posted
I've played about 10 or so games so far and this is what I have to say:
TERRA TERRA TERRA!
Terra is the map mode that tries to recreate earthlike conditions such as having all the players spawn on the Old World, leaving an smaller yet empty new world rich with resources. Esp, oil and uranium.
I play it on Huge with the full assortment of 15-18 AI, yes it is very very very very cramped, but it does the best to recreate Earth, as the AI will resort to war far more often, as it is generally if there's alot of room to expand into wars are often disliked because the distance between cities and the 6-10 turns it takes for units to arrive at the front.
Also the fact that when in a war it sets you back tech wise and culture wise also makes war a unlikely alternative unless its as in real life a last resort.
However, in Terra wars are far more often the only alternative, if the enemy places a city in a strategic location near your capitol you realize that you need that territory..... raping and pillaging his cities becomes far more... enjoyable...
In a game with a friend of mine through several bloody wars of conquests I got around 12 cities compared to the average of 6 cities and founded colonies in the new world, with around a 70% research rate I could maintain it.
However, around 1600 AD the Colonial Wars have begun...
My friend Danomite attacked and occupied my colonies, this is unacceptable! I build 4 Galleons and loaded them with musketmen and grenadiers and retook my cities and took his; why? It only took 8 turns for me to reinforce my cities, it takes him around 30......
More happened then it pettered out and we got a new game going but I found an interest thing.
No human player will ever ever EVER build the Manhatten Project, cuz with simultanious turns even if you rush nukes for everyone of your cities the enemy can do the same thing and it becomes a race to see who builds nukes first and click the big red button first. No human player will take the risk to build nukes and risk a preemptive strike unless he is desparate. And so far that is very rare indeed.
IP: Logged |
posted
I was playing on monarch difficulty for a while, but I've gone back to prince. Too many freebies for the AI on higher levels gets annoying.
Terra is fun, yeah. Pangea and continents rolled into one. The "new world" always seems to have a north and south continents, and several resources that aren't in the old world, to promote colonies. However, there are usually rather strong barbarian cites there, looking for human sacrifices, that seem to tech up pretty quick after they meet you.
I stay away from huge maps, though, as turns get to taking a while.
I won a diplomatic victory today, a few turns before I'd have gotten a cultural one--and an AI was the one to build the UN. helps to be surrounded by peaceful leaders.
Posts: 105 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difficulty shifts in beginning in Civ 3 and now in Civ 4 really bother me.
I hate being handicapped (ie starting at disadvantage for those unaware of sports/game lingo) against a player/AI who knows the rules better than i do.
I don't mind the player/AI being better I just want the playing field to be even when i start the game
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
except I play multiplayer with about 4-8 human players with around 10 AI, we turn off barbarians cuz with Terra AND EPIC mode its ridiculas, they get axement when you got archers.
As with AI I play on noble for a trully balanced game, what I wish they had though is Darwinian AI (I'm not sure if that == name) where the AI will do 1 thing say, attack head on, it fails. Ok they learn that attacking head on fails so they instead defend, that also fails, so ok the AI speaks to itself lets attack head on AND defend.
Victory, t learns that that leads to victory and does it continuosly until the human player adapts.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Okay, playing with an Earth map (this time a map that closely resembles earth accurately) is also pretty cool, the problem is that in certain cases you really have to struggle for space since your playing with alot of AI over oh so limited space, pan-asian nations get a big advantage as they get alot more space to expand into wiht alot less wars, European nations are unbelievably cramped and it takes special modifications (such as the elimination of every pan american nation from the game) to make it favorable for European nations to settle North and South America.
Russia has the best and worst of both worlds, cramped in the sense that your western front is the most vulnerable until your finally able to fully colonize Euro-Rus, from their taing the time to colonize Siberia, this finally puts you in a position to accept the gift of space to expand into within Siberia, BUT the distances are so great that until you invent the railroad your fighting at the very end of your supply lines and your far flung cities are left vulnerable.
However if you press technological advantage vs the Mongolians and especially the Persians (since they occupied (notice past tense heheh) Kazakhastan for a certain duration), the Mongolians you should only take out once you get 3 things, engineering (faster travel time), nationalism (draft), and gunpowder (advance unit that can ignote the defence bonus of city walls).
I'm on the verge of going to war with the Mongolians (and im at the very top of the score list with the greatest population and territory) and will let you know how it works out once my friend comes on line who plays as the Japanese.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
