hostile aliens is a challenge.

doom fleets. Thats one of the interesting differences between Moo2 and Civ2, or even SMAC (havent played Civ3) in those games combat was almost an exploit, the AI had such a tendency to feed units piecemeal. The Moo2 AI seems much better at accumulating a large force.

	18-12-2004 21:04									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well, in MOO2, combat is very different- i am sure if Civ had an army type of combact and a tactical minimap, then the AI would invariably be better at fighting wars.

I myself am not a serious gamer- I like games, but I don;t care to spend the time to master every single little details to maximize outcomes. I generally play on average difficulty levels. I rarely lose, but most of the time I don;t play to win, but to play.

The one great AI failing in MOO2 is ship design. I think if the AI made killer ships like human players do, the game would be much harder. I mean, what good is a massive Doom Fleet (many of which I have faced) if the human player can make cruisers that can take out multiple doomstars in one turn?

I had a battle were a few dozen late tech cruisers, with time warps, phasing cloaks, and full upgrade phazors took out many times their number Doomstars.

If I had been using Titans, it would have been even more horribly lopsided.

	20-12-2004 13:45									#16
	Put an end to popups!

I just played an insane game in a huge galaxy on Impossible. Despite using Unitol, I wasn't able to expand quick due to a slow start, and when I encountered my neighbors, they were equal or better in tech, which made for some very rough battles. We gained ground very slowly against the Klackons, and fought a stalemated conflict against the Humans, trading worlds back and forth as many as three times. With the development of Gauss Cannons, we were able to breach planetary defenses and finally defat both of these rivals.

By this time, though, the Darloks had been stealing massive amounts of tech from us, and had conquered one race and accepted the surrender of another. So they were a superpower, and we were just starting to compete. Anticipating an apocalyptic confrontation, I eliminated all the other pesky species, built up my empire, and prepared a fleet.

Unexpectedly, the Darloks defeated the Guardian and colonized Orion. They wasted no time attacking with a large fleet against which I was relatively unprepared, putting Loknar at the spearhead of a massive squadron of battleships and titans.

My fleet fared well against the enemy battleships, but every time Loknar turned up in a battle, he shredded my ships and bases. Eventually, I was able to concentrate enough ships in one system to ambush and exterminate Loknar, and although the rest of my fleet perished along with the system it was defending, the loss of the legendary captain stopped the Darloks' relentless advance.

With the loss of several colonies, my empire was hurting, but still researching at a fast pace. Soon I was able to produce titans armed with disruptors to challenge the still powerful Darlok fleet, and these ships turned the tide. Having won the naval war, I bombed out every Darlok system but Nazin and Orion, then gathered my fleet for the traditional naval review for the ceremonial firing of the stellar converter. It was rather amusing to win a game of MOO2 by obliterating Orion.

Goes to show you. The AI can surprise you with a pretty tough game sometimes.

	20-12-2004 21:58									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

Sounds like you had fun. It seems that if you have not visited Orion by the time of RP 3500, the AI will soon do it.

I rarely hold Orion after killing the Guardian, so I often will come back later to bomb it out.

Last edited by vmxa1 on 21-12-2004 at 00:54

	20-12-2004 23:02									#18
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GePap Well, in MOO2, combat is very different- i am sure if Civ had an army type of combact and a tactical minimap, then the AI would invariably be better at fighting wars. I myself am not a serious gamer- I like games, but I don;t care to spend the time to master every single little details to maximize outcomes. I generally play on average difficulty levels. I rarely lose, but most of the time I don;t play to win, but to play.

I go back and forth on that one. It really depends on the game. I do find that playing at the highest levels, where you have to master little details, can detract from the immersion, OTOH i get inspired by the competiviness here.

	21-12-2004 01:57									#19
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I just hadn't played a game before where Loknar, personally, and his ship, were so lethal. In most games, my ship technology has advanced far enough that a typical battleship or certainly a titan can compete with his tricked-out ride.

And what amused me about bombarding Orion is, we blew up the homeworld of the Ancients with a stellar converter to kill the last enemy population point.

Lotta artifacts floating around in that asteroid belt.

	22-12-2004 00:37									#20
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by vmxa1 Sounds like you had fun. It seems that if you have not visited Orion by the time of RP 3500, the AI will soon do it. I rarely hold Orion after killing the Guardian, so I often will come back later to bomb it out.

It does sound like Tiemler's game was a fun one. I recently had the Gnolams sneak out and kill the Guardian before I'd even found Orion, a rare occurrence in and of itself. Once I kill the Guardian, though, I almost always go ahead and colonize it. It's almost never fully developed before the end of the game, though. By the time I can take out the Guardian, I can usually take out the other species with little or no loss of ships. I find that I almost never have very much of the "take, lose, and retake" of planets, though. I either bomb the colony rather than conquer it, or go ahead and buy at least one planetary defense before moving on, preferably either rocket bases or ground batteries, depending on what tech I've got.

