Sid Level anyone?

[Oddible]

So I just played my first Deity single player match after working my way up through the ranks (pretty much one game per rank). I am surprised how much the AI sucks in CivRev versus CivIV. Seriously, I'm struggling to beat Noble and Monarch consistently in CivIV after playing every Civ since CivII (being an Emperor player in CivIII). Now I can dust off Deity in CivRev without breaking a sweat. Why so ez!?

I know this was meant to have a strong multi-player aspect but what is the point in not giving more of a challenge in the single player game?

[asmodeios]

My $.02 would be that this game wasn't made for the Civ computer game players but for the console players hoping to draw more people to the series.

[Zefelius]

My $.02 would be that this game wasn't made for the Civ computer game players but for the console players hoping to draw more people to the series.

Right... That's exactly it.

[ShowtekGER]

it's funny that you say so cause i experienced th ai from the 3. degree of difficulty to be very challenging. i still think it's a hard single player compared to other game. the reason for you and me now being able to beat it easily is simply training i guess. but i have no idea why the ai in civrev apparently sucks compared to civ4.

[Oddible]

Well for one they barely expand. This has been a lesson for me that they can produce the science / money in 3 cities nearly what I can produce in my 8-10. If the AI expanded like human players it would be a much better challenge. One of the issues in CivIV is the expanding AI breathing down your neck.

[ShowtekGER]

i think as a beginner it's not really natural to expand. you think quality is better than quantity, thus you don't expand much. neither i'm sure if the producers even imagined that expansion equals might. for example, culture was probably intended to be just as helpful as the other things in the game. indeed, culture is more powerful if you only have few but big cities.

[TyShine]

There is a Morte level if you want to try that. I wouldn't recommend it though.

[Grayson]

lots of PC Civ veterans say that the AI is weak, and usually don't have a problem learning the ropes and beating Deity in short order. I had never played Civ before this game, so it was a little bit of a learning curve, but it was probably less than a month before I was able to beat Deity. It took me a few tries to beat it, but didn't recall much difference between Emperor and Deity.

I'd like a Sid level, or at least access to a GOTW Deity on single player. That's a little more of a challenge, but not really now for me. But, it at least makes me think a little bit more than the normal Deity does.

[Zefelius]

i think as a beginner it's not really natural to expand. you think quality is better than quantity, thus you don't expand much. neither i'm sure if the producers even imagined that expansion equals might. for example, culture was probably intended to be just as helpful as the other things in the game. indeed, culture is more powerful if you only have few but big cities.

Totally agreed. I never played any Civ games before this one, and I know that my first few games last December seemed terribly difficult. When I started playing again in the Spring, Deity was terrifying: enemy AI units running all over the place making it impossible to even get started. Roads seemed like a good thing, as well as buildings. Perhaps from a newcomer's perspective we think why have all those fancy toys -- like temples and harbors -- unless we try to build them in every last city??!! That seemed like the natural thing. Only after reading the forum more back in May and June, did I start to think that I should expand to 8-10 cities in the BC when possible. Also the tricks are crucial -- like settling a city in one move with a militia dude off the boat -- and these tricks are all revealed in the forum as based on everyone's experimentation. I'm guessing for someone with previous experience some of this comes a bit more naturally, and thus it would be easier. On the other hand, if the games have significant differences, perhaps that would pose a problem if certain habits conducive to winning don't carry over from one game to the next. Two sides of the same coin, I suppose.

[Oddible]

Yep, what you're talking about exists in the PC game as well. To move up from Prince to Monarch you really have to specialize your cities. However, just learning a couple of the basic maneuvers shouldn't get you quickly to the point where you can topple the hardest level of the game with ease. The nice thing about the Civ PC games is that you might find you play at the Prince level for a year enjoying a good challenge in every game without ever advancing - then you come to the forums and read some tips and move up to Monarch. Maybe there should have been more levels in CivRev. On the other hand, maybe the console market is so used to 'beating games' that they decided not to develop a more difficult AI. They figured people would get frustrated if they couldn't beat Deity in a couple weeks of trying.

[MorteEterna]

Yep, what you're talking about exists in the PC game as well. To move up from Prince to Monarch you really have to specialize your cities. However, just learning a couple of the basic maneuvers shouldn't get you quickly to the point where you can topple the hardest level of the game with ease. The nice thing about the Civ PC games is that you might find you play at the Prince level for a year enjoying a good challenge in every game without ever advancing - then you come to the forums and read some tips and move up to Monarch. Maybe there should have been more levels in CivRev. On the other hand, maybe the console market is so used to 'beating games' that they decided not to develop a more difficult AI. They figured people would get frustrated if they couldn't beat Deity in a couple weeks of trying.

I don't think Prince or Monarch is hard. I've won 1v5 on Prince against the AI and 1v4 on Monarch or 1v1 on deity. It's not easy, but still not really hard to do. On deity the AI starts with 2 settlers, 2 archers, 2 workers or 3, a scout, and some technologies.. That is the challenge.

