I'm not the best player but I've put about 175 hours into the game.
Around 165 hours in Civilizations V and 10 hours (basically 2 games) in Civilizations V Gods and Kings.
I played the first match in the summer and recently picked the game up again and decided to play on Warlord to reacquaint myself with the game. No surprise I won pretty much without effort except The Iroquois needed some 100 year long asswooping war because they were getting more tech done than me. (Ultimately won by diplomacy as Ghandi and the Japanese loved me together with me using religion to severely boost relations with the 12 city states ingame.)
Yesterday I started as The Huns on Prince which I usually play and went for domination. There were 4 civilizations because my laptop isn't the best and I quickly took out Gandhi. To my surprise his army was a lot stronger than I was used to seeing them in vanilla. Had quite a few ranged and melee units, an army substantially better than mine but I rushed some UU units in and took his cities, removing his armies.
I thought that I was going to get a huge lead now, but I was wrong.
On the other continent there were 2 civs, both were technologically more advanced than me and were increasing the gap between me and them.
Not only that but they were pumping wonders before I even had the tech for them, leaving me with scrap wonders that they didn't want apparently.
If I recall correctly the year was barely 0AC and they were in the medieval age already while shortly after that hitting the renaissance.
Did I just got a really high amount of bad luck versus them having good luck or did the game really get harder?
Any points I should keep in mind? (Technically I beat the game on Deity once in vanilla but I used a lot of save reloading but even then, King didn't pose much of an obstacle in vanilla either. So I'm not a complete failure of a strategist.)
Around 165 hours in Civilizations V and 10 hours (basically 2 games) in Civilizations V Gods and Kings.
I played the first match in the summer and recently picked the game up again and decided to play on Warlord to reacquaint myself with the game. No surprise I won pretty much without effort except The Iroquois needed some 100 year long asswooping war because they were getting more tech done than me. (Ultimately won by diplomacy as Ghandi and the Japanese loved me together with me using religion to severely boost relations with the 12 city states ingame.)
Yesterday I started as The Huns on Prince which I usually play and went for domination. There were 4 civilizations because my laptop isn't the best and I quickly took out Gandhi. To my surprise his army was a lot stronger than I was used to seeing them in vanilla. Had quite a few ranged and melee units, an army substantially better than mine but I rushed some UU units in and took his cities, removing his armies.
I thought that I was going to get a huge lead now, but I was wrong.
On the other continent there were 2 civs, both were technologically more advanced than me and were increasing the gap between me and them.
Not only that but they were pumping wonders before I even had the tech for them, leaving me with scrap wonders that they didn't want apparently.
If I recall correctly the year was barely 0AC and they were in the medieval age already while shortly after that hitting the renaissance.
Did I just got a really high amount of bad luck versus them having good luck or did the game really get harder?
Any points I should keep in mind? (Technically I beat the game on Deity once in vanilla but I used a lot of save reloading but even then, King didn't pose much of an obstacle in vanilla either. So I'm not a complete failure of a strategist.)
