Emperor difficulty in BNW

[Lux Ferous]

Did anyone else notice a sharp rise in the challenge of playing the Emperor difficulty?

Previous to the expansion I had managed to get every victory type in it and was ready to advance to Immortal, but after installing BNW I'm having trouble even reaching the Industrial Era.

Mostly the problem seems to rest with science. No matter how much I invest, the tech gap between me and the AI just seems to keep increasing up to the point where I'm at war with someone a whole era beyond me.

Warfare is also a bit of a pain since armies no longer seem to have any cost for the AI and all I can do is maintain a tight defensive line to keep wasting wave after wave. But still, that's not as shocking as being beaten out of wonders that are still a couple of techs away from me.

I scaled back down to King but found that to be too easy still, so I figure there's something in the algorithm that went awry for Emperor.

So, anyone else notice a change?

 

[redwings1340]

The game is much more peaceful and tech focused now than it was before. Trade routes provide additional protection and reasons to stay peaceful and play the diplomatic game. I've always been a builder, so I found this expansion to be much easier than before, but people who concentrate more on warfare have been having some difficulties. Warfare is still viable, especially if you're playing a good warmongering civ, but it's definitely not as easy as before.

The game also provides pretty large penalties for larger empires. Tall is far easier and better in this expansion than it was in G+K, and wide requires a lot more careful planning to do correctly. I don't think there's a difference in difficulty, but there is a massive change in playstyle between G+K and BNW, so I think that's where you're probably having trouble. I know I found myself moving up difficulty levels very quickly in BNW. Before I could barely keep up on emperor, but now I'm beating immortal sometimes and even trying my hand at deity.

 

[MarshalN]

How do you normally play? I am usually an immortal player, but started on emperor after BNW to get a feel for things. I found emperor to be far too easy whereas immortal is just right (deity is just hard work and not that much fun). You should be ahead by renaissance in emperor at the latest, and once you're ahead you should stay that way.

Sounds like you're fighting lots of early wars? That could be your problem.

 

[dexters]

Trade routes does stabilize diplomacy early, but I think its effects are overstated. There's a limited number of routes and the AI liked to use them internally.

 

[Hebbe]

Trade routes does stabilize diplomacy early, but I think its effects are overstated. There's a limited number of routes and the AI liked to use them internally.

This is purely anecdotal evidence, but on emperor at least I don´t feel that trade routes really makes a difference on diplomacy. The AI just isn´t that aggressive on emperor and below. On immortal however it seems to have more of an impact on the AIs early aggression, but that seems to fade after a couple of eras. Also, if I'm not mistaken, regular trades are more effective for this purpose than the trade routes.

Ontopic:

I didn´t really play G&K all that much, but if anything I think the game got easier. As I have always been a builder rather than a warmonger, I think that my playing style is more suited for the game than ever before, so that might have something to do with it.

 

[dexters]

This is purely anecdotal evidence, but on emperor at least I don´t feel that trade routes really makes a difference on diplomacy. The AI just isn´t that aggressive on emperor and below. On immortal however it seems to have more of an impact on the AIs early aggression, but that seems to fade after a couple of eras. Also, if I'm not mistaken, regular trades are more effective for this purpose than the trade routes.

I'm not disputing diplomacy is more stable, there's actually code with sanity check on this, but trade routes being 'blamed' for it by people who want lots of war are overstating the effects of trade routes.
There simply aren't enough routes to go around if you take about half of them for internal routes, and I've noticed AI loves those internal routes.

And in the early game, there will be 1-2 at most per Civ and its range will be quite limited.

 

[sendos]

Did anyone else notice a sharp rise in the challenge of playing the Emperor difficulty?

Previous to the expansion I had managed to get every victory type in it and was ready to advance to Immortal, but after installing BNW I'm having trouble even reaching the Industrial Era.

Mostly the problem seems to rest with science. No matter how much I invest, the tech gap between me and the AI just seems to keep increasing up to the point where I'm at war with someone a whole era beyond me.

Warfare is also a bit of a pain since armies no longer seem to have any cost for the AI and all I can do is maintain a tight defensive line to keep wasting wave after wave. But still, that's not as shocking as being beaten out of wonders that are still a couple of techs away from me.

