Suicidal Winners...tried this configuration?

I forgot to mention - rare anomalies. I use that setting because the AI doesn't seem to make any attempt at all to exploit them beyond simply setting their survey ship to "auto survey".

No tech trading, very slow tech speed, gigantic map with lots of habitable planets (although this last bit probably doesn't matter that much and may be harder at other settings.)

I play no tech trading, slow tech (not very slow), gigantic, scattered stars or loose clusters, and abundant all. This results in a galaxy of about 500 planets. Dense clusters give about 250 planets and I think results in a game that's a little easier, certainly shorter. I usually play with 5 to 9 opponents dependent on mood. More opponents is more difficult and takes longer.

I do think overall no tech trading makes it more difficult, though that's not the reason I select it. I select it because I tend to research concetrated areas to gain an advantage in one area at the expense of overall tech development. I'm unwilling to give away the tech that I do research because of this. Also I think it as likely that the AI will take advantage over me in trades as vice versa.

In v1.2 this was a pretty tough setting but winnable barring unusual starting circumstances. A ctrl-N or two eliminates the ridiculus start of being surrounded by opponents, otherwise I pretty much take what I get.

I'm currently in my first suicidal v1.31 game. It's more difficult because of the changes as well the fact that what I did in v1.2 isn't necessarily the best thing to do in v1.31. I think once I get used to the changes and make minor strategy changes to compensate, the overall difficulty of v1.31 will be a bit higher than v1.2 but not dramatically so.

As far as strategies, there's many; high pop, strong economy, strong technology, strong military and combinations of the above. The only one that's now essentially impossible is high pop (assuming you mean greater than 25B per planet). With the morale building and farm changes, I think everyone pretty much agrees that anything above 20-22B per planet is impossible. Otherwise it's business as usual with a few tweaks and just a bit harder.

Hi!

gigantic map with lots of habitable planets

Why gigantic? If you want a really tough game use medium or large galaxy. There you'll have opponents MUCH closer, so no protection from huge distances.

rare anomalies

A good one for at tough game. In my current gigantic game I got about 12000 BCs just from anomalies. Allowed me to run my tiny 4-planets empire (while I've been waiting for my pop to grow) with -300 BC "income" for insanely long time.

BR, Iztok

Yeah, I think Frogboy said the AI is optimized for the medium galaxy. You deserve a medal for playing Gigantic though. I would never have the patience to see the game through to the end.

No tech trading, very slow tech speed, gigantic map with lots of habitable planets (although this last bit probably doesn't matter that much and may be harder at other settings.)

To make it harder, start all the races at war with u and stick use algorithms on. If stardock do make a multiplayer, all those settings should be good practice before u play against other people.

No tech trading can harm the AI as well, some of them don't research certain techs on their own (or only at a late point). The hardest setting regarding technology is the slowest research speed coupled with tech trading on - but without using it from your side.

Yeah, I think Frogboy said the AI is optimized for the medium galaxy. You deserve a medal for playing Gigantic though. I would never have the patience to see the game through to the end.

I often don't.

Most games have a point where it's blatantly obvious you've won and it's just "mopping up". Since I don't bother with metaverse, I don't feel bound to finish them!

Why gigantic? If you want a really tough game use medium or large galaxy. There you'll have opponents MUCH closer, so no protection from huge distances.

Probably true, but on suicidal it doesn't seem to take the AI very long to find you anyway. I'm normally completely surrounded by them by turn 40 at the latest, which at very slow tech speed is really not at all far into the game. Gigantic=more planets=greater deficit after the colony rush for me since I can't keep up with the suicidal AI in that regard.

There's loads of strategies for this level, but don't most (all?) of them rely on attacking the AI early before it's fully ready? That fast start seems *incredibly* difficult on 1.31 now *both* morale and economy have been nerfed. It means no possibility of 100% morale without a substantial tax rate hit and no possibility of a strong early economy (this is another impact of very slow tech speed...if you could get down the economy tree quickly there'd be little problem).

It's too hard for me now, I think. Which is great. I should probably try morale and pop growth bonuses instead of my usual picks, but I suspect I'm heading back down to masochistic or something.

These are all good suggestions for a hard game. Also turn on blind exploration and disble minor races.

I think that economy, morale, and population growth are the best racial abilities to pick, and not using them makes the game harder, too.

I'm playing suicidal, gigantic map, 9 opponents, abundant planets, abundant stars, abundant habitable planets, scattered density, normal anomalies, normal research rate, and tech trading off.
70% civ pop growth bonus, 50% civ MP bonus, tech party

There's loads of strategies for this level, but don't most (all?) of them rely on attacking the AI early before it's fully ready?

I'm not sure what you mean by this -- I usually attack after I have medium hulls, 90% or so miniaturization, warp drive, and Photonic missiles. My current game I launched my first war around Oct 2227. I usually have my planets all developed and have a hoard of troop transports. Is the AI ready for an attack like this? -- guess not but the AI definitely has the techs needed for defense and usually has plenty of ships.

I do believe that I cann't take my dear old time to attack the AI else the huge bonus's the AIs get will overwhelm me.

