Freeciv vs freecol how to#

I'm kind of more partial to Risk for that reason. But they usually get much better early games because they know all the mechanics more intricately, which is basically rote. In games against much more experienced players where I get a lucky start and we're even entering the endgame I tend to win because I'm just a better tactician due to studying chess. I feel like strategically and tactically the game is pretty simple. If Civ 5 had a somewhat passable AI I would play a lot more I think, because then I could actually get practice put of single player mode.Īdditionally there's so much busy work(micromanaging tiles/workers can get pretty tedious). And yet the AI is still so dumb that a strong human player can win a game against 5 diety AIs on the same team. I believe on Diety it starts with 3 settlers or something bonkers like that, and a huge production multiplier to boot. The difficulty levels in Civ 5 are actually all the same dumb AI, just with varying levels of cheats enabled. And for single player, the AI is so dumb, annoying and belligerent it kinda saps the fun out of it for me. It's fun, but man the games take forever(and I play classical chess.).

Never really cared for Civ 6.Īlthough Civ isn't really my type of strategy game anyway. The opponent is bloodied, but loses no territory while the AI's best troops are destroyed for no gain.Ī Hitler clone, but perhaps not in the way you meant. Sealion would be like a Civ AI repeatedly moving a just barely sufficient army from the French coast towards England, each time losing some to the water because they don't have good enough boats yet and each time discovering they can't be reinforced because that's too much movement - so the defenders have an advantage, and the advances all fail. Hitler really wanted to do Sealion (German ground invasion of England) after it became apparent Britain under Churchill will not surrender, but it's just not practical and his general staff persuaded him not to smash his face against that particular wall. Hitler has a single excellent strategic insight at the start of the war (movement wins, 'Blitzkrieg'), but one reason the Nazis lose is that his later strategies don't work. In this particular case that isn't the concern. I'm still not quite decided whether it's better to stick to a regular age all the time or flip between dark age and heroic age Heroic Age is awesome, but hard to guarantee, and holding on to conquered cities is very hard during a dark age (I just learned that the Bread & Games project exists primarily for that situation it helps a lot to have an entertainment district near your front lines). And I need to start spying earlier stealing tech boosts helps a lot in keeping up.

Maybe even slower speed so we spend more time in the lower tech levels where all Alexander's advantages are. I think I'm going to try the same thing on Immortal next. I wanted to try an early game Domination Victory, chose Alexander the Great on Pangea and Epic speed, and it's just way too easy (except for holding on to conquered cities during a Dark Age). They're not the most exciting games, but they're hard, mostly because it's impossible to keep up in science and wonders.įor my current game, I took a step back to Emperor level, though.

Freeciv vs freecol how to#

I take a long time, and most of the game I do nothing but desperately figure out how to keep up, and in the end I win with a boring Diplomatic Victory, unless someone else beats me to the Science Victory (other victories don't seem to be possible except Domination, I suppose). Watching a video of me playing Civ 6 would be incredibly boring. There are much better games out there (mainly board games but also RTSes) for playing against humans who play to win. In essence, they’ll play like human players and honestly, Civ games are just not designed for that.

Most of the historically-informed trade and diplomacy options will be useless because the AIs will just betray you at the worst moment. It means the computer players will no longer role play as historical leaders but instead behave like a bunch of ruthless, psychopathic, cyborg Hitler clones. It also means AIs will sign deals with you to size up your military situation and then just wipe you out in a surprise attack as soon as possible. For one thing, it means the AI leaders will be extremely tight and shrewd traders that you can never take advantage of in negotiations. The problem is that people don’t really want an AI that plays to win. A lot of players have complained about the weakness of AI in all of the Civ games as far back as I can remember. AI for these types of games is really hard to balance.