 |
| |
|
|
Slax
|
 |
London, Ontario, Canada
Jan 1970
time: 00:20
|
|
You'll need to play more games to decide what is 'typical', but this is a very interesting idea for a thread. I am thinking of moving from Regent to Monarch and i am wondering what to expect, too.
As to what is a typical start position, I am playing a game at Regent, and I started on a nice grass & jungle continent. The Romans share it with me, but expanded so much slower, now I have control of 80% of the continent. I have links to 3 different luxuries, plus horses and iron. Also it seems there are islands i can get to with galleys.
So I can't say how much of your starting position is difficulty-related.
You do need to worry about corruption and happiness (although I control happiness through improvements, wonders and luxury resources, and never set the luxury slider > 0).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
In my experience, there are two major factors which require the most adjustment:
1) Happiness (or lack thereof)
2) Tech progress
As you advance up the difficulty ladder, it is more difficult to keep your citizens happy, and you have less time to do things. The tech race speeds up the higher you go, and you have shorter and shorter windows of opportunity to do certain things.
I'm stubborn. My response to the tech rate once I got to Monarch? I started breaking things. I used to be a builder. Not anymore. No time. I've dabbled with Emperor, and I have even less time to do things there. An attempt at early warfare failed, due to the fact that on Emperor, 350bc isn't "early." It's the start of the middle ages.
I picked up a game my girlfriend started on Regent lately, and it felt like I had all the time in the world to do things. I could build and fight - at the same time!
The other response to the tech situation is to buy tech off the AI until your economy is properly set up and you can begin researching toward a tech lead. You can do this. I, due to the aforementioned stubborn streak, hate paying the AI for tech, but it certainly works. I'd just rather beat it out of them.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dunk999
What specifically does this setting change? I've seen you mention it numerous times. |
hi ,
well , many things , for one or the other reason the AI acts different , its like he use's his units in a more tactical way , tends to get more for the dollar , is more agressive , goes after your luxury , but with a more intresting way , ....
there has been loads of talk , but one thing is for sure , when you use it , and with a deity yourself , it is more the less acceptable , ....
put then basic barbarian as rifleman , advanced as infantry and the sea unit as a destroyer , with them at raging , you are of for a spin , .... , .......
when you put the comp at deity , but dont know it that good , you can always give yourself more units , or less for the comp , .....
making a map for yourself is also fun , it take's time but its nice and lots of fun , ....
have a nice day
Last edited by panag on 27-06-2002 at 02:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by planetfall
Apolex-- thank you for the hard core suggestions. As I am slowly, painfully moving up the levels, it is becoming more and more apparent the only way to win is:
1. fight a lot
2. use a lot of bartering
3. redirect AI's to self destruction
4. ignore most research.
It is so ironic. Take the way you are told to play the game and then do the opposite, or die. |
hi ,
 , the more research , the more power , ....
one thing to use is "peace true power" , .....
tip , try to start ones with more tech and a bit more money , and maybe in a certain age , ...
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cookie Monster
|
 |
New England
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
Hi all,
Just thought I'd share some of my experiences with you.
I've been stuck at regent level for the longest time now. 1.21f is nearly perfect but it is a great challenge. Haven't been able to win on this level, except for maybe one or two times with a high score at the end. And that was just plain dumb luck I think.
Anyway, I've realized what my errors have been since making the transition from chieftain to regent. It has to do with not trading/beating tech out of the AI properly, and poor T/S/L rate management. Let me explain briefly.
I think one problem I have that needs correcting is right at the very beginning. Early war is vital to gaining the advantage. You need to either beat tech out of your neighbors while maintaining the military edge over them until the end of the game. Kill them off at the right time, meaning when they have given everything they can to you and can't give any more. So my mistake is this; I have been trying to set up 4 cities in addition to my capital before engaging in war with my neighbors. I believe that three cities in addition to the capital would be enough. The extra time I waste producing that fourth settler more often than not costs me the game. I don't have the proper strength to beat people up and as a consequence fall behind in tech. Then I die around the late industrial to early modern age.
Another mistake I've been making is not adjusting my rate sliders after I've built up my infrastructure. Sure you can max out your money rate and just buy or beat tech out of the AI, however....After you reach the late medieval/early industrial tech's become so expensive and the AI is usually unwilling to sell them to you. You are technilogically inferior and can't even beat them up at this point. In other words, "game over man!!!!"
What I realize is you must adjust the rate sliders to slowly shift from making beaucou (sp?) money to bringing up your science rate. Then you will still be able to have decent techs to use to beat up your opponents and extort whatever from them for the rest of the game.