I scaled back down to King but found that to be too easy still, so I figure there's something in the algorithm that went awry for Emperor.

So, anyone else notice a change?

Yes. To me, Prince was easy, king wasn't too hard and emperor was made things quite difficult. With most cases, I seem to be at the bottom in tech, even at times when I do get a GL! I hear AI gets free worker at emperor, so by the time you start rolling with your worker, all AI's will have improved the area around their capital already, thus providing a production, happiness and growth boost (which is indirectly a science boost as well).

 

[katfish]

fun thing about trade routes. Play Korea on king. No military besides 2 archers, 3 ages ahead of my neighborhood askia. He starts to amass army near my borders. I just sent one caravan that gives him +10 tech - next turn he DoF, ask open borders, RA, agrees to my defense pact and happily proceeds to rape nearby CS and then celts.
Other game same was with Arabia, that moved her army back and fort when i send canceled trade routes. I actually had few plotting warnings from ours mutual friend, but it newer escalated to war.

 

[parts]

I experienced the same.

I'm finding the step up to Immortal much easier than to Emperor - I'd say OP isn't doing the following:

1) Getting the specialists right. Unless a city has <9 citizens, have the universities, public schools etc fully manned. Take Rationalism once it's built.

2) Beelining Rationalism (and timing the finisher!). Usually you can get Nuclear Fission as the free tech, so rush to get its prerequisites.

3) Steal techs! As many as you can. If you have more than one spy (if you are England, for example), mouse over the AI's scores to see who has the highest Technologies and spy on them. That said, spies are not fire-and-forget. Let them get their bearings, then you'll know how many turns it'll take to steal - sometimes this will be some absurd number like 70+. Move on ASAP.

Good luck!

 

[Iberian]

Weird, I felt it got easier. I don't even build an army anymore. My last emperor game I got Gustav and a desert start even though he has a tundra start basis, go figure. So I rushed Stonehenge into Petra founding a 2nd city in between. I ended up with 4 cities eventually and didn't build an army until I had infantry around turn 240. My neighbors were Celts, followed by the Mongols, and the Mayans. With the Diplomacy in BNW I am DoF with Mongolia and two from the other continent.

In GnK I don't remember being able to not build an army at all for 200+ turns. Part of the reason is that no one expands. Our island has plenty of open land of good sites with coal and other resources just sitting there. Instead of borders touching everywhere and the whole map being covered increasing tensions it is much more spread out making it easier for the human player to build up peacefully and nerfing the AI's runaway potential.

 

[Optional]

AI bonuses have been increased across the board. I don't feel like looking up the specifics for Emperor, but an Immortal AI starts with the full first tier of techs now, while before they had just 3. I'm assuming an Emperor AI now starts with 3 techs instead of 2.
Also the AI's growth bonus and build bonus got increased. They do advance in technology quicker because of this, I don't think that can be disputed.

But I'm also reading people can handle a higher level since BNW since the AI is much tamer.

 

[Aedn]

I have been struggling myself, mostly because i took a long break, and have not optimized my build orders. I tend to lose focus because i like to randomly build things. On King i can get away with it, and still get ahead pretty easy.

Also, my last 5 games on emperor, i have ended up getting a few warlike civ's off the bat, and i have not been building enough defenses. Getting bum rushed by 20-30 units has happened 4 out of 5 times, Its been quite annoying to get a double war with the Aztecs and Zulu's at the same time

 

[dragonxxx]

I am yet to see not being tech leader entering the industrial era ...
This level seems to be good for experimenting stuff, to see what works, what not, as even if you do some mistakes, you easily get away and still win at the end. I am trying to improve game end time before moving up, but I don't see any challenge here, unless you have Zulu neighbour at the start.

Also, I find it good, to watch a few LPs, if you want to learn some stuff. Reading forums is good, but practice is some other story. I can recommend MadDjinn's India and Poland videos and I also watched some guy playing Zulu on immortal.

I learned A LOT from them about city management, combat tactics, diplomacy and other very cool stuff. So it was definitely with the hours I spent watching em.

 

[Iberian]

I am yet to see not being tech leader entering the industrial era ...
This level seems to be good for experimenting stuff, to see what works, what not, as even if you do some mistakes, you easily get away and still win at the end. I am trying to improve game end time before moving up, but I don't see any challenge here, unless you have Zulu neighbour at the start.