	22-12-2004 01:25									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I generally lose planets due to revolts because I had too few merines guarding the colony, not to enemy counterattacks. I prefer if I can to attack along a wide front, and invade planets after I have moved the space battles further down into their empire.
Generally, I will seek to destroy their battle fleet before I start invading planets.

	22-12-2004 02:30									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have to agree w/ GePap. When I read the above posts the first time, I was thinking about losing planets to counterattacks, not revolt. So let me rephrase: I've rarely had planets go back and forth due to counterattacks. I've lost quite a few to revolts (usually due to the Sakkra horde).

With regard to method of attacking, for me, it's situational. If I'm in a position of strength, I'll attack along a wide front. If I'm getting pounded and need to refit, I'll send a "harassment fleet" of almost-obsolete ships and outposts deeper into enemy territory to bombard unguarded colonies, destroy starbases/battlestations, and take out what ships they can. Sometimes I can buy myself enough time to refit my main attack fleet.

	22-12-2004 07:27									#23
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

My defensive strategy at the time I was fighting the humans and klackons was based on missle frigates, this being relatively early in the game. And protecting recently captured/re-captured planets would occupy too much of my fleet strength to go on busting starbases and missle bases, so I kept moving for the most part.

When my original attack fleet reached Sol, I was witness to the greatest slaughter of destroyers, cruisers, and battleships by MIRV nuke frigates in all of galactic history. It really was insane. We lost most of the frigates, but the human fleet could no longer oppose us in a pitched battle after that.

Don't worry, I didn't end human civilization. When I play the Elerians or with their race picture, I have a little rule that says human planets can't be bombarded, as they are regarded as a sort of splinter colony.

	22-12-2004 19:37									#24
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Well, in order for me to use the "harassment fleet," obviously, I have to have enough resources and ships to spare some for that fleet. When I take a planet, if I have the $$, I'll buy either barracks &/or a ground defense (ground batteries or rocket bases). That helps against revolt and recapture. It may not save the planet, but it makes retaking it more expensive, at any rate. Even if I lose the planet to a reconquering fleet, it probably will have been worth it if they lose a few good ships in the process.

	22-12-2004 22:57									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

If you do not have cash enough to rush a marine barracks and AMC, do not take the planet, dust it.

If you cannot hold the planet with your fleet, do not take it, dust it.

I would not put up any defensive structures until most others were done. I use a fleet to protect a new system. This is required as a Uni will have a long time to assimilate.

To prevent a revolt, unload marines after you capture. Get the barracks on the first turn regardless. Then rush AMC. If you have the tech, then an Armored Barracks.

After those you can do improvements. I tend to want a warp interdicter next in most cases. This can be delayed a bit while you get production structures up.

	23-12-2004 19:29									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by vmxa1 If you do not have cash enough to rush a marine barracks and AMC, do not take the planet, dust it. If you cannot hold the planet with your fleet, do not take it, dust it. I would not put up any defensive structures until most others were done. I use a fleet to protect a new system. This is required as a Uni will have a long time to assimilate. To prevent a revolt, unload marines after you capture. Get the barracks on the first turn regardless. Then rush AMC. If you have the tech, then an Armored Barracks. After those you can do improvements. I tend to want a warp interdicter next in most cases. This can be delayed a bit while you get production structures up.

In my current game (silicoids, huge galaxy, hard) I just took Trilar, largely intact. I rushbuilt an AMC first. I havent brought in lots of extra marines, but figure i should do that as soon as possible, as well as build a barracks.

	23-12-2004 21:18									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

A large pop can revolt on a Uni on the very next turn. This is why I will rush the barracks first and unload troops on a really large planet.

If you see you have only have a few marines on the planet and they have 20 or more citizens, unload troops. AMC can wait for the next turn.

	24-12-2004 09:25									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

oddest thing happened - i tried to unload marines on a planet id taken a couple of turns earlier, and got a message to the effect that this is not allowed in Multiplayer games

	24-12-2004 10:12									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Are you playing a hot seat game? I have never seen that msg in any SP game. The game will not let you unload any marines, if you already have as many as the pop supports.

This is usually only an issue with a small pop and then you do not need to unload.

	26-12-2004 09:49									#30
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by vmxa1 Are you playing a hot seat game? I have never seen that msg in any SP game. The game will not let you unload any marines, if you already have as many as the pop supports. This is usually only an issue with a small pop and then you do not need to unload.

No, not hotseat. I may have tried to unload too many marines, but it was still an odd message.