[Pedal2Metal]

So I just played my first Deity single player match after working my way up through the ranks (pretty much one game per rank). I am surprised how much the AI sucks in CivRev versus CivIV. Seriously, I'm struggling to beat Noble and Monarch consistently in CivIV after playing every Civ since CivII (being an Emperor player in CivIII). Now I can dust off Deity in CivRev without breaking a sweat. Why so ez!?

I know this was meant to have a strong multi-player aspect but what is the point in not giving more of a challenge in the single player game?

I actually agree w/you. I would have liked a more challenging SP game too. I mean Deity should actually mean something. I do like Deity GOTW better as they don't get the 40% handicap which I absolutely hate. I think the AI shouldn't get a handicap but rather just get some smarts. I agree if the AI expanded properly, it would make things more challenging. GOTW Deity does a better job of expanding. However, the SP aggression dial, even in GOTW, is not as high it appears as in MP. So I'd like to see the aggression dialed up as well. Also the AI is stupid & only attacks quickly but weakly w/1 unit vs. armies. I'd be ok w/the AI knowing what cities are weak & attacking intelligently as well. In any case, it's definitely not as strong as it could be & given it sounds like it's more challenging on PC, I'd welcome some of that coming over to the CivRev world.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Grayson]

Or, you guys can just hire me to play you in CivRev. I could be on-call like a doctor. I'd always work on balanced, but still give you a better run than the AI ever would. Come on! The podcast doesn't pay any money for hosting, so I've gotta justify the countless hours I play this game and talk about it. My rates would be reasonable :D

But, on a more serious note, a simple DLC of the GOTW AI would be nice. But, anything new to this game won't ever be "simple", and is unlikely. But, hopefully they will know they can beef it up a little bit for the sequel.

[vanchinaman]

I was a long-time Civ Fan before Civ Rev - and the two are different enough that that doesn't really matter (the normal Civ games are WAY more detailed and focused on micro-management, and much slower as a result).

As much as I played the Civ games though, I don't think I beat deity on those more than a handful of times. Keep in mind, that would almost always involve using saved games to go back a few turns to abandon researching a tech a AI was going to beat me to, or vice-versa with wonders, etc.

Although deity is too easy in CivRev, the frustrating thing about Deity in the Civ games was that the only real difference was that the AI would start with so many bonuses - more settlers, more techs, they researched ridiculously faster with the same number of cities and resources, etc. It was kind of equally frustrating, because the AI didn't play better, they just started with a stupidly overpowered handicap, and randomly got a lot more aggressive and all teamed up on you. They didn't 'play' better or smarter - just had crazy bonuses. So, I can't decide which I'd rather have. I guess it's still nice to have an AI option that makes you really have to stay on your toes to have any chance, but it also was kind of silly - like, I don't know, giving Grayson or Morte a massive handicap in a player vs. player game online in Civ Rev. :)

[MorteEterna]

I was a long-time Civ Fan before Civ Rev - and the two are different enough that that doesn't really matter (the normal Civ games are WAY more detailed and focused on micro-management, and much slower as a result).

As much as I played the Civ games though, I don't think I beat deity on those more than a handful of times. Keep in mind, that would almost always involve using saved games to go back a few turns to abandon researching a tech a AI was going to beat me to, or vice-versa with wonders, etc.

Although deity is too easy in CivRev, the frustrating thing about Deity in the Civ games was that the only real difference was that the AI would start with so many bonuses - more settlers, more techs, they researched ridiculously faster with the same number of cities and resources, etc. It was kind of equally frustrating, because the AI didn't play better, they just started with a stupidly overpowered handicap, and randomly got a lot more aggressive and all teamed up on you. They didn't 'play' better or smarter - just had crazy bonuses. So, I can't decide which I'd rather have. I guess it's still nice to have an AI option that makes you really have to stay on your toes to have any chance, but it also was kind of silly - like, I don't know, giving Grayson or Morte a massive handicap in a player vs. player game online in Civ Rev. :)


Hey! I already lose some games.. And I hate when I do mistakes or have bad starts :mad:

[danthechan]

i struggled to beat deity consistantly for quite a while initially. you obviously have a good working knowledge of the game mechanics. we could use your contributions in the mp community.

[MadDjinn]

i struggled to beat deity consistantly for quite a while initially. you obviously have a good working knowledge of the game mechanics. we could use your contributions in the mp community.

that's the thing though.

anyone who's played the PC games at a high enough level (Prince maybe, even then that's not very high on the PC side) would walk all over Diety once they learned the new mechanics.

they really should have had a higher difficulty spread between the levels in CivRev. even if the AI knew how to use worker management would have been a good start.

for myself, I just needed to figure out if expansion was the Civ 3 strategy (cities placed every 8 squares) or if it was the Civ 4 strategy (basically the courthouse range style). As is, CivRev falls somewhere in between - massive spread of 3-4 pop cities taking up all water tiles + some courthouse spaced big prod cities and massive island cities for trade where possible)