Also, I find it good, to watch a few LPs, if you want to learn some stuff. Reading forums is good, but practice is some other story. I can recommend MadDjinn's India and Poland videos and I also watched some guy playing Zulu on immortal.

I learned A LOT from them about city management, combat tactics, diplomacy and other very cool stuff. So it was definitely with the hours I spent watching em.

Watch MadJinn's India LP. He had the Zulu's at his doorstep the entire game. Even with his tiny 3 city culture biased no army strat he wasn't once attacked. The AI is easier to manipulate in this version than GnK.

 

[bonafide11]

I find going tall and peaceful very easy on Emperor, while wide and/or aggressive is extremely difficult. It's frustrating that a turtling strategy is so much more effective than something more active.

 

[Cptobvious]

I managed to end the game with a 20 tech lead as Poland with 3 tall cities on Emperor, my second victory on the difficulty. I'd say I started passing the AI in tech around Renaissance after getting a NC and Porcelain Tower. Never went to war with anyone.

The key for me was maintaining friendship with every civ so I could have at least 4-6 research agreements going at a time as well as maintain happiness with luxury trading.

 

[Cromagnus]

How do you normally play? I am usually an immortal player, but started on emperor after BNW to get a feel for things. I found emperor to be far too easy whereas immortal is just right (deity is just hard work and not that much fun). You should be ahead by renaissance in emperor at the latest, and once you're ahead you should stay that way.

Sounds like you're fighting lots of early wars? That could be your problem.

I agree, I was primarily an immortal player prior to BNW, and I switched to Emperor to get a feel, and found it too easy. (Meaning, I win virtually every time, even when I'm experimenting with new Civs. That shouldn't happen imho)

Immortal is just right post-patch. Diety is too... artificial for my tastes. Although I much prefer Diety and Immortal now that you can't sell luxuries early (or right before Declaring war without a penalty)

 

[Iberian]

I find going tall and peaceful very easy on Emperor, while wide and/or aggressive is extremely difficult. It's frustrating that a turtling strategy is so much more effective than something more active.

Good observation. Small empires are easier and faster to play. If I just want to play and win a game quickly I will choose a 3/4 city trad start. I really do hate the fact that it is more efficient than actually dominating the stupid combat AI.

Most of the time I play on Emperor just to get a fix for beating the AI in nearly every way and having a perfect list of 1's in the demographic column. Mostly in rebellion to the design that prevents me from having a large empire Civ 1 style.

I bet it would be a lot of fun to have a multi-player game with all the wide empire penalties removed.

 

[Cromagnus]

Good observation. Small empires are easier and faster to play. If I just want to play and win a game quickly I will choose a 3/4 city trad start. I really do hate the fact that it is more efficient than actually dominating the stupid combat AI.

Most of the time I play on Emperor just to get a fix for beating the AI in nearly every way and having a perfect list of 1's in the demographic column. Mostly in rebellion to the design that prevents me from having a large empire Civ 1 style.

I bet it would be a lot of fun to have a multi-player game with all the wide empire penalties removed.

I'm with you. This is why my fantasy is for there eventually to be an AI that can actually compete with Prince-level advantages, IE none. I don't have the patience for MP, but playing against a skilled human is *SO* different than playing on Emperor+...

 

[Cromagnus]

One thing I really wish they would change, or at least add an option for, is to make it so that AI players target runaway civs more aggressively. Or whatever. I mean, sometimes the best way to catch up to a runaway civ is to take out a weaker civ, thus "catching up", not attacking it directly. I hate it when the AI ignores a runaway civ. In a MP game, that would never happen. For example, instead of being pissed at me, they should make DoFs and request research agreements, so that we could all catch up to the runaway.

I know this is somewhat "out-of-character", and possibly would go against the civ's natural flavor, so again, it should be an option to turn on. "AIs act more like players".

There are a whole list of player behaviors that I wish you could turn on, like attempting to capture your settlers/workers/undefended cities. You can get away with bad self-defense next to an AI civ, even a warmongering one. A player would *punish* you for such behavior. And the only way to learn to defend yourself is to be forced to.

Of course, if the AI was more aggressive, like a player, it would just make the game easier, sigh, because the combat AI is so poor. :-(