Never tried the slower tech research rates but think that'll be my next step.
But I've never completed the research tree in my offensive weapon tech before having the game won ( controll of over half the map ).
I do complete soldering, hulls, logistics, miniaturization, and drives though.

I do believe that the AI is not all that good with 300+ habitable planets. This will probably be the last time I use all those abundant abundancies. I actually won the colony rush in my current game getting 77 planets out of like 470 planets. I started in a corner but only had 2 civs pinning me in rather than the usual 3 so I was able to spread into the center of the map.

Never tried rare anomalies -- i do like the cash -- got 7 2500bc anomalies on my current game, lol. The AI really shouldn't go for them anyways as they don't need em with their econ bonus.

There's loads of strategies for this level, but don't most (all?) of them rely on attacking the AI early before it's fully ready?

If by this you mean do I attack the AI that's just declared war on me, then the answer is yes. Like Kblore mentioned I like to have medium hulls, reasonable miniaturization and speed, and, a decent weapon, but I take what I can get.

abundant abundancies

Love the phrase. Sort of like redundant redundancies.

I meant attacking before the AI has completed its initial military buildup. Sounds like neither of you are doing that so I was completely wrong assuming that's what most successful strategies at this level use!

How are you avoiding war that long?

By the way, rare anomalies makes an enormous difference. Think how many extra planets in the colony rush each of those 2500BC anomalies fund...

I meant attacking before the AI has completed its initial military buildup. Sounds like neither of you are doing that so I was completely wrong assuming that's what most successful strategies at this level use!

I do this.

I attack to my timetable not the AI's. If the AI's not ready for war, tough, not my problem, its Brad's.  

I usually try to take the strongest AI out by war at the end of yr 2225 - start of yr 2226. Success makes me the galactic superpower, usually by 2227 if not earlier.

How are you avoiding war that long?

When someone asks for money to not kill you, pay them. Actually, you only need to pay credible requests. Ignore those from weak empires or those on the other side of the galaxy. Even so, that long, is a relative term. You can't really put them off for very long so you need to get down your weapons, speed and hull tech path pretty quick. You can generally hold off on logistics and soldiering techs until you actually start producing ships.

If you're real desperate you can actually start producing ships without a tech you need and then upgrade them with the necessary tech once you get it.

Being the same alignment as your closest power helps out as well. Also, I generally cut off my colony rush a bit before the AI's do so that I can start getting prepared for war.

Once I start down the planetary invasion tech branch, I don't stop until I research them all. I always go for Tri-Quan Training and I always keep my pop up to 8B early to make it more difficult to capture my planets.

War is not bad. You need that first war. The planets you capture and the tech you steal as you capture those planets is the only thing that gets you to the point where you can compete with the remaining AI's on a more even footing. Don't worry about your planets that the AI captures. Also avoid engaging his fleets as much as possible. The only thing that's important is that you capture his planets faster than he captures yours. Having a constant stream of transports is what enables this.

Once I get into a war I don't stop until my opponent has only two or three planets left. At that point I make peace with him and he usually surrenders to another AI a few turn later.

By the way, rare anomalies makes an enormous difference. Think how many extra planets in the colony rush each of those 2500BC anomalies fund...

I always select abundant anomalies because I assume that this also controls how many mining resources there are in the galaxy (this may not be true, anyone know for sure?).

Yes, 2500 bc anomalies really help out, but finding them, even if abundant is selected, isn't that dependable. In my current gigantic abundant all galaxy I only found two money anomalies for a total of 1500 bc. They're convenient, but your strategy can’t really be based on finding them.

I attack to my timetable not the AI's. If the AI's not ready for war, tough, not my problem, its Brad's. I usually try to take the strongest AI out by war at the end of yr 2225 - start of yr 2226. Success makes me the galactic superpower, usually by 2227 if not earlier.

I like the attitude. I guess I'll have to give this a try. You must spend all initial tech development towards war ignoring developmental type techs. What techs do you feel are necessary before you start the first war? Also, how many opponents do you play against, or do you think it matters much?

I like the attitude. I guess I'll have to give this a try. You must spend all initial tech development towards war ignoring developmental type techs.

I get all the early techs that r cheap and give a galactic empire wide bonus. Like planetary improvements, xeno economics etc... but thats about it.

What techs do you feel are necessary before you start the first war?

Planetary Invasion, this is the hardest, sometimes I have been ready to go and waiting to complete this. Weapons wise, my ships will have less than plasma weapons, singularity driver or harpoon, depending on which weapon path I have choosen. Been to war loads of times with just tiny and small ships armed to the teeth with stinger 3 or whatever.  I think the most important tech path for war is...engine tech., the AI cannot cope with speed, despite all of Brad's improvements to the AI.

Also, how many opponents do you play against, or do you think it matters much?

For a long time I played against all 9. But now usually 4-6. I don't think it really matters much, however playing against 1 opponent is very, very easy, basically an exploit. As 1 AI is no match for a decent player.

I've been playing CGII for a couple of weeks now, and reading the forums for about as long, and I've got a question about what the most difficult settings are.