Now I must go, get through another day at work, and then give my ideas a try. Hopefully I'm right about this, we'll find out. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dunk
|
 |
Philadelphia, PA
Mar 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by panag
hi ,
well , many things , for one or the other reason the AI acts different , its like he use's his units in a more tactical way , tends to get more for the dollar , is more agressive , goes after your luxury , but with a more intresting way , ....
there has been loads of talk , but one thing is for sure , when you use it , and with a deity yourself , it is more the less acceptable , ....
put then basic barbarian as rifleman , advanced as infantry and the sea unit as a destroyer , with them at raging , you are of for a spin , .... , .......
when you put the comp at deity , but dont know it that good , you can always give yourself more units , or less for the comp , .....
making a map for yourself is also fun , it take's time but its nice and lots of fun , ....
have a nice day |
If I put the AI difficulty level at Diety, does he get the bonus units for Diety even if I play at Regent? I think the AI gets 8 defensive ground units, 2 settlers, and a couple workers to start the game on Diety.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
For me, chieftain was just a refreshing of basic civ terminology, and the second game I played (on warlord) also didn't taught me much.
The third game, on regent, was what started me to think more thoroughly on tactics and concepts, and while it is hard to miss a tech lead on the AIs, you get an idea about how they will trade everything amongst each other. It was, for me, the first level where I noticed just how much techs are worth to AIs.
In Monarch, the challenge became a bit more 'real', in that you need to understand diplo quite well, and if you don't pay attention someone will out-research you. Also, it is the level at which early warfare starts to be a winning tactic (on lower levels, it just is a nice bonus, not a necessity.) You start to value your workers more, and start to perfect your early build queues in order to out-expand the AIs. Further, you start to be more reflecting on the micromanagement issues: sliding the techrate nearly each turn to have the perfect gold/tech balance, palace (and other) prebuilds to make sure you get a wonder or a new unit first, etc.
Diplomacy gets a whole new meaning, fighting all civs at once is a sure way to loosing the game.
On Emperor, things get a whole lot more difficult. The AI's production bonuses start to kick in, you always get behind on tech in the ancient times, and must devise tactics to get equal. Either you extort them out of enemies, buy them through tax, or go for a southern-line research to be able to trade techs with the AI.
Further, depending on the situation, it is the easiest to have early wars, just to make sure you can both have a large empire, and some army running around. Otherwise you have one of the two. But, with a little difficulty, it is still possible to be a 'pure' builder, and winning the game without one battle. In fact, diplomatic victories are relatively easy to perform, if you get through the ancient era with enough territory and without long-standing enemies. SS is almost certain, you can be behind in tech in the modern age, and still build your spaceship.
Micromanaging certain things is a necessity, and so is a good diplomatic play. Rare are the games in which you don't need to enlist some allies at some point, if only to keep them from joining the other side. Also warfare can become more intimidating, as you see the huge stacks of AI units moving around from time to time (I haven't seen this on easier levels, but I haven't played one of these with 1.21f)
Deity? I don't know yet. I'm growing pretty confident in emperor, in that I can win with any civ in nearly every starting position, but I have yet to pull of a cultural victory. This annoys me, as culture is always one of my biggest goals in a game, so lacking a cultural victory in emperor proofs that I still need some perfecting of strategies to do. It might be needed to play more on huge maps in order to achieve it...
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
DeepO,
I think the only way to win a cultural victory on the highest levels (Emperor/Diety) would be, ironically enough, through warmongering like crazy. It is highly unlikely that you would be able to get a 20,000 cp city on Emperor, so you're shooting for 100,000 civ-wide cp's, which requires that no one AI has 50,000 or more. On that level of play, the AI will most likely be able to come up with that. Therefore, the best way to win culturally is to beat down the AI. The more cities you have, the more culture you will have, and the opposite will be true for the AI. Basically, you win by having 50 cities with temples, rather than 20 cities with everything.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
Arrian, I agree, but this is exactly where my tactics still lack. Either I am ultra-aggresive, but then I have great difficulties building up culture and even loose cities flipping back! Or, OTOH, I play culturally, while only doing a little ancient war, and I don't have enough cities to get to 100,000. I still have to balance it better, and in that respect start to prefer the Persians: cheap libraries are better then cheap temples, and you get a UU which can be used up until musketmen come around.