Suicidal difficulty and Gigantic map are pretty well documented. One thing I don't understand, though, is why "abundant everything" is also used. Strategy games (for me anyway) are about making trade-offs and difficult decisions. And, being able to find a way to recover from an earlier decision that turned out to be not-so-good.

It's been noted that anomalies can help fund the initial colonization phase, and I understand that. But, if the game is on a difficulty setting like Suicidal, I would expect someone wants a difficult game. So, wouldn't having a setting like Occasional make for a more challenging game? During colony rush the question becomes "What's more important: another colony ship; or a market place?"

Habitable Planet abundance is similar, but more significant. With, say, Occasional Habitable Planets, during the colony rush the question is "Do I want to colonize this Class 8, or should I look elsewhere for something better?" After the colony rush, the question is "where should I build which structure?" Later the question becomes "should I build this military star base for that class 9 near the border where the battle ships need to be, or on that class 12 farther into my territory that generates the majority of my income, or on my research planet over there in the back waters of this sector?"

At least that's the way things seem to me. I've only been playing for a couple of weeks (and I've lost a lot of sleep to this game, so my brain may not be in top working condition) so I probably don't understand some of the nuances of the game (especially scoring--I don't understand that at all). Does the "abundant everything" setting increase the (Metaverse) score somehow?

As I've looked over this post, it seems kind of trollish. It's not intended to be, but I don't have the time to rework it.

Basically, my question boils down to "Why isn't 'Suicidal' and 'abundant everything' a contradiction in terms?" (Or, perhaps, 'a contradiction in difficulty settings' is a better way to phrase it.)

Eric

Eric, I don't think anyone suggests suicidal and abundant everything is the *hardest* combo, it's just what a lot of people like to play. And yes, I think it might be because it's the path to the highest metaverse scores (don't play Metaverse myself, so maybe others can confirm or deny?)

Lots of people say less planets is harder, but I'm really not convinced.
1) The human player can make much better use of speed on their colony ships.
2) The number of colonies the human player can realistically set up in the colony rush is limited by their starting bank and how many cash anomalies they can find. By suicidal level, the AI is getting so much economy bonus that this is not a factor.
3) The human player is (if they want) much more selective about what planets they take on. The AI will grab any old junk it comes across.

Basically, the less planets you put on a map, the more confident I am I'll keep up with the AI in the colony rush. Also, the sort of decisions you talk about are much more important with less planets, but *that* is an advantage to the human player, not the AI.

And yes, I think it might be because it's the path to the highest metaverse scores

I can confirm that gigantic abundant everything gives u the highest metaverse score.

Have you ever tried the same kind of score maximizing strategies you currently use at a lower difficulty level? Or to put it another way, does suicidal actually maximize the score?

I just finished a game on gigantic pushing 400 habitable planets. Man, that was a handfull. And, I still have too more levels of planet abundancy I can move up to. Hehe, my computer was chugging toward the end. It's really going to hate me when I eventually try a game with everything maxed out.

I haven't experienced a big difference in scores between Suicidal and Masochistic. I think it makes more of a difference when comparing lower difficulties, but the higher ones seem to run fairly close. Personally, I find the latest version of the game quite a bit harder out of the gate so I'm playing at a lower difficulty now.

Or to put it another way, does suicidal actually maximize the score?

I believe it does.

I like my full circle medal.  

It does look rather cool.

No tech trading, very slow tech speed, gigantic map with lots of habitable planets (although this last bit probably doesn't matter that much and may be harder at other settings.)

I play with very fast research which speeds up the game. I think this makes the game harder because the AI gets aggressive earlier in the game; at the higher levels you start out way behind the AI and slowly catch up and exceed the AI over time by managing your resources better (e.g., developing your planets, mining resources, etc.)

You deserve a medal for playing Gigantic though. I would never have the patience to see the game through to the end.

I have played two gigantic Metaverse games. Each took over two months, with my micro-managing and very limited playing time. Also why I play very fast research for shorter games.

I usually try to take the strongest AI out by war at the end of yr 2225 - start of yr 2226. Success makes me the galactic superpower, usually by 2227 if not earlier.

I take out the weakest nearby AI. How do take out the strongest AI so early in the game when you are still catching up?

Tips for Maximizing Your Game Score

I play with very fast research which speeds up the game. I think this makes the game harder because the AI gets aggressive earlier in the game

In my experience, the AI gets aggressive once the colony rush is over. On suicidal, they can turn out new ships so quickly from newly settled colonies that the slower colony ship speeds doesn't have much effect on how long the rush takes.

The difference in effectiveness of weapons which are (for argument's sake) 5 steps different down the tech tree is much less apparent when you're already some way down it than when you're still near the start, as well.

It's all a question of time. For the way I play (and I suspect most people), there's a certain minimum that needs to get researched before you can fight effectively. Even though that minimum's pretty low, now that economy and morale has been nerfed *and* the econ techs made more expensive, reaching that minimum takes quite a few turns longer. Enough extra time, I'm finding, for the AI to be ready for you. This may well be because I keep getting started next to the Drengin!

Allowing the AI to invade with the express intention of reinvading with nearby prepared transports the next turn just to steal tech is probably still workable. I think I'd rather drop down a few levels than resort to it though!