I must say that part of the reason why I have yet to win culturally is that I tend to grab the first type of victory I can. When on road for a cultural vic, it is quite easy to score a diplomatic one earlier. Quite a few games finished like that...
Oh, and 50 cities with only temples? I tend to have 50 fully equipped cities, and some 50 more with only temples/libraries. If, at the end of the game, I've got only double of the culture of the next AI, I had a terrible game 
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
well, no good maybe a bit of an exageration, but they will only give one extra content face, in stead of an unhappy one. That doesn't make much of a difference, certainly not when setting the slider to 10% happiness can mean 1-2 extra happy citizens in each city.
Libraries, from the other hand, produce 50% more science, so building a library in each city means you can set the happiness-slider to around 30% to get the same effect tech wise as without libraries. So, in my view, libraries are better for happiness than temples, and temples should only be built after libraries are in place.
And in newly conquered, non-corrupt territory, or in situations where a city is late blooming in between my core cities, I will always build a university before a temple. Happyness sure is important, but city improvements are the least effective way of handling problems. Luxuries is what you need, so if you can trade techs for luxuries, you have another point why you need to be good in research 
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:20
|
|
An awful lot of good points in this thread (which I won't repeat ).
My $0.02 (relating primarily to moving from Regent up through Emperor):
You must learn to exploit the civ traits bestowed upon your selected civ. I am having a great deal of fun and challenge adapting to the game conditions generated by the "random settings." Map conditions, neighboring civs, and your own civ all combine into a different feel each game -- and a different set of tactical and strategic requirements to victory.
If you always play XXX civ on a standard pangea, 5 billion, normal, temperate, etc., then my sense (shared with others here) is that the fundamental challenges moving from level to level are (1) dealing with increased unhappiness, and (2) understanding the need to assert oneself more forcefully early in the game.
But if you play different civs in different settings, the difficulty level really magnifies the civ specific traits. Play any style you want on Warlord (builder, warmonger, buildmonger) with any civ you like -- as you develop your skills at the fundamentals -- making cities productive, making your empire productive -- you will come to the point that you can win all your games. If, on Monarch, you're handed the Zulu as your civ, you need to be able to effectively exploit Militaristic, Expansionist and the Impi. If, OTOH, you are handed the Babylonians, you need to be able to exploit Scientific, Religious and the Bowman.
It's my sense after six months with this game that the failure to effectively take advantage of your civ's traits to their potential will cost you a decent piece of your available relative "advantages" -- and the higher you go, the more precious that bit of relative "advantage" becomes.
Catt
[Disclaimer: I have only played a few games on Deity and haven't won there. The best players on Diety seem to play a pretty standard "game plan" to beat Diety, regardless of civ or map settings -- so maybe my belief on the importance of civ traits resembles a bell curve -- not so important at Chieftan and Deity, most important at Regent and Monarch. Then again, advice may prove silly when I've gotton to the point where I can do anything I like on Monarch with any civ in any map and win - I'm certainly not there yet ].
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:20
|
|
Arian, that is a difference in style issue, and I don't think one is better than the other. If I play a religous civ, I will always rush temples in conquered cities, when possible. With the Persians, however, rushing libraries is easier...
For totally corrupt cities, I go for the cheapest cultural building, and after that start on a marketplace, or a university. Never build aquaducts and certainly no hospitals, it's better to have a content city than a big one.
If there is a little to gain from building improvements, the cities will only produce workers, which, when not needed anymore, will be added to core cities.
In cities which have a chance of producing some shields, I'll go for a courthouse right after the first culture. Even if it takes 80 turns, it could be worth it (a little). These sometimes get rushed when I have excess money laying around. After that, I'll go for an aquaduct, then a marketplace. I never, ever build a hospital in a city that doesn't have a marketplace already.
BTW, the only exception to this is that in any city producing 5 or more shields I'll build a factory. If this is before a courthouse, I might think of putting a courthouse in first. If this is before an aquaduct, I rarely build a worker, and even more rarely build a aquaduct. Those factories are just to good to forget, and even if they take 48 turns to build, they are more than worth it, certainly with Hoover (which, in my experience, only works when a city has a factory in place)
Cathedrals can be powerful with Sistine, but at Emperor there are many games where you have to miss that wonder, as it is on a direct path to education, and therefore quite attractive to AI scientists. Bach is easier to get. But, at any rate, with a scientific civ (Babs included) I like to go for a university before a temple, but after a marketplace when my happiness is dragging. And the situation dictates whether I build temples/cathedrals before a hospital or not... I prefer not.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-06-2002 21